Visible souls....

[littlemanpoet]

Fordim Hedgethistle:

...the whole concept of the individual is a very recent invention. The idea that one’s “true” or “real” identity is internal and not external was anathema to the world view of the Anglo-Saxons. ... To this point we’ve been characterizing the debate in terms of modern “psychological” models of self in opposition to more ancient “moral” models. ... ‘these days’ our stories (and our lives) tend to focus on how we are in conflict with ourselves. ... The heroes of the book are just not individuals in the sense we think of individuality. They are not defined by their inner core, by what they are but by what they do.In Romance the human condition is explored not through individual characters, but as that condition is expressed in its various modes and parts within the stories of different characters. The radical thing about LotR for me is that it highlights the arrogance of modern constructions of self.

Fordim, I think you, davem, Sophia, Lalwendë and I are saying similar things, coming at it from different angles. I wonder if we can between us come to the basis that underlies the whole?

Sophia the Thunder Mistress:

Current philosophy is all in a twist because who knows how many centuries ago someone drew a hard and fast line between mind and body and now the concepts have been alienated from each other. In Tolkien's characters this dichotomy and need to portray the inner self from the first person perspective is absent because the distinction between their internal and external selves simply does not exist.

Sophia, you make the same point here that I do in the Mythic Unities thread, in my first post. Please bear with me as I arrogantly quote myself:

Mythic fantasy is story that contains the stuff of myth, legend, and fairy tale; it works like waking dream and nightmare; in it, concrete and abstract, previously distinguished, have been reintegrated; it is apprehended by the reader as a unity of meaning and being; the signal of this apprehension is a sense of wonder or a thrill of horror, or both.

Thus the mind and body are distinguished in modern life, and LotR has unified them. Check out Mythic Unities if you want more on this.

davem

Perhaps this is one reason why their souls are so 'visible' - this is pre-Freudian psychology - closer to Jung but closest of all to Catholic theology. The Saints & Angel are not 'Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious', but living beings present & active within their own dimension. ... This is not so much a 'fairy tale' view of the human mind as a medieval & pre-medieval one.

Is not the medieval or pre-medieval the "stuff" of fairy tale?

Lalwendë

I don't think we actually have to see a character's thoughts represented as they might appear in their own mind; we don't have to see "X thought that...." or "Y was thinking...". In the case of Gollum, we see through his behaviour how his mind works. If we are talking about characters with 'visible souls', then he above all other characters really does have a visible soul; his actions speak volumes about what is happening within his head/heads.

I quite agree with your major point, Lalwendë. Now to quibble. Sorry to belabor a point, but the difference between evoking character by behavior, versus evoking character by "going into the head", is worthy of careful distinction. The latter is "going into the head", the former is not.

By "intangible" I mean that we cannot quite 'touch' on the essence of his being, his purpose if you like.

He has been enslaved by the Ring for so long that his purpose is to serve the Ring. He has almost lost all hold on his own will. Isn't this the essence of his being at the time of the events of the book?

As I said above, I think Fordim's these days versus those days, davem's post-Freudian versus pre-Freudian, Sophia's internal versus pervasive, and my own psychological versus moral, are different subsets of the same discussion.

What's at the core? Is it linguistic? Philosophical? Literary versus scientific? Theological (heaven forbid!)? Faith versus Unbelief (uh oh)?

recklessly yours, LMP

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

Is not the medieval or pre-medieval the "stuff" of fairy tale?

You've set me off on a strange train of thought...

It is now but it wasn't then. That was the way people thought, the way they understood themselves & others. If it is the 'stuff of fairy tale then maybe so are we. But that opens the question up, because then we have to ask, if we're the stuff of fairy tale, if fairy tale is a true reflection of our psyches, then what has happened to the world. How have we ended up where we are now? In fact, another question occurs - are we actually living in a fairy tale right now - a dark, unpleasant one in many ways, I admit, but with gleams of light & flashes of true beauty for those with eyes to see it.

Perhaps what we call 'reality' isn't all that 'real' after all. Perhaps what we think of as our hard nosed, materialistic, 'Freudian' reality is the bad dream of we wanderers in Faerie, from which, with luck (& a little blessing) we may soon awaken. Maybe this is the 'fantasy'. Perhaps we respond to Middle earth so strongly not because it offers an escape into a fantasy world, but because it offers an escape out of one, & an 'awakening' from our bad dream...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Sorry to belabor a point, but the difference between evoking character by behavior, versus evoking character by "going into the head", is worthy of careful distinction. The latter is "going into the head", the former is not.

This would depend entirely upon the character. With Gollum, evoking character by representing his behaviour does work. Gollum is not like other characters; he is suffering with an intense psychological disorder or illness. When I think about how all his impulses are worn on his exterior, how he follows his urges and says what is going on in his thoughts the condition that comes to mind is Tourette's. This is a condition which leads people to say exactly what is in their head, to display impulsive behaviours (e.g. repetitious acts and sounds, rather like Gollum's swallowing noise which gives him his nickname). Compare this to how someone without the condition might behave - all these impulses are kept internalised. So Gollum does display his thoughts and psyche, we see what he is thinking because he simply cannot keep those thoughts internalised.

I don't know enough about Freud to thoroughly explain it, but it is as though Gollum's Id is completely on show.

I think you say below just how far he has lost control of his own impulses:

Originally Posted by lmp

He has been enslaved by the Ring for so long that his purpose is to serve the Ring. He has almost lost all hold on his own will. Isn't this the essence of his being at the time of the events of the book?

The strange thing about the Ring taking hold of him is that ultimately he does not serve the Ring. Something, whether his own character, fate or something else entirely, takes away the Ring's control of him.

I think he serves a peculiar purpose in the books. Gollum is like a mirror of the darker, more uncontrollable side to ourselves. He serves to make us question our ideas of right and wrong, of pity and justice. He isn't just there to scare us.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally posted by davem: It is now but it wasn't then.

Come to think of it, when then was "now", there was no such thing as a fairy tale. It was the "ferny brae", or whatever the name was for any given neck of wherever.

... if we're the stuff of fairy tale, if fairy tale is a true reflection of our psyches, then what has happened to the world?

We have been splintered, cut into parts. We are not whole anymore. I'm not talking about "the Fall", either. We're an advanced culture with all its distinctions. This is why we hunger for myth; it is whole, and while we are in it, so are we. So imagine living in a myth. Imagine that you believed again, davem. I heard a talk by an author in which she located the universe in the Mind of God; hence, we are figments of God's imagination. God being God, we are as real as we feel ourselves to be! God being God, our subcreations are also figments of God's imagination; every bit as real as we are. Tolkien's Middle Earth, with Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Éowen, Lúthien, Beren, etc., are all as real as we are. Delusional? So be it. Maybe I'd rather believe the delusion and be more whole than my contemporary moderns. Maybe after I pass beyond the walls of the world, I will stumble upon Gandalf having a friendly chat with Tolkien. That would be a gift, don't you think?

Originally posted by Lalwendë: This would depend entirely upon the character. With Gollum, evoking character by representing his behaviour does work.

Are not all the characters in LotR evoked by representing their behaviours? The greatest difference between Gollum and the characters, for example, of the Fellowship of the Ring, is that his character has been dismantled by the Ring because he has murdered, broken moral law, to have it. The fellowship members, by contrast, remain within themselves because they live out of the natural law of their respective cultures.

By way of covering the possible objections, Boromir does succumb to temporary madness, but through grace or whatever you might wish to call it, he is restored to himself. Frodo also succumbs to temporary madness, such as in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, and also is restored to himself by, his native virtue; he strives against the Ring, having chosen against his will to be its bearer but not its owner, until its strength finally destroys his mind and will at Orodruin.

I imagine that Tourette's has its applicability, as does drug addiction (if you want to follow Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis), but neither example gets to the heart of what's going on in Gollum. His is a moral condition (I almost called it a disease!), and has curdled him right down to his soul. Yes, there is a sliver of Sméagol left, but so weak; so weak.

Compare this to how someone without the condition might behave - all these impulses are kept internalised.

But this is not so. Frodo's behavior does show the effects of the Ring. Boromir's grasping attempt to wrest it from Frodo hows its effects. Galadriel (never mind the weirdness of the movie) exhibits in her behavior the effect of the Ring when Frodo offers it to her. More so Gandalf when Frodo offers it to him.

It is true that Gollum cannot keep his thoughts internalized, but it is not a natural condition for the other characters to keep their thoughts internalized either. As the quote describes, they are visible souls.

I am in complete agreement with the final two paragraphs of your post.

[mark12_30]

...or falling asleep again?

"Our life is no dream; but it ought to become one, and perhaps will."
--Novalis

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

I heard a talk by an author in which she located the universe in the Mind of God; hence, we are figments of God's imagination. God being God, we are as real as we feel ourselves to be! God being God, our subcreations are also figments of God's imagination; every bit as real as we are.

I can accept this idea absolutely. In fact its something Lalwende & I were discussing into the early hours over Christmas. I did read somewhere that its possible to translate 'God created man in His own image as 'God created man in His own imagination' I don't know if that's true, & it does lead into areas of theological enquiry which I'm not qualified to enter.

I suppose all thoughts in God's mind must be 'Real' in an absolute sense - because nothing could be more real - God being the source of all 'Reality'. And if everything exists as thoughts in God's mind, then all those 'thoughts' must have an equal 'Reality' - I'm not saying they have a moral equality, merely an equality of 'being'. Their moral worth would depend, I suppose, on the extent to which they are in harmony with God's essential nature.

Perhaps that's what we respond to in the works of Tolkien - that 'harmony' with the Divine. Tolkien's works help to move us back into a state of harmony with 'God', helping to heal that sense of seperation we feel, of being 'out of synch' with 'something' which for most of us these days is unnameable....

Come to think of it, when then was "now", there was no such thing as a fairy tale. It was the "ferny brae", or whatever the name was for any given neck of wherever.

I'm reminded of something Bob Stewart said in an interview, about the way we talk about the 'ignorant past'. He made the point that we are currently living in what our decendants will refer to as their 'ignorant past'. I suppose in a sense Faery is eternaly 'there' yet always just out of reach - hence the yearning we feel when we read fairy stories. Perhaps 'Faerie' is that 'harmony' which we feel should be the way of things but isn't.

We are 'thoughts' (of God) subcreating 'thoughts' of our own. I don't know why fractal images have just sprung to mind... Anyway, one could speculate on whether the thoughts of our subcreated characters have an equal 'reality' to our own. God 'dreams 'JRR Tolkien' who 'dreams' Frodo who 'dreams' of White shores under a swift Sunrise...

Unless I'm rambling as usual (& being a 'pest' again )

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

From littlemanpoet:

As I said above, I think Fordim's these days versus those days, davem's post-Freudian versus pre-Freudian, Sophia's internal versus pervasive, and my own psychological versus moral, are different subsets of the same discussion.

What's at the core? Is it linguistic? Philosophical? Literary versus scientific? Theological (heaven forbid!)? Faith versus Unbelief (uh oh)?

I read this, and something clicked on in my head. Unfortunately, like so often happens, it clicked right back off again immediately. But on further thought, the one of your options, lmp, which struck a chord with me was literary vs. scientific.

If literature (particularly pre-scientific-revolution literature... perhaps the term I want is "mythic") deals in unities then science deals in dividing things up. The basic presumptions of science (which I don't claim to be an expert on, by any means) involve finding the basis of reality--what it's made of and why it works. Ultimately that boils down to physics, lots of little bits rushing around and hitting each other at angles.

While it's not necessarily difficult to imagine water being H2O and then later to feel like water is the same thing it always was, it's a little more difficult with people. Once you get to dividing complex things up, sometimes it's tough to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Hence the loss of unity contributing to a more internal character development: the outside world of actions is some kind of separate piece.

Nice image with the fractals, davem. Its an image that both fits the idea of subcreation and ties in visually with Tolkien's repeated use of tree motifs.

A bit of a ramble, I'm afraid. But it is 5 a.m.

Sophia