Visible souls....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Perhaps (forgive speculation here) we could say that God's movement is 'inward' while our movement is 'outward'. Or God's movement is 'in', 'toward' us, while ours is 'outward', 'toward' 'Him'.

And both those movements could be said to work in the opposite way also, depending upon whether God is within or without us. And if we look in are we looking to God as much as we are when we look out? But I think that theology states that we should not look 'in' we should look 'out' to humanity, and there could be a message in that, i.e. that we ought to look not at our own problems and our own selves but to the world around us; this could be relevant in times when all too often we are more concerned with our own bodies or wealth rather than the good of the community.

If both work in the same way then it would be like the helix of DNA, and also like the spiral images of the ancients. And also like theories of the ever expanding and decreasing universe.

Originally Posted by davem

The fragment contains the whole, but from a unique perspective.....

That's not mad! This could be said to apply to many things. Downers are all looking at Tolkien from slightly different angles but essentially see the same thing; we just see the meaning in slightly different ways. It could also be applied to the way that from just one created word Tolkien could create not only a history but an entire story, and the another story, and so on... Just one word contains so much more.

This could also be applied to the idea of Divinity in Arda. If it is symbolised by Light and it was then 'broken' then this would show how so many differing peoples could come about with differing views and languages. If the Light was a divine gift from Eru then perhaps it was never intended to be broken, thus Gandalf and the Secret Fire, and his opposition to Saruman's breaking of the Light. Back on my favourite topic now, but each colour created by Saruman's breaking of the Light maybe gave a differing perspective, when he really ought to have been viewing Arda through the white Light, which is composed of the various other lights. these other lights are not wrong, but to look through just one is to miss the 'whole picture'.

So, maybe looking at Tolkien's work through just one light is also wrong, and we ought to look at it through many lights, in the hope we will look at it through the one white Light (which would be Tolkien's Light). Anyway, it's another reason to keep visiting the 'Downs to see what everyone thinks...

[littlemanpoet]

davem:I did read somewhere that its possible to translate 'God created man in His own image as 'God created man in His own imagination'.

Perhaps it means both, and this is another example of a distinction for which we want the unity back!

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....

Yet we all try and try ... think of all the "-ism"s which really are just new myths, poor step sisters that they are.

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'.

"Chronological snobbery" (term coined by C.S. Lewis - or was it his tutor?) is an illness of the modern mind. Before the Renaissance, "our forebears" were honored. Now they're just part of the ignorant past.

Perhaps 'Faerie' is that 'harmony' which we feel should be the way of things but isn't.

Yes. I would use the word 'unity' in the place of 'harmony'.

God 'dreams 'JRR Tolkien' who 'dreams' Frodo who 'dreams' of White shores under a swift Sunrise...

Quite poetic, davem!

I don't know why fractal images have just sprung to mind...

I had to do a google to figure out what you were talking about.

Sophia:If literature (particularly pre-scientific-revolution literature... perhaps the term I want is "mythic") deals in unities then science deals in dividing things up.

A scholar of Hebrew once told me that, in Hebrew, the word for 'kill' is the same as for 'cut', which reminds me of what I have heard scientists bemoan: "We have to kill/stop/halt/break something in order to learn what we need to about it." Analysis is the practice of making distinctions: it's at the core of the scientific method. Yet the greatest scientific thinkers, such as Einstein, used and trusted their imaginations just as much as their mathematics. Wasn't it Einstein who said that fairy tales were of vital importance to the shaping of his intellect?

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.

Especially true for me. I remember when I accepted the theory of evolution, I began to regard children as akin to monkeys, and less valuable thereby. Then I remembered (or was reminded) that children are made in the image of God, and I began to watch children with open wonder again. It's only a "for instance", but it shows, to me, at least, that what we believe and think has everything to do with our moral choices.

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.

This got me to thinking how internal character development is creating a whole new world. Each story of this kind is its own fairy tale. The world being created, which is the interior life of the character, is no more subject to the laws of the primary world than are the secondary worlds of fantasy - sometimes less so. Maybe this is parthly why interior character devleopment is not at home in fairy tales, being redundant - a tertiary world in a secondary.

Lyta Underhill:[fractal images] are simply fractional dimensions, a cutting in half of dimensions between which can be iterated into infinity and create smaller versions of the same designs in equal complexity.

This definition of yours, Lyta, didn't sink in until I saw a couple examples. It's quite a visual medium. I do see the relation, but a different connection occurs to me: transposition.

Lalwendë:I think that there is not such a great contrast with 'modern' fiction, it is that instead of seeing the internalised thoughts of one protagonist, we see the psychological motivation of many characters, but expressed instead through representation of their thoughts in action and speech.

Precisely. From a writer's point of view, this is a difference of paradigmatic proportions, since interior characterization is very much in vogue, while the purely exterior (such as Tolkien with a few rare and pivotal exceptions) is considered to be "poor characterization".

[Gollum] is a raw character, brutal and immoral yet somehow fragile too.

I don't find the fragility surprising. I think it's a natural outgrowth of the immorality.

I do question how much of the effects can be down to the innate qualities of both Gollum and Frodo

I don't think it is the innate qualities at all. It was choices made, and grace: "there but for the grace of God go I." This is in keeping with fairy tale and myth! Although the element of grace is new with Tolkien, at least in fairy tale.

It was as though the paths suddenly split but came back in upon themselves.

This is the movement of grace unlooked for: eucatastrophe.

davem:subcreation is an attempt to 'earth' the divine

To make it concrete. Quite. Again, I am reminded of C.S. Lewis's transposition, which is "the indwelling of the higher in the lower." It means that God, holding the universe in God's mind, enters it and in so doing, enriches it, changes it. I'm not sure what, if anything, this has to do with Tolkien's LotR, but I was reminded of it.

If it is symbolised by Light and it was then 'broken' then this would show how so many differing peoples could come about with differing views and languages.

Reminds me of Tolkien's poem which contains these lines:

Man, Sub-creator, the refracted Light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined,
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.

Bold face mine. The unities, again.

[Aiwendil]

I'm a little wary about entering into a discussion that has taken such a pronounced spiritual/religious turn. But Child's original question intrigues me. Do characters in a myth "wear their souls on the outside" as it were? That is, do they manifest outwardly what are ordinarily (in real life perhaps, or in more modern fiction) internal traits?

In a way, this seems like a candidate for a definition of the mythical - that is, a myth is a story that transfers internal phenomena into external phenomena. This is in line with the Jungian archetypes and Campbell's monomyth. So we might say, for example, that Shelob is an external manifestation of certain innate human fears.

The idea is attractive, but when one considers individual characters - Frodo, Gollum, Boromir, etc. - it starts to become unclear (to me, at least) how exactly they have their souls on the outside. To put it another way - given two characters, one with and one without this externalization of the psyche, how can we distinguish them? How would Frodo be different if he did not manifest his psyche outwardly?

I cannot think of a good answer to this. Yet I still find the idea intriguing. Can anyone present a satisfactory account of what in practice, in literary terms, it means for a character's sould to be visible?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Lalwendë: I like the way you bring in Frodo here. In Frodo we can see the beginnings of what happened to Gollum, but I do question how much of the effects can be down to the innate qualities of both Gollum and Frodo, as ultimately, the effects are the same, this 'evil' corrupts anyone who succumbs, no matter how good their intentions are.

Indeed it seems that the effects of the Quest and bearing the Ring have an equal, opposite effect on Frodo, and his visible soul, as it were, becomes the clear light that shines more evidently as he struggles against the Ring. Contrasting Frodo and Gollum in this way, it seems to me that not only are the characters imbued with visible souls but so is the entire landscape and all of the reality of Middle Earth. It is mythical, and thus it has a way or intention. Frodo's entire life energy is expended to enhance that way, to enrich the very fabric of Middle Earth, while Gollum chooses the path of decay, the inward-turning rather than outward looking that davem mentions above. His energies are directed against the best interests of the very land he lives on, and thus he is doomed. It seems almost a Taoist conceit I'm having here...but perhaps I can in a small way address Aiwendil's questions of the manifestation of outwardness.

Aiwendil: To put it another way - given two characters, one with and one without this externalization of the psyche, how can we distinguish them? How would Frodo be different if he did not manifest his psyche outwardly?

Perhaps Frodo would not shine with a visible, perceptible light that is noticed by at least two other characters; perhaps his singular purpose would be cast in another light, the light of those who do not see the cohesive principle of Middle Earth. To a modern Earthling, perhaps Frodo is in the grip of a psychosis. Believes he's the only one who can save Middle Earth, eh? Well, its a big place and it will take care of itself, and anyone who has such thoughts must have a screw loose...etc. etc. Perhaps the externalization is in the structure and focus on the reality of the myth. One step beyond "magic realism."

I'd say more, but since I've lost the train of thought, I hope this will make sense for now!
Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. (You knew I'd do it...I just can't seem to quit!) Another thought on Gollum: it seems to my memory that this visibility is pointed out more intentionally by Tolkien in Frodo's character, and that there is outward ambiguity in Gollum's outward affect, and this ambiguity is most pronounced when we look at Gollum through Frodo's eyes, as if Frodo is "looking into the dark" when he considers Smeagol/Gollum. It does seem there is an answer in the divide between Gollum and Frodo, or perhaps Gollum is seen in a referential manner with regard to the way he is drawn by Gandalf and Aragorn, or the one-sided way he is judged by Sam (who himself is VERY tight with Middle Earth!) and this is contrasted continuously with a moment to moment reality through Frodo's experience of the creature himself...as if Gollum is an alien to the harmonic myth of Middle Earth and Frodo is that myth reaching out to him...I fear I have gone too far off the track and the only reason I don't delete this last bit is maybe it will make sense to someone out there! (Or maybe it is because my own point of view seems to inevitably proceed from Frodo's eyes--I'm sure that has something to do with the thoughts above.)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

perhaps his singular purpose would be cast in another light, the light of those who do not see the cohesive principle of Middle Earth. To a modern Earthling, perhaps Frodo is in the grip of a psychosis. Believes he's the only one who can save Middle Earth, eh? Well, its a big place and it will take care of itself, and anyone who has such thoughts must have a screw loose...etc. etc.

This is a really interesting point. I have heard people discussing what would have happened to a figure like Jesus were he around today, and the conclusion is usually that just as he was viewed then, he would probably be viewed today. We humans seem to be cynical and untrusting far too often, and we do not like anyone or anything which seems to have a 'higher' purpose we cannot immediately understand or see the immediate gains to be made from. In Middle Earth things are different (but not always in the Shire, interestingly, thinking about the gossips and their tales of Bilbo and Frodo). is this because Frodo's mission is with the common purpose, or is it because such mythical intentions are acceptable?

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

Contrasting Frodo and Gollum in this way, it seems to me that not only are the characters imbued with visible souls but so is the entire landscape and all of the reality of Middle Earth. It is mythical, and thus it has a way or intention.

This is reflected in how the ancients viewed thair landscape and surroundings. There are many 'spiritual' landscapes to be found in the UK: the Hope valley in the Peak District, Salisbury Plain, and the area around Glastonbury Tor are just a few examples. These are landscapes invested with meaning and purpose; they have visible souls, as we can see the monuments built there and how the natural features interact with one another. Perhaps this is getting a bit weird, but it does have links to Middle Earth; the landscape there is clearly invested with meaning and history as much as it is in the mythical places in our world.

I'm glad you brought that one up anyway, as I'm one of those readers who sees the land of Arda as a character in its own right.

[Aiwendil]

Lyta_Underhill wrote:

Perhaps Frodo would not shine with a visible, perceptible light that is noticed by at least two other characters; perhaps his singular purpose would be cast in another light, the light of those who do not see the cohesive principle of Middle Earth. To a modern Earthling, perhaps Frodo is in the grip of a psychosis. Believes he's the only one who can save Middle Earth, eh? Well, its a big place and it will take care of itself, and anyone who has such thoughts must have a screw loose...etc. etc. Perhaps the externalization is in the structure and focus on the reality of the myth. One step beyond "magic realism."

This makes some sense. But is the "outwardness" of the characters' psyches then limited to this kind of "magic"? If we took away the perceptible light, would that make Frodo into the other kind of character? If so, then the outwardness would seem to be rather a superficial trait. What about other characters in LotR - I can think of no physical sign on the level of the light seen around Frodo in the case of Boromir, for instance.

As for the other part of your suggestion - that Frodo would be viewed by a modern as psychotic - it seems to me that this has less to do with the nature of mythical characters than with the nature of the mythical world. What I mean is that it is the nature of the world that Frodo is in that determines whether he is psychotic. If he is in a world like the real one, where it does not make sense that the great evil can be defeated by dropping a ring into a volcano, then his beliefs are delusional. But if he is in a world where exactly what he believes is true, then clearly he is not delusional. I don't think that this reflects any particular difference between one type of character and another.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Just occured to me: isn't it interesting that the first effect of the Ring is to make one invisible? It suggests that the evil of the Ring is one that manifests by obscuring or eradicating the 'outwardness' of a character, or one that works contratry to this idea of wearing one's soul on the outside. The Ring denies that possibility by removing the outward appearance and locking (even trapping) the wearer in an eternal hell of internal existence. Frodo's experience of being invisible is terribly isolating (he is "naked" and even more visible to those other inwardly self-directed beings Sauron and the Nazgul).

The lasting effect of the Ring upon Gollum is that his outwardness has all but gone: his appearance is wasted and withered, he prefers to keep in the dark, he speaks to himself and thinks only of his own desires.

The great evil of the Ring is that it makes one's outwardness invisible to oneself, forcing him or her into living out his or her life only inwardly???

herm hoom baroom. . .more coffee is needed. . .

[mark12_30]

still reading, but in response to Fordie's comment above: Some define the "soul" as intellect, emotions, and will, as opposed to spirit being the life that is given by God (some separate these, some don't) (breath, wind, pneuma-- see mystic unity thread).

"Soul" has all sorts of connotations, some positive, some negative; there are those who contrast "soulishness" (fleshly, burdensome) with "spirituality" (good)... the soul is to be stilled and quieted (Psalm... something) or tamed or decreased.

I suppose if we are talking about "Visible Souls", and the body becomes invisible, then one must wonder whether the soul-- intellect, emotions, will -- is disappearing.

Bilbo escaped this fate.

The ringwraiths, I think, didn't.

Does Frodo?

Am I subdividing this too much? Lewis might object to the interpretation. (Wasn't he Episcopalian... don't think they divide it like the evangelicals do... )

:crosseyed:

Fordie, where's the coffee?

[littlemanpoet]

Can anyone present a satisfactory account of what in practice, in literary terms, it means for a character's sould to be visible? - Aiwendil

Thanks, Lyta, for your example of Frodo's light, which presented a category I had not accounted for in my little mock-up of a definition - or at least approach to one. Anyway.....

Indicators of a Visible Soul

1. A minimum of internal psychological processing by the character(s), whether in terms of thoughts, feelings, or dreams.

2. Character(s) appear as real, three-dimensional beings, almost always expressed through speech and behavior alone.

3. Internal attributes are evoked mythically according to the laws that govern the mythic setting: e.g.:

• dreams foretell real events
• White light indicates holiness, purity
• Green and yellow light indicates decay & corruption
• Red light indicates evil

In the above, I'm trying to account for various aspects of LotR, but also for applicability to other works.

Just a note on two- versus three- dimensionality: Those who assert that "visible soul" characterization is two-dimensional, are confusing internality with evocation of reality. When we see other people in the primary world but can't read their minds, we don't accuse them of being two-dimensional. We reserve such a pejorative for shallowness of character. Further, "visible soul" characterization, done well, is not the same as shallow characterization. It's not hard to perceive the difference between a real visible character from a cardboard cut-out.

[drigel]

lmp good synopsis
This characteristic is throughout LOTR, but it's description is very subtle. Mabye thats truly the only way for us mortals to discern it: in the corner of your eye, a quick, minute moment in time where one reaches a certain cognizance of the environment one is part of, and the souls that he shares it with.