Psychological depth in Tolkien's characters

[Bêthberry]

Greetings All,

Lush, your recounting of your tears over Sam and Frodo in the dark of night reminded me of my own responses to Lord of the Rings. My first reading was a 'guilty read', done for my own pleasure undercover at night when I should have been studying European history, reading nineteenth century novels, analyzing medieval mystery plays and narrative--not bad companions to Tolkien, all said, really. My most recent cover-to-cover read was two years ago this November, by my mother's bedside in hospital as she underwent numerous painful tests and bodily intrusions, only, ultimately, to be told that her illness was incurable. Under those conditions, I was much more aware of death and loss in LOTR. I, too, felt every agony of Sam and Frodo on Mount Doom and of their final parting. And I cannot say how exquisitely moving was The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendix.

(Well, if I say more I risk turning this into a Tolkienics-Anon confession.)

But to answer Helen's questions about my comments concering female archetypes and Mr. Underhill's masterful redefining post ...

Two points motivated my thoughts about my post. First, I have been thinking seriously about jallanite's claim on the Dumbing Down thread that LOTR is a heroic romance. Second, I have been considering whether Pullman's assertion of psychological depth is the only meaningful criterion about character. Are there other points which can create intriguing characters for us? It seems to me that we capitulate in part to his point of view if we accept that psychological depth is the only thing which makes characters interesting for us.

. . . then we must accept that by implication the other characters in LotR are for the most part psychologically shallow, that their motivations are simple and uninteresting, that they lack resonance and relatability and applicability and most of all believability, that they are at best rather flat archetypes which represent themes or ideas rather than touch the reader as real characters.

But this simply isn?t the experience of a great many readers.

. . . we must rule out some blanket assertions that have been made in the thread which seem to derive from personal taste: that the psychology of noble and resolute characters is intrinsically less interesting than the psychology of characters torn by internal strife and conflict, or that the latter is necessarily deeper and more profound than the former; that the psychology of unambiguously good characters or evil characters is inherently less interesting than the psychology of characters who are morally ambiguous; that Tolkien was completely uninterested in what made his characters tick and was only concerned with writing a mythic/romantic adventure tale.

Although it was obviously not his sole or even primary concern in writing LotR, I think that Tolkien was deeply interested in the psychology of things like faith and temptation and heroism and leadership and friendship, and I think the depth of his insight into these themes is reflected in more of his characters than he?s being given credit for here. I think it is the great depth and profundity in his exploration of these themes ? via the actions, interactions, and choices of his characters ? which distinguishes his work and helps to account for its enduring appeal.

I would reject the assumption here that 'flat archetypes' represent merely ideas and themes and cannot touch us as 'real characters.' In fact, I would argue the opposite, Mr. Underhill, that archetypes (I never used the word 'flat') can in fact touch us profoundly, perhaps even on a deeper level than characters with "depth and complexity" because the archetype can strike a resounding chord within us. The Trickster, The Crone, The Maiden, The Fool, and many others, can be as meaningful to us as any character from a realistic novel precisely because they seem to draw upon modes of feeling and being and understanding that defy contemporary rationalist thought. Neil Gaiman, to name another contemporary writer of fantasy, uses archetypes brilliantly and that has never seemed to be a complaint made about his work. Why should it be taken as a lessening of Tolkien that he uses archetypes?

I also think that Mr. Underhill's dichotomy (which he saw in this thread) between noble, resolute characters and strife-ridden characters, and between unambiguously good characters and evil characters, is a bit of a red herring. I suppose this has tended to be a standard arguement in art since John Milton apparently accidentally made his Satan more interesting than Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost. But I don't think it is the 'ideology' of the characters which is important. I've read evil characters who are plain, flatout boring to me. I've read good characters who are fascinating. The trick, it seems to me, lies in the telling of the tale, in how the character's perspective is dramatized within the tale.

We seem to have come up with several ways of 'characterising' characterization. We have mentioned depth, complexity, change. I would like to suggest a fourth criterion, that of mystery.

Characters intrigue us when we want to know more about them, when everything isn't given to us. We can then bring our own imaginations to bear upon them. This is another reason why I think archetypes can be so rewarding (to say nothing of how harrowing it is to follow Sam and Frodo). After all, which character here at the Barrow Downs seems to draw an endless number of threads? That enigma, Tom Bombadil.

When I pointed out that Goldberry, Arwen, and Galadriel are depicted more as archetypes and Eowyn more as a realistic character, I was not giving priority to the method of Eowyn's depiction, but trying to suggest that Tolkien's method as a writer is not limited to one particular way of telling a story. We don't have to accept Pullman's box to enjoy Tolkien.

And, as an aside to the question about morality, faith and religious themes in LOTR: Perhaps it is important to distinguish between religion as a formal authority and virtue as a personal experience or discovery. Tolkien was, after all, not only a monarchist and a Catholic, but an anarchist also.

[ November 23, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]