Representing Men?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Tolkien's characters have always seemed to me to be somewhat 'flat' -- none of them really express a kind of psychological complexity or ambiguous reality of most contemporary fiction (or of, say, Shakespearean drama).

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but I've recently been searching for an old post of Squatter's on this very question of pyschological depth, because he makes a valuable point about Gimli & Legolas' conversation on leaving Lorien, which I wanted to refer to in the Chapter-by-Chapter thread. Its so enlightening that some of you might want to read it now:
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...&postcount=127

[The Saucepan Man]

That's one of the few threads that I started that ever went anywhere, so I feel duty-bound to give the full link (it being relevant to the question of whether Tolkien's characters are flat 'n all):

Psychological depth in Tolkien's characters

[Nimrodel_9]

I was reading in The Fellowship of the Ring today, and I came upon this:

For men you shall have Aragorn son of Arathorn, for the Ring of Isildur concerns him closely.

..............

"I would have begged for you to come," said Frodo, "only I thought you were going to Minas Tirith with Boromir." "I am," said Aragorn, "And the Sword-that-was-Broken will be re-forged ere I set out to war. But your road and my road lie together for many hundreds of miles. Therefore Boromir will also be in the Company. He is a valiant man.

So, if you decipher from that...

I liked my other theory better.