Visible souls....

[littlemanpoet]

Is there a difference between [1] the notion of characters as visible souls and [2] the idea of external characterization as opposed to internal (which has been discussed in a few other threads)? Or to put it another way - is there a difference between the nature of the characters and the techniques of portrayal of the characters? - Aiwendil

I had to reread your question a number of times! Not least to discern how they were two ways of asking the same thing! Allow me to analyze the question(s).

Regarding the second, I would distinguish between the techniques and portrayal. Techniques are just tools, and not the only, in portrayal. Art includes technique, but is not limited to it, especially in terms of meaning; and meaning is at the heart of your question and the topic of this thread, I think.

So whereas techniques are used to portray characters, that is not the sum of the portrayal. Significantly, the portrayal may not be the sum of the character as sub-created in the mind of the author. Thus far we have not even considered the reader's interaction with the story! (Nor will I for now; I think that discussion belongs to the Canonicity thread.) So, does the nature of the character reside in the mind of the author, or in the written narrative? When that author dies, what then? The only answer I can arrive at would derive from Leaf by Niggle; that which was in the mind of the subcreator was taken up into the creation of the Creator, and both subcreator and his subcreation are in the mind of the Creator and find joy therein.

It seems I've gone beyond your question into my own. It also seems to me that I needed to do so in order to answer yours.

I would say that there is a difference; but technique, though only a part of the whole, is essential to bringing the whole to realization in narrative.

Perhaps it is because, at least in my mind, Tom is not equated in scope but merely in nature to Arda. Just as a patch of earth can be known as earth, it both is and is not Earth, if you take my meaning. Perhaps he is so close to the stuff of Arda itself that he can be said to be indistinguishable in some characteristics. He is a "moss-gatherer," and thus is covered in the essence of Arda or is sinking into it, becoming "tree-ish" as the Ents might say, and thus he does not wander but has put down roots. - Lyta Underhill

What precisely 's the difference between scope and nature, the way you're using the terms? It's a good try, but it seems to me that you're confounding some things that deserve to be distinguished, such as Tom Bombadil as a living, breathing being walking and dancing on the face of Arda rather than as a kind of projection of Arda. With the "moss-gatherer" quote, I think you're stretching a metaphor to its breaking point. On the other hand, I like how you're pointing to a broken unity in the term, 'earth'.

Is this externalization merely symbolism made concrete? Is this not in the nature of myth itself? Perhaps this whole "visible soul" business is simply an aspect and "symptom" of a myth-based story, and that would explain the fact that Middle Earth is indeed a living character and shows these outward characteristics as much as any other moving character in the story.

Yes, it is in the nature of myth. You are, again, referring to mythic unities, as I call them. The word "symptom" makes me cringe a little - I would use a word like "attribute" myself, seeing how symptom connotes disease...

Fractals again?- davem

How you mean this is beyond me!

Perhaps 'Tom Bombadil' is simply that aspect of the spirit of Arda made manifest in that particular time & place? Dion Fortune famously wrote 'All the gods are One God'......

No. I don't think this is the right direction. It seems you're taking the myth in directions that don't fit well.

[The Saucepan Man]

I've been enjoying this discussion on the sidelines, but ...

Originally Posted by lmp

No. I don't think this is the right direction. It seems you're taking the myth in directions that don't fit well.

Why so? There are precedents within myth of the "Spirit of the Earth" being delineated (at least to observers) in time and space. I am thinking here of the examples that Lalwendë touched upon, such as Herne the Hunter and the Green Man.

In fact, to an observer who, him or herself, is fixed in time and space, how could such a spirit not also appear to them to be so delineated?

[littlemanpoet]

No. I don't think this is the right direction. It seems you're taking the myth in directions that don't fit well.

Why so? There are precedents within myth of the "Spirit of the Earth" being delineated (at least to observers) in time and space. I am thinking here of the examples that Lalwendë touched upon, such as Herne the Hunter and the Green Man. In fact, to an observer who, him or herself, is fixed in time and space, how could such a spirit not also appear to them to be so delineated? - The Saucepan Man

The precedents lie outside Tolkien's legendarium. By this I mean that whereas there were benighted Men in Middle Earth who no doubt believed such things (and those in this Earth who do or did), those who had been exposed the Light of the West would know the truth as delivered to them, whether by the Elf-friends who received it from the Eldar, who received it from the Valar, who received it from Eru. If, by chance, Tom Bombadil is a Maiar (not saying I believe this), then he has the ability to take human form.

If people want to export Tom Bombadil to their own mythmaking, they need take no regard for the laws of Ëa. In the meantime, Tolkien's subcreation is clear on this point.

As to my liking it, or being touched by it, that is different from acknowledging that such was Tolkien's meaning. Tolkien did say that Tom Bombadil is the embodiment of the spirit of the Westmidlands and Oxfordshire, but that doesn't necesarilly tell us much about his place in Middle Earth. He is a mystery within a myth. I can see Goldberry's place a little more clearly, as she is a river daughter, and Tolkien wrote more in depth of the ways of the Sea and the Rivers of Arda.

[Aiwendil]

littlemanpoet wrote:

. Significantly, the portrayal may not be the sum of the character as sub-created in the mind of the author. Thus far we have not even considered the reader's interaction with the story! (Nor will I for now; I think that discussion belongs to the Canonicity thread.) So, does the nature of the character reside in the mind of the author, or in the written narrative? When that author dies, what then?

Ah, but already we are in Canonicity territory. Not all would agree that the mind of the author is of prime importance here. I think that if we pressed the issue here, we would find exactly the same party lines drawn: those for whom the "canon" has to do with the author, those for whom it is the text, and those the reader.

Still, I don't think that it's necessary to enter into that again. You say:

Regarding the second, I would distinguish between the techniques and portrayal.

And, despite my purely text-based approach to canon, I think I agree with you. Frodo could be portrayed this way or that, and yet remain the same character - just as a director may shoot a scene from one angle or another without altering the supposed facts of the situation.

But that brings us to a problem with your definition of a "visible soul" character. Your criteria are:

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

These sound more like techniques of portrayal than characteristics of the characters themselves. And in fact, they sound very much like the "external characterization" discussed in the psychological depth thread among others.

[littlemanpoet]

But that brings us to a problem with your definition of a "visible soul" character. ... These sound more like techniques of portrayal than characteristics of the characters themselves. - Aiwendil

Well, you did ask for what in practice, in literary terms, it means for a character's soul to be visible. "In practice" has to do with technique. Did you intend literary meaning instead? That's a different kettle of fish. Of my three points, the first is least technique oriented: a minimum of internal psychological processing by the character(s), whether in terms of thoughts, feelings, or dreams. For the second, let's say that character(s) are real, three-dimensional beings, and hold the technique with which that is evoked as distinguished from the subcreation of them. As for the third, we could say that internal attributes are not hidden from those who have eyes to see, according to the laws that govern the mythic setting.

This is speculative, but I thought I'd give it a go.

[Aiwendil]

littlemanpoet wrote:

Well, you did ask for what in practice, in literary terms, it means for a character's soul to be visible. "In practice" has to do with technique. Did you intend literary meaning instead?

I'm afraid I need to be taken far more concretely. Let me put it this way: can a visible-soul character be portrayed either in the external manner or the internal? If the answer is "no, such a character can only be portrayed in the external manner" then it seems to me that the whole notion of the visible soul is only a fancy way of talking about the external technique of characterization.

[Mister Underhill]

The idea that internal attributes are hidden from everyone but "those who have eyes to see" seems on the surface of it to contradict the idea of the visible soul. I mean, visible means visible, right?

I wonder if the phrase "visible souls" can (with a nod to Aiwendil) be imagined in more literal terms. Viz: Hobbits, who are widely considered insignificant and beneath the notice of the Wise, are short: literally beneath notice. The ugly, malignant souls of Orcs are externalized in their hideous appearance. The Nazgûl, who embody negation and emptiness, appear as empty clothes. Treebeard, the epitome of slowness and implacable patience, is a tree with legs. Sauron, who is consumed with seeking for his ring and with dominating all other life, is symbolized as a great, restless eye. And so on.

In the modern world (and in some modern literature) the average face of the guy next door may hide the soul of a brutal killer. In the mythic realm, it's more difficult to hide who you really are because your soul is literally visible.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by lmp

The precedents lie outside Tolkien's legendarium. By this I mean that whereas there were benighted Men in Middle Earth who no doubt believed such things (and those in this Earth who do or did), those who had been exposed the Light of the West would know the truth as delivered to them, whether by the Elf-friends who received it from the Eldar, who received it from the Valar, who received it from Eru.

I am not sure that anyone in Middle-earth actually knew who or what Tom was. Indeed, I am not sure that Tolkien himself had any set idea as to how exactly Tom fitted in to the Legendarium. As you suggest, his origination as the embodiment of rural Oxfordshire doesn't really tell us much in this regard.

Originally Posted by lmp

If people want to export Tom Bombadil to their own mythmaking, they need take no regard for the laws of Ëa. In the meantime, Tolkien's subcreation is clear on this point.

Well, to the extent that Tolkien did have views on Tom's place within the Legendarium, this gets us back onto the old authorial intention v reader interpretation debate (Canonicity anyone ).

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

In the modern world (and in some modern literature) the average face of the guy next door may hide the soul of a brutal killer. In the mythic realm, it's more difficult to hide who you really are because your soul is literally visible.

It seems to me that Mr U has hit upon a good point here. Very few of Tolkien's villains can be described as fair. Certainly not the "foot-soldiers" of evil: Orcs, Trolls, Nazgul and the like. Both Melkor and Sauron were, I would imagine, fair in their beginnings but became unable to take on fair form as they became more consumed by their evil deeds (although Sauron was able to appear in fair form, as Annatar for example, for a lengthy period after his corruption). Clearly, the likes of Ungoliant and her spawn cannot be described as fair. Indeed, the only truly evil character (that I can think of) who does not carry the physical hallmarks of his evil nature is Saruman. Although not, perhaps, an Adonis in looks, his voice was fair (and deceptive). And he was able to hide his true nature for a long while, although once it became fully manifest he was unable to resist attempting to persuade Gandalf over to his cause, thus "blowing his cover".