Visible souls....

[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".

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

The precedents lie outside Tolkien's legendarium.

But do these precedents lie outside the legendarium? Or are they part of it? The legendarium is a creation, amd that creation came from the mind of one person who held many other creations within his own mind. The idea of an 'earth spirit' may not be explicitly mentioned in Tolkien's work, but it is there nevertheless. Whether by intention or accident, this concept crept in. Yes, we might not recognise Tom as such a figure if we did not know of such figures already, or we might not even recognise him in hindsight, after we have read of such figures and thought "that reminds me of Tom Bombadil". But the fact that many people do recognise this concept tells us that it is entirely possible Tolkien may have reflected this concept in his writing, either consciously or subconsciously; which he did, does not matter if it is there.

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.

Undoubtedly there are rules, but there are holes in these rules, and the rules came from somewhere, i.e. Tolkien's head, a marvellous attic lumber room of knowledge and dreams. Who can tell why and how he created his world as he did. I suspect that even were he around today we wouldn't get to know even a tiny proportion of the answers to all our questions, so we can only speculate and discuss the possibilities. This is why the laws are not fixed; there is no judge to make the final decision, only a jury.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

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. -Saucy

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. -littlemanpoet

Bombadil himself was kind of an import from earlier tales, was he not? He's something of a vestigial character (if I can borrow a term from biology) leftover from very early conceptions of the Shire. While Tolkien's "imports", like the term Atalante used for downfallen Numenor, usually have detailed and contextually appropriate meanings and developments, little (if any) is done to reconcile Tom with the rest of the Legendarium. In that case at least, Tolkien left himself miles of leeway. I'm inclined to think that there's a little leeway for us to speculate about him, even within the laws of Ea.

[littlemanpoet]

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. - Aiwendil

I needed time away to think. A visible soul is the same inside as out. I think it's simple as that. As Mr. Underhill said. My focus has been on the characters, but they aren't the only visible souls. So maybe characters' internal psychological processing can be expressed, and as long as the interior is the same as the exterior, that's a visible soul. I'll have to think about that some more. That said, I still think it's useful to take notice that Tolkien rarely "went into the head" of anybody, and only at pivotal plot points. What does that tell us?

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? - Mr. Underill

Yes. That extra phrase was a reckless afterthought. I meant it in terms of those, like Edmund Wilson, author of "Ooh, those awful Orcs", a 1950s review of LotR - who complained about the one-dimensionality of everything in the book and the fact that it had no sex (he criticized the work as adolescent - to which Tolkien responded that Wilson should grow up); and those in our own day who require deep characterization in their fantasy, replete with such a load of psychological processing that the story is plotted by means of characterization rather than by event. It's like having to have your scrambled eggs with ketchup or it's not scrambled eggs! Pardon me for airing my pet peeves having to do with being a frustrated writer. So yes. Visible is visible (of course, that depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is, right?)

But do these precedents lie outside the legendarium? Or are they part of it? The legendarium is a creation, amd that creation came from the mind of one person who held many other creations within his own mind. The idea of an 'earth spirit' may not be explicitly mentioned in Tolkien's work, but it is there nevertheless. Whether by intention or accident, this concept crept in. - Lalwendë

Beware of tipping over the tower to peer at the stones. But did the concept creep into the story, or into your mind while reading the story? Definitely on Canonicity grounds here! Guess where I stand on that.

But the fact that many people do recognise this concept tells us that it is entirely possible Tolkien may have reflected this concept in his writing, either consciously or subconsciously; which he did, does not matter if it is there.

"Entirely possible" is a good deal short of "likely", which is itself a good deal short of "evident". Could you provide evidence to back your assertion? The fact that many people recognize this concept (or any) tells us that it is part of our storehouse, rather than that which Tolkien put in his Legendarium. Conjectures about what Tolkien subconsciously reflected probably tells us more about ourselves than anything about Tolkien.

A visible soul is the same on the inside as on the outside. Let's just assume that this is true of Tom Bombadil as well as everything and everyone else in Middle Earth. What is to be found in the text is therefore that which is about Tom Bombadil. He's master but not owner, for all natural things belong to themselves. In the words of Goldberry, "He is." And "He is as you have seen him. He is the Master of wood, water, and hill." He has borders. He has no fear. He is an old man. He is a teller of remarkable tales. He can tell the Hobbits of everything that has ever been, even before the Sun rose the first time.

What does that tell the reader?

Perhaps 'Tom Bombadil' is simply that aspect of the spirit of Arda made manifest in that particular time & place? - davem

I think what makes me uncomfortable with this are (1) "manifest" and (2) "aspect of the spirit of Arda". Such verbage is borrowed into the language, and therefore the meaning feels alien to me. What if the sentence could be reconstituted in native English words (with apologies to davem)? "Tom Bombadil is simply that wight of the breath of Earth seen in that one time and place?" Hmmm.... Maybe. So why do I like this better? Probably because it rings more mythically than the original.