Visible souls....

[Child of the 7th Age]

The other day I was reading an article from the NYTimes dated January 15, 1967. . This was based on an interview with Tolkien by Philip Norman, one of the paper's staff reporters who worked in England. This article had a number of interesting things to say, but I was especially struck by one paragraph in which C. S. Lewis was quoted.

Lewis had been asked why Tolkien would ever have chosen to point out morals and moral themes within the context of an "extravagent fantasy". The response by Lewis was direct and to the point:

"Because, I take it... the real life of men is of that mystical and heroic quality... The imagined beings have their inside on the outside; they are visible souls. And Man as a whole, Man pitted against the Universe, have we seen him at all till we see that he is like a hero in a fairy tale?"

The sentence that struck me with greatest force was the one I've placed in italics: "The imagined beings have their inside on the outside; they are visible souls." I cannot think of a better one-sentence description of the characters in the Lord of the Rings than this.

We have talked in several threads about how modern fiction focuses on the interior of the character rather than the story itself. We are led inside the characters' heads to understand the individual's conflicting desires and psychological motives. What is happening inside the character is often very different than what is readily apparent to the naked eye. It is almost as if these characters (perhaps like ourselves?) wear masks.

With Tolkien things are very different. We don't get inside the characters' heads in the same way as with most modern fiction. We may see a bit of what's going on inside Samwise, even less in Frodo. There are some characters where we don't get an inside glimpse at all. Some critics or even contemporary authors such as Philip Pullman have taken issue with the book because of this lack of internal characterization.

My own response is different. When I finish reading the final chapter, I often feel that I know these characters better than many others in modern literature where I have been led inside their heads (including those in His Dark Materials). I think the reason for this is exactly what Lewis says: Tolkien's characters are constructed differently. They are visible souls that wear their inside on their outside. The good ones may be silent but they certainly don't wear masks. We don't have to go inside their heads because the important things are there in plain sight for all to see.

I guess I've got a string of questions connected with this quote. Does anyone else regard the characters in LotR in the same way that Lewis does in this quotation? In what ways do specific Tolkien's characters "wear their inside on their outside"?

Assuming that there is some truth in this assessment, this raises still another set of questions. Is this way of depicting characters something that Tolkien first saw reflected in his own reading of early sources like Beowulf or the Kalevala? Or does it spring from his own world view as a Christian and a Catholic? Or from something else entirely?

And then there is that intriguing question that Lewis himself raises at the end of his quote: "And Man as a whole, Man pitted against the Universe, have we seen him at all till we see that he is like a hero in a fairy tale?" Is this true, and is this why so many folk are endlessly drawn back into the story? Can we even understand ourselves as individuals unless we too regard ourselves as heroes in a fairy tale?

[Formendacil]

This might be taking your topic somewhere you didn't quite intend, but what you say about not getting into the characters' heads is quite interesting. You are right, of course, that we do not "See" into any of the characters's minds the way most novels present themselves. Sam and Frodo are the closest we come, and yet they are far more "hidden" than characters in most novels out there.

This is very "incorrect" on the good professor's behalf, but if you think about it, it is a far more realistic way of looking at things. Think about people you meet in real life. Do you "get into their minds"? Of course not. You get to know them through talking with them, and through observing them. In other words, the same way you get to know the characters of The Lord of the Rings. Perhaps it's no wonder then that you seem to know Frodo and the others better at the end of the story than characters from other novels, since you have gotten to understand Frodo in a way that more closely mimics a natural human relationship.

[Firefoot]

I think that it is a real testament to Tolkien's skill at characterization that he could make this style work. I don't need to be inside of Frodo's head to understand what he is feeling, going through, etc. (Same for the other main characters.) I have a very clear idea of these things already by how the characters act, what they say, etc. I doubt very many authors would be able to pull this off. Also interesting is that even though we don't know precisely what the characters are thinking, LotR often draws a much more emotional reaction to the characters than the vast majority of books I have read. Perhaps this is because Tolkien leaves more to the imagination than most other books. In some ways this can be more personal to the individual because in realizing these characters thoughts and feelings we can apply our own past situations to theirs.

[drigel]

The imagined beings have their inside on the outside; they are visible souls

I think Lewis is referring to a spiritual state rather than a literay device.
think deeper

[Child of the 7th Age]

Formendacil -

That's an interesting point you've made: that in real life we don't get inside anyone's head. Rather, we get to know people and make our judgments by observing and talking with them. Tolkien's narrative essentially gives us a chance to do that in the context of Middle-earth, since we rarely know what a particular character is thinking. Instead, we have to use our brains and native instincts to try and figure out what really lies behind a particular action or the words that come out of a character's mouth.

There is, I think, one other device Tolkien uses to reveal the souls of his characters without actual stating what is going on inside their heads. We're frequently given the chance to look through the eyes of another character in the book and share his observations. This particularly seems the case in regard to Frodo. There are two passages that are among my favorites. In both scenes, the reader gains a moving glimpse of Frodo through the eyes of a companion. It is essentially a glimpse of some unseen battles being fought there.

The first occurs in Rivendell where Frodo is recovering from his wound. Frodo wakes up and finds Gandalf sitting in his room. The two begin to talk. But in the middle of the conversation we are told that Gandalf came closer to the bed to observe the hobbit and noted "a hint of as it were of transparency" about Frodo, "and especially about the left hand that lay outside the coverlet." Gandalf suddenly begins speaking not to Frodo, but to himself.

Still that must be expected. He is not half through yet , and to what he will come in the end not even Elrond can foretell. Not to evil, I think. He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see that can.

The second incident is in the chapter "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit." This time, Samwise is the observer and Frodo is asleep. Sam remembers seeing Frodo asleep in Rivendell when he had watched over him as he lay in bed gravely wounded:

Then as he had kept watch Sam had noticed that at times a light seemed to be shining faintly within; but now the light was even clearer and stronger. Frodo's face was peaceful, the marks of fear and care had left it; but it looked old, old and beautiful, as if the chiselling of the shaping years was now revealed in many fine lines that had before been hidden, though the identity of the face was not changed. Not that Sam Gamgee put it that wayto himself. He shook his head, as if finding words useless, and murmurred, "I love him. He's like that, and sometimes it shines through, somehow. But I love him, whether or no."

In both passages, we learn something about the narrator--in one case Gandalf and in the other Samwise. But we are given even more insights into Frodo. The final sentence in Gandalf's quotation is, in effect, comparing Frodo with the Phial of Galadriel: "a glass filled with a clear light". In the second, what is striking uis that Frodo's face looked fine and old and etched with wrinkles. By all reckoning, this should not be happening to Frodo: the power of the Ring is such as to make one unnaturally young, taut, and stretched. But apparently there are other things going on underneath that Sam and Gandalf describe for us.

This isn't just a case of discerning psychological motives; it literally gives us a glimpse of Frodo's soul.

Drigel - I certainly agree that Lewis was referring to a moral or spiritual state when he uses a term like "visible souls". And I think the two passages mentioned above are clear instances of that. These are not the only ones that could be cited, just two of my favorites. A lot of Aragorn's characterization is also accomplished this way.

I do think both avenues are worthy of attention. By searching out and studying a "literary device", we have an idea how Tolkien technically achieved what he wanted to do. By looking at what is actually contained in those passages, we invariably run into the element that you describe as a "spritual state".


Firefoot - The whole idea of blank spaces is fascinating. Tolkien seems to have been strangely attracted to blank spaces as a way to encourage readers to use their imaginations!

We've been told time and time again that perhaps one of the reasons JRRT didn't finish Silm is that he couldn't bear to fill in all those mysterious blank spaces that existed in the LotR narrative. In the Letters, Tolkien talks about the reader's joy in seeing a distant mountain where you can only make out the barest of outlines. It is grand and mysterious, and only half understood. By publishing Silm, he would be dispelling some of that mystery: the half-understood vistas would be filled in.

LotR is full of stories and allusions that the reader will only half comprehend unless he/she has read and understood the wider Legendarium. Apparently, part of Tolkien wanted to leave it that way. That's quite an extraordinary sentiment to express when so much of his earlier energies had been devoted to trying to get the thing finished and published!

What your own statement suggests is that JRRT's love of mysterious blanks went beyond history to the characters themselves. By drawing down a discreet veil over inner thoughts, he in effect created internal "blanks" over which the reader could ponder at length. It was essentially the same technique that he used to lay bare tiny slivers of history, but never the whole thing. I've never heard it expressed quite this way before...

[Lalwendë]

We have talked in several threads about how modern fiction focuses on the interior of the character rather than the story itself. We are led inside the characters' heads to understand the individual's conflicting desires and psychological motives.

I think that sometimes it is a bit of a myth that all modern fiction focusses on the psychological motives of characters. What in reality tends to happen is that it focusses on the psychological motives of one or maybe two main characters, the protagonists. And in LotR it would be difficult to identify a definite protagonist. If we had to choose, then it might well be Frodo as the tale is at its heart the story of his journey to Mordor and his mission. When we do see interior insights then these do tend to be of Frodo. We see his dreams quite regularly, and what could be more personal than that?

LotR has a whole multitude of characters, so we do not need to see their interior thoughts as much as we would if it was a novel focussing on only a handful of characters; there is much opportunity to demonstrate motives and characteristics through dialogue and reactions of the many other characters. If it were just about Frodo, or even just about the Fellowship then we would need to have more interior thoughts written about as there would be less chance to have these represented by the multitudes of other people.

It is also a tale of action and movement, in contrast to what might be the polar opposite, Virginia Woolf, who writes of personal thoughts, feelings and reactions. LotR is in effect a pro-active work, while Woolf's work is reactive.

As for visible souls - I think every character in literature is in some way a 'visible soul'. We see more of literary characters than we could ever hope to see of our fellow human beings. But what intrigues me is the question of whether these souls are really aspects of the writer's soul becoming manifest on the page?

[littlemanpoet]

The imagined beings have their inside on the outside; they are visible souls. - C.S. Lewis

Child, thank you for starting this thread. The insight is positively seismic for me.

...modern fiction focuses on the interior of the character rather than the story itself. ... Tolkien's characters are constructed differently. - Child

This is a critical insight. So often Tolkien is criticized for doing poor, or not enough, characterization. What is being said here is that, in fantasy, a different type of characterization is being used. But what is it? I'll attempt an answer below.

Does anyone else regard the characters in LotR in the same way that Lewis does in this quotation? - Child

In a word, yes. I do. Happily.

In what ways do specific Tolkien's characters "wear their inside on their outside"? - Child

I cannot think of a character that does not! One might suggest that those who use guile keep something hidden, but actually, the guile is one of the key attributes of their character, such as Saruman and Gollum, for example. Boromir uses guile at Amon Hen when trying to get the Ring from Frodo. There is one single instance of guile used in a morally upright way in all of LotR (to my knowledge): Gandalf is the one who sets up the plan sending Frodo into Mordor to destroy the Ring because the "wise fool" would never expect that of his enemies. That's guile and knowing your evil enemy's weakness.

Is this way of depicting characters something that Tolkien first saw reflected in his own reading of early sources like Beowulf or the Kalevala? Or does it spring from his own world view as a Christian and a Catholic? Or from something else entirely? - Child

You can be confident that such (Beowulfian) character depiction was the norm prior to the modern novel. His faith informs his character depictions in that he portrays them as basically moral beings. Also, my sense is that Tolkien himself was a simple man, without guile. He wore his inside on the outside, if I understand his personal story correctly. Now, to say that Tolkien was without guile is not to say that he was naíve. He knew what the world is really like, or he could never have written LotR. But he was no wearer of masks. And he understood the mind of evil.

"And Man as a whole, Man pitted against the Universe, have we seen him at all till we see that he is like a hero in a fairy tale?" Is this true, and is this why so many folk are endlessly drawn back into the story? Can we even understand ourselves as individuals unless we too regard ourselves as heroes in a fairy tale? - Child

I think the fairy tale looks at humans as moral beings instead of psychological beings, which seems to be a rather critical difference. More on that below.

Perhaps it's no wonder then that you seem to know Frodo and the others better at the end of the story than characters from other novels, since you have gotten to understand Frodo in a way that more closely mimics a natural human relationship. - Formendacil

In the modern novel the reader is expected, encouraged even, to identify with the protagonist; to vicariously become the protagonist. In LotR Tolkien invites us to befriend his many protagonists. These are entirely different types of demands upon the reader. The former is an internal, psychological, and burdensome task. The latter is comfortable, delightful, and humane. And thus are we able to say to each other, "I can identify with Frodo/Sam/Faramir best."

I doubt very many authors would be able to pull this off. - Firefoot

I strongly disagree. This is the way literature used to be written before the current characterization vogue. I cut my literary teeth on Tolkien and without realizing it, when I started writing, this was how I wrote. I have gone through a good four years of people telling me I'm doing it all wrong and need to learn how to do deep characterization, as it is so-called. Now that I am conscious of the answer to the deep characterization vogue (thanks again, Child!), I will work the techniques I have been using all along, and defend them against the current vogue.

...modern fiction focuses on the psychological motives of ... one or maybe two main characters, the protagonists. And in LotR it would be difficult to identify a definite protagonist. - Lalwendë

Quite. It's in the nature of characterization for fairy story, in which each character is used to mirror the others. Each character represents a type. This does not mean that the character is two-dimensional; absolutely not! But it does mean that loyal Sam is going to be a useful mirror for traitorous Gollum, for example.

LotR has a whole multitude of characters, so we do not need to see their interior thoughts as much as we would if it was a novel focussing on only a handful of characters; there is much opportunity to demonstrate motives and characteristics through dialogue and reactions of the many other characters. If it were just about Frodo, or even just about the Fellowship then we would need to have more interior thoughts written about as there would be less chance to have these represented by the multitudes of other people. - Lalwendë

This was very well said.

...most of the characters [in LotR] go through changes which are not complete turnarounds for them -- they grow rather than be altered. - Encaitare

Yes.

The fundamental difference seems to be that in the modern novel, characters are at base psychological creatures, progressing from unhealth to health, whereas in LotR, and other fantasy that does it right (ex: Narnia Chronicles), characters are at base moral creatures, progressing from immaturity to maturity. This is Bilbo's journey in The Hobbit. Same with Merry and Pippin. Frodo goes through this, as Child has pointed out already. Aragorn's story spans beyond the timeline of LotR, such that his maturation can only be seen in the appendices, but it's there. This process of maturation seems most often to hinge upon moral choices. Bilbo takes pity on Gollum. Later, when Bilbo has to rescue the Dwarves on numerous occasions, his mindset is usually "looks like it's up to me" - which is a moral choice - taking responsibility. Aragorn choose courage and toil and hardship over denying his lineage, taking the easy way through life, and merely surviving. Of all the characters, it seems that Sam matures the least; and hardly needs to. He is already the accomplished "Bat-man" after the likes of WW1; that he chooses to accept his role as Frodo's helper (moral choice), and does finally take pity on Gollum - which saves the quest.

[drigel]

Wonderfull submissions here! I think if I were to see some of you guys in person, I might see a trace of light around your brows..

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by drigel

Wonderfull submissions here! I think if I were to see some of you guys in person, I might see a trace of light around your brows..

That would be from the nano-torch I have cunningly hidden behind my right ear to enable sneaky reading of Tolkien whatever the light conditions...

Originally Posted by lmp

It's in the nature of characterization for fairy story, in which each character is used to mirror the others. Each character represents a type. This does not mean that the character is two-dimensional; absolutely not! But it does mean that loyal Sam is going to be a useful mirror for traitorous Gollum, for example.

Now Gollum I always think of as a 'special case'. Much more than a mere 'monster', he cannot be defined squarely as evil, nor can he be said to be good, and he is the one character we truly get into the head of, often distressingly so. If any character in LotR could be said to be 'modern' it is Gollum. He's complex and intangible and yet in the great tradition of characters who can chill our blood.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by lmp

the fairy tale looks at humans as moral beings instead of psychological beings,

My turn to be thunderstruck. Brilliant.

[drigel]

Mark: ditto!

Here we have a fairy tale, in all it's gritty reality. And for the 1st time as I see it, we have a glimpse of the moral battle that is going on inside the players. There could be some psychological layer as well, but....

But when we are talking about Gods and angels bestriding the green earth with hobbits, men, and ents, aren't we are already in a state of being unlike we have here today? In this primordial struggle, how can it not be anything other than a moral dilemma?

[littlemanpoet]

Fordim Hedgethistle:

...the whole concept of the individual is a very recent invention. The idea that one’s “true” or “real” identity is internal and not external was anathema to the world view of the Anglo-Saxons. ... To this point we’ve been characterizing the debate in terms of modern “psychological” models of self in opposition to more ancient “moral” models. ... ‘these days’ our stories (and our lives) tend to focus on how we are in conflict with ourselves. ... The heroes of the book are just not individuals in the sense we think of individuality. They are not defined by their inner core, by what they are but by what they do.In Romance the human condition is explored not through individual characters, but as that condition is expressed in its various modes and parts within the stories of different characters. The radical thing about LotR for me is that it highlights the arrogance of modern constructions of self.

Fordim, I think you, davem, Sophia, Lalwendë and I are saying similar things, coming at it from different angles. I wonder if we can between us come to the basis that underlies the whole?

Sophia the Thunder Mistress:

Current philosophy is all in a twist because who knows how many centuries ago someone drew a hard and fast line between mind and body and now the concepts have been alienated from each other. In Tolkien's characters this dichotomy and need to portray the inner self from the first person perspective is absent because the distinction between their internal and external selves simply does not exist.

Sophia, you make the same point here that I do in the Mythic Unities thread, in my first post. Please bear with me as I arrogantly quote myself:

Mythic fantasy is story that contains the stuff of myth, legend, and fairy tale; it works like waking dream and nightmare; in it, concrete and abstract, previously distinguished, have been reintegrated; it is apprehended by the reader as a unity of meaning and being; the signal of this apprehension is a sense of wonder or a thrill of horror, or both.

Thus the mind and body are distinguished in modern life, and LotR has unified them. Check out Mythic Unities if you want more on this.

davem

Perhaps this is one reason why their souls are so 'visible' - this is pre-Freudian psychology - closer to Jung but closest of all to Catholic theology. The Saints & Angel are not 'Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious', but living beings present & active within their own dimension. ... This is not so much a 'fairy tale' view of the human mind as a medieval & pre-medieval one.

Is not the medieval or pre-medieval the "stuff" of fairy tale?

Lalwendë

I don't think we actually have to see a character's thoughts represented as they might appear in their own mind; we don't have to see "X thought that...." or "Y was thinking...". In the case of Gollum, we see through his behaviour how his mind works. If we are talking about characters with 'visible souls', then he above all other characters really does have a visible soul; his actions speak volumes about what is happening within his head/heads.

I quite agree with your major point, Lalwendë. Now to quibble. Sorry to belabor a point, but the difference between evoking character by behavior, versus evoking character by "going into the head", is worthy of careful distinction. The latter is "going into the head", the former is not.

By "intangible" I mean that we cannot quite 'touch' on the essence of his being, his purpose if you like.

He has been enslaved by the Ring for so long that his purpose is to serve the Ring. He has almost lost all hold on his own will. Isn't this the essence of his being at the time of the events of the book?

As I said above, I think Fordim's these days versus those days, davem's post-Freudian versus pre-Freudian, Sophia's internal versus pervasive, and my own psychological versus moral, are different subsets of the same discussion.

What's at the core? Is it linguistic? Philosophical? Literary versus scientific? Theological (heaven forbid!)? Faith versus Unbelief (uh oh)?

recklessly yours, LMP

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

Is not the medieval or pre-medieval the "stuff" of fairy tale?

You've set me off on a strange train of thought...

It is now but it wasn't then. That was the way people thought, the way they understood themselves & others. If it is the 'stuff of fairy tale then maybe so are we. But that opens the question up, because then we have to ask, if we're the stuff of fairy tale, if fairy tale is a true reflection of our psyches, then what has happened to the world. How have we ended up where we are now? In fact, another question occurs - are we actually living in a fairy tale right now - a dark, unpleasant one in many ways, I admit, but with gleams of light & flashes of true beauty for those with eyes to see it.

Perhaps what we call 'reality' isn't all that 'real' after all. Perhaps what we think of as our hard nosed, materialistic, 'Freudian' reality is the bad dream of we wanderers in Faerie, from which, with luck (& a little blessing) we may soon awaken. Maybe this is the 'fantasy'. Perhaps we respond to Middle earth so strongly not because it offers an escape into a fantasy world, but because it offers an escape out of one, & an 'awakening' from our bad dream...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Sorry to belabor a point, but the difference between evoking character by behavior, versus evoking character by "going into the head", is worthy of careful distinction. The latter is "going into the head", the former is not.

This would depend entirely upon the character. With Gollum, evoking character by representing his behaviour does work. Gollum is not like other characters; he is suffering with an intense psychological disorder or illness. When I think about how all his impulses are worn on his exterior, how he follows his urges and says what is going on in his thoughts the condition that comes to mind is Tourette's. This is a condition which leads people to say exactly what is in their head, to display impulsive behaviours (e.g. repetitious acts and sounds, rather like Gollum's swallowing noise which gives him his nickname). Compare this to how someone without the condition might behave - all these impulses are kept internalised. So Gollum does display his thoughts and psyche, we see what he is thinking because he simply cannot keep those thoughts internalised.

I don't know enough about Freud to thoroughly explain it, but it is as though Gollum's Id is completely on show.

I think you say below just how far he has lost control of his own impulses:

Originally Posted by lmp

He has been enslaved by the Ring for so long that his purpose is to serve the Ring. He has almost lost all hold on his own will. Isn't this the essence of his being at the time of the events of the book?

The strange thing about the Ring taking hold of him is that ultimately he does not serve the Ring. Something, whether his own character, fate or something else entirely, takes away the Ring's control of him.

I think he serves a peculiar purpose in the books. Gollum is like a mirror of the darker, more uncontrollable side to ourselves. He serves to make us question our ideas of right and wrong, of pity and justice. He isn't just there to scare us.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally posted by davem: It is now but it wasn't then.

Come to think of it, when then was "now", there was no such thing as a fairy tale. It was the "ferny brae", or whatever the name was for any given neck of wherever.

... if we're the stuff of fairy tale, if fairy tale is a true reflection of our psyches, then what has happened to the world?

We have been splintered, cut into parts. We are not whole anymore. I'm not talking about "the Fall", either. We're an advanced culture with all its distinctions. This is why we hunger for myth; it is whole, and while we are in it, so are we. So imagine living in a myth. Imagine that you believed again, davem. I heard a talk by an author in which she located the universe in the Mind of God; hence, we are figments of God's imagination. God being God, we are as real as we feel ourselves to be! God being God, our subcreations are also figments of God's imagination; every bit as real as we are. Tolkien's Middle Earth, with Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Éowen, Lúthien, Beren, etc., are all as real as we are. Delusional? So be it. Maybe I'd rather believe the delusion and be more whole than my contemporary moderns. Maybe after I pass beyond the walls of the world, I will stumble upon Gandalf having a friendly chat with Tolkien. That would be a gift, don't you think?

Originally posted by Lalwendë: This would depend entirely upon the character. With Gollum, evoking character by representing his behaviour does work.

Are not all the characters in LotR evoked by representing their behaviours? The greatest difference between Gollum and the characters, for example, of the Fellowship of the Ring, is that his character has been dismantled by the Ring because he has murdered, broken moral law, to have it. The fellowship members, by contrast, remain within themselves because they live out of the natural law of their respective cultures.

By way of covering the possible objections, Boromir does succumb to temporary madness, but through grace or whatever you might wish to call it, he is restored to himself. Frodo also succumbs to temporary madness, such as in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, and also is restored to himself by, his native virtue; he strives against the Ring, having chosen against his will to be its bearer but not its owner, until its strength finally destroys his mind and will at Orodruin.

I imagine that Tourette's has its applicability, as does drug addiction (if you want to follow Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis), but neither example gets to the heart of what's going on in Gollum. His is a moral condition (I almost called it a disease!), and has curdled him right down to his soul. Yes, there is a sliver of Sméagol left, but so weak; so weak.

Compare this to how someone without the condition might behave - all these impulses are kept internalised.

But this is not so. Frodo's behavior does show the effects of the Ring. Boromir's grasping attempt to wrest it from Frodo hows its effects. Galadriel (never mind the weirdness of the movie) exhibits in her behavior the effect of the Ring when Frodo offers it to her. More so Gandalf when Frodo offers it to him.

It is true that Gollum cannot keep his thoughts internalized, but it is not a natural condition for the other characters to keep their thoughts internalized either. As the quote describes, they are visible souls.

I am in complete agreement with the final two paragraphs of your post.

[mark12_30]

...or falling asleep again?

"Our life is no dream; but it ought to become one, and perhaps will."
--Novalis

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Child

With Tolkien things are very different. We don't get inside the characters' heads in the same way as with most modern fiction. We may see a bit of what's going on inside Samwise, even less in Frodo. There are some characters where we don't get an inside glimpse at all. Some critics or even contemporary authors such as Philip Pullman have taken issue with the book because of this lack of internal characterization.

I've been paying attention to this in my latest rereading of FotR. I guess I'm changing my tune on this thread with this post. Whereas not in the same way as modern fiction, he still does get inside the hobbits' heads. Consider Sam in "The Choice of Master Samwise". Very much of this is inside Sam's head. There's a good bit in Book One (of six) that is inside Frodo's head; which is quite appropriate since this book is largely the story of Frodo coming of age. Is not Frodo's interior thought apparent in Council of Elrond too?

So I see this as not so much a matter of if Tolkien gets inside the heads of his characters, as much or not at all, but rather how.

I'm not the first one on this Board to say this, but anyone who criticizes LotR for lack of characterization is not reading the same book I am. Either that, or they're coming at it demanding the kind of characterization they want rather than what Tolkien gives them.

In LotR interior characterization is not the bedrock of the story; this is one thing that separates it from most modern fiction. What strikes me about the interior of Frodo is that it usually involves his will. This gets back to what C.S. Lewis was saying, that it is a moral kind of character growth. Frodo is facing pure evil in the Black Riders, and must fight or give in. Fighting against incredible odds results in a strengthened will, and Frodo has "grown up" by the time he has reached the Fords of Bruinen. Thus, when he volunteers to bear the Ring to Mordor, it is an informed decision. He knows how bad it can get already, and makes a clear moral choice.

[Dininziliel]

I have to toss a couple of things into this thread even though they're mooshy and patchily expressed. This is my first time back after a long absence, and I couldn't leave without saying something!

Going way back to Child's original post . . . Pullman was mentioned. I've never understood just what he means when he dings Tolkien for lack of characterization and psychological depth/cohesiveness. My first reading of His Dark Materials felt so profound. I've recently re-read it and I wonder what the heck I was thinking. While filled with interesting characters, themes, etc., I can't get a handle on Mrs. Coulter. She's all over the place in terms of character, and any web site/message board discussion of this doth rationalize too much. Much of HDM fell apart because it hinged on Mrs. Coulter's character. She was more a plot device than anything else. I cannot think of a single character in LotR who is not consistent with his/her character. While many characters (all of them?) travel their own paths and are changed by their responses to what they encounter--both within in and without--they are always recognizable as themselves. I don't think you could remove one character and still have the same story. I've often felt that what Tolkien is criticized for (trite bedtime stories, lack of psychological depth) is due to a certain school of thought that says existential navel-picking equates with profundity. If a literary work does not have its characters staring out the window pondering the "ennuiness" of themselves, of things, or a combination thereof, it is proclaimed "sophomoric," "simplistic," etc. To my mind, staring out the window and heaving heavy sighs while reflecting on the meaning of life is what one does around prom time and again around mid-life crisis time. At any rate, someone earlier mentioned the self-obsessed being mistaken for having psychological depth. I think it's been settled since then that Tolkien's characters demonstrate just what "psychological depth" will get you--oblivion and ruination.

I think one of Tolkien's goals for LotR and Silmarillion was to illustrate reality--the eternal, the true. What is true is eternal. What we perceive with our senses passes away and is, therefore, unreal. (This relates to earlier posts about the imagined world.) It is the invisible that recurs and harmoniously joins with nature and other beings that is true and, therefore, eternal. This is a greater thing than mere psychology. It seems that if something is not preoccupied with the psychological it is deemed unserious. I don't know what could be more serious than something that manages to strike a true pitch like a tuning fork and resonate with such a vast, motley lot of folk as has Tolkien's works for as long as it has and which shows no sign of stopping.

Since Tolkien himself said he had hoped to create a myth that England could claim for its own, I wonder about the psychological depth of other mythological beings. What about Persephone, Hercules, and, hey! what about that Oedipus? Haven't other "fanciful" characters molded "real" minds and actions throughout centuries? What about Arthur, Galahad, and Mordred? Do they possess more psychological depth than Aragorn, Sam, or Saruman? What is the standard used to designate one set of imaginary characters more meaningful than another set of imaginary characters?

Sometimes it seems to me that all that stands between LotR and universal acceptance of it as a work of profound psychological, philosophical, spiritual significance is the height of hobbits. Perhaps if Bilbo (as he represents hobbits) had a more serious sounding name and a couple more feet of height, it might have been a different story--in many more ways than a few! Perhaps such a sophomoric criteria is the simple cause of the pooh-poohing that has dogged LotR since its publication.

Okay. That's it. I want to end by saying how good it felt to come back and experience the happy appreciation of everyone's erudite, original, and heartfelt ponderings and positings! Thank you for a wonderful evening!