The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-19-2003, 08:17 PM   #81
Mister Underhill
Dread Horseman
 
Mister Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,752
Mister Underhill has been trapped in the Barrow!
The Eye

Great posts all around.

After reading Saucepan’s last, though, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to make a distinction between psychological depth and psychological complexity. Saucepan’s definition of the former seems to require the latter, but if I’m reading you right, Sauce, I don’t agree.

I relate “depth” more with a certain profoundness or intensity, but not necessarily with complication. Which is not to say that a character cannot be both psychologically deep and complex, but I don’t think that depth proceeds naturally from complexity or vice versa. I’m pulling a bit of mental tongue-twister there, but perhaps I’m not entirely unclear.

Eurytus cited Melville’s Ahab as a psychologically deep character – but Ahab isn’t particularly complicated (nor is he, incidentally, drawn using the “internal” method). My intention is not to center the conversation around a particular character – other examples may be cited, I’m sure – but rather to ask whether depth and complexity are necessarily related.

For the record, I understand “show” versus “tell” in the same way that Helen uses it: when something comes out through monologue, including internal monologue, that’s telling the audience. When information or character is revealed through action, that’s showing the audience. Incidentally, I think the “show don’t tell” rule is a bit overworked by some writing instructors, but that’s neither here nor there.

EDITED to make my tongue-twister a bit more clear.

[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]
Mister Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2003, 08:46 PM   #82
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Shield

Quote:
After reading Saucepan’s last, though, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to make a distinction between psychological depth and psychological complexity. Saucepan’s definition of the former seems to require the latter, but if I’m reading you right, Sauce, I don’t agree.
You are reading me right, Mister U, and I stand by my definition. A character may be profoundly noble, but I would not describe that character as psychologically deep. If a character's pscyhe has only one aspect (or a range of similar aspects) to it, then it cannot, to my mind, be deep, however intensely those aspects may be drawn. So yes, I would equate psychological depth with psychological complexity. And it seems to me that this was how Pullman was using the phrase in his quote which started this thread off, particularly as he cites Gollum as the one character who, in his view, does have psychological depth.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2003, 09:36 PM   #83
Aiwendil
Late Istar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Sting

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
I do still have one point of contention with you, though, Aiwendil:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One could very well say that an unambiguously good character is psychologically deep because we see all that there is to see of his or her psyche - it just happens not to be very complicated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not think that a character can be said to have psychological depth when his or her psyche is not complicated. To my mind, it is only when there is some tension, or at least interplay, between aspects of a character's persona that he or she begins to gain psychological depth. So that is where I am coming from in formulating my definition of "psychological depth".
Actually, I think that this point of contention is an illusion.

You quoted only half of my essential point above. What I said was:
Quote:
One could very well say that an unambiguously good character is psychologically deep because we see all that there is to see of his or her psyche - it just happens not to be very complicated. One could also say that an unambiguously good character is not psychologically deep because his or her psyche is simple and thus lacks depth. These things seem contradictory only because each employs a slightly different definitions for "psychologically deep".
In other words, given a particular definition of "psychologically deep", either of these statements could be true.

You chose the second definition, which, I think, is a perfectly good one.
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2003, 04:08 AM   #84
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Sting

Saucepanman, Perhaps the problem is that in Faramir (the real one) we are seeing him after his struggle. His decision is made. The things he says reveal he is not someone who has just decided to be 'good'. He has thought through his position. The problem with the approach of the filmwriters is that they bring all the characters down to the level of Boromir - 'What should I do?'. Faramir, Aragorn, et al, have progressed beyond Boromir - probably if Boromir had survived, & passed the test he would have been the 'Faramir' we meet in Ithilien. I'm not saying the movie Faramir is not believeable - I don't think he's 'deeper' or more 'complex'. He's more like us. But he's not inspiring - well, not to me, anyway. I find his cowardlyness - the way he won't look while his men are beating up Gollum, holding his sword to the throat of an unarmed, frightened, exhausted prisoner - disconcerting in a 'good' character, to say the least.

In Tolkien's world we are presented with characters at different stages of development. Some are struggling to decide what's right, others are struggling to do what they have decided is the right thing. If we limit our definition of what constitutes depth to the former, then we simply miss the depth of the latter.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2003, 03:01 PM   #85
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,803
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Sting

Quote:
My take on Victorian-era sensibilities and hypocrisies is that the culture valued or prized ideals that individuals could not always live up to, all of them being of a fallen race. However, because the ideals were prized, people identified with them and sought after them more openly, it would seem. Christian missionary work, the ending of the practice of black slavery, establishment of hospitals and all sorts of aid societies are perhaps good examples. That was a powerful era of British world influence, and not just political.
I'm not out to demonize the Victorians or anything (lest I want the future generations to demonize me), but my original point was that they were not any better or worse than we are today; my discontent lies with the glorification of the good ol' days that simply never existed in human society (note I am placing a limit on my theory).

Quote:
I conclude that one's worldview does indeed have much to say on how or if one will perceive the incredible depth of character in Tolkien's writings.
Can reading experience be constituted as part of my "world-view"?

Quote:
I disagree with (perhaps my understanding of) your definition of psychological depth, if by it you mean a character has to wallow in temptation to sin, indecision, or some other angst in order that the reader find the character interesting, or to assure that the character be perceived as deep or having something of great value to contribute to today's reader.
Psychological depth isn't about how many heroin needles are sticking out of the character's skin, or something along those lines.

Psychological depth isn't about how dirty or debased or corrupt or bored or drunk a character is.

When I say that Tolkien's character's lack it, I am not implying that for me psychological depth involves having Aragorn battling an existential despair that gets triggered by acid flash-backs or Arwen finding herself confused by her feelings of lust for Glorfindel while her man is away.

I am implying that if Tolkien wanted to explore the human psyche in the LOTR, he wasn't entirely succesful, though his work is incredibly psychologically stimulating in of itself.

Quote:
I find the strength of nobility and purpose, and the insight into others' thoughts and weakness, and the gentleness and humility of Aragorn, for example--as pointed out earlier by some contributors here--extremely
psychologically interesting, but not from a Freudian or other modern psychological standpoint.
In case you saw my early musings on Aragorn and his sword: My references to Freud were mostly meant as a joke (and, btw, Freudian ideas are no longer in the forefront of psychology: good Sigmund has got others carrying the torch for him these days...hopefully with more success [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). But I am curious to know what you mean by the word "modern" in the context of your last sentence.

[ November 20, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2003, 07:51 PM   #86
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
White-Hand

A few points to pick up on.

Here's one that I should have addressed in my previous post:

Quote:
For the record, I understand “show” versus “tell” in the same way that Helen uses it: when something comes out through monologue, including internal monologue, that’s telling the audience. When information or character is revealed through action, that’s showing the audience.
Well, if that's the accepted view, I cannot really argue with it. It's not a concept that I am overly familiar with. My understanding was based on my natural reaction to the words. If an event happens and I am told about it, then I am not experiencing it directly, whereas, if I am shown it, I am. But, whatever the definition, I feel that the point that Helen (and Aiwendil) made still stands. A noble and worthy character is likely to be more appealing (and interesting) to readers if we are shown that nobility played out in their actions, rather than simply being told about their noble and worthy thoughts.

Quote:
Actually, I think that this point of contention is an illusion.
Fair point, Aiwendil. I probably shouldn't have used the word "contention". My purpose was to try to illustrate the rationale for my definition of "psychological depth".

Quote:
In Tolkien's world we are presented with characters at different stages of development. Some are struggling to decide what's right, others are struggling to do what they have decided is the right thing. If we limit our definition of what constitutes depth to the former, then we simply miss the depth of the latter.
But, davem, I don't see a character's efforts to implement a course of action that they have already decided on as a psychological struggle. It is more a struggle of action and interaction. And if we only meet them after they have gone through that internal struggle, then we are not really seeing their psychological depth. An alcoholic, although tragic, is far more psychologically interesting than a teetotal reformed alchoholic. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Quote:
Psychological depth isn't about how many heroin needles are sticking out of the character's skin, or something along those lines.

Psychological depth isn't about how dirty or debased or corrupt or bored or drunk a character is.
Yes, despite my flippant comment above, I largely agree with that, Lush. We might learn something about a character's psyche from external attributes such as these, but they only gain psychological depth when we see the internal factors that have produced, or are influencing, these attributes. So, the fact that Denethor sets fire to himself, and tries to do the same to his son, tells us something about his psyche. But, by "showing" ( [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) us the factors that have led him to that state, Tolkien fleshes out Denethor's psyche and we gain an impression of the internal struggle that he has gone through. And, were we to be given direct access to that internal struggle, we would gain an even greater understanding of his psyche.

Quote:
I am implying that if Tolkien wanted to explore the human psyche in the LOTR, he wasn't entirely succesful, though his work is incredibly psychologically stimulating in of itself.
No arguments from me there. We don't necessarily need psychological depth for psychological stimulation. We can get this from seeing the actions of the characters, and the consequences of those actions, without necessarily learning a great deal about the complexities of their internal thoughts. As I said earlier, it really depends on what you want from a story.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 04:03 AM   #87
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Sting

Quote:
But, davem, I don't see a character's efforts to implement a course of action that they have already decided on as a psychological struggle. It is more a struggle of action and interaction. And if we only meet them after they have gone through that internal struggle, then we are not really seeing their psychological depth. An alcoholic, although tragic, is far more psychologically interesting than a teetotal reformed alchoholic.
I have to disagree. Frodo's struggle is at least half psychological from the start & becomes more pyschological as time goes on. The struggle is internal, against the Ring. As I say, I believe we don't appreciate this because we aren't exposed to it in most forms of modern storytelling. Personally, I find the ex-alcoholic's struggle to stay off the booze more moving than his struggle to decide whether he has a problem or not. Depicting psychological depth is not simply a matter of showing someone strugggling to make up their mind. I become more aware of the depth of characters like Frodo & Faramir as I get older, & go back to the book.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 07:40 AM   #88
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Ring

Quote:
Depicting psychological depth is not simply a matter of showing someone strugggling to make up their mind.
I am not saying that it is. Depiction of an internal struggle is only one means by which a writer can give a character psychological depth. I was using it as an example because it seems to me that this is the source of psychological complexity in most of Tolkien's characters. Frodo, Denethor, Faramir, Boromir and Gollum are all undergoing their own respective personal struggles. These struggles are relevant to the story that Tolkien wanted to tell, and so their psychological depth emerges as part of the story-telling process.

Of course, while a character's struggle continues, and we continue to be "shown" or "told" about it, that character will retain psychological depth. In that sense, the example of the alcholic and the reformed alcoholic was perhaps not the best illustration of my point (although, in my defence, I was trying to be flippant [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] ).

I agree with you on Frodo. He clearly is undergoing an intense personal struggle against temptation throughout most of the book, and this does become more psychologically intense as the book progresses. I still think that it is strange, however, that, despite the fact that he is the central character, we never really get inside his head in the same way that we did with Bilbo. And we never really witness his own personal struggle with the Ring in the same way that we do with Sam (and even, to a degree, Galadriel). So, although Frodo's psychological struggle is interesting, it could, I think, have been portrayed with greater depth. Perhaps Tolkien wanted to leave the details of what was going on in Frodo's head to our imaginations. Any thoughts?

[ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 11:32 AM   #89
Theron Bugtussle
Wight
 
Theron Bugtussle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Blowing the froth off a couple in this quaint little pub in Michel Delving.
Posts: 147
Theron Bugtussle has just left Hobbiton.
Boots

Lush,
First, my comments about "psychological depth" were to The Saucepan Man, and I quoted him. Your response was a little extreme (heroin needles, dirty, debased, acid flash-backs, and the like). But I took no offense [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .

I was trying to say that I disagreed with Saucepan Man that only those characters who are most tempted or most indecisive have this depth. And I think that other contributors to this thread have made very salient points that analysis may reveal the depth that is there but is implied in Tolkien's treatment of characters like Aragorn and Faramir, who appear less tempted or indecisive.

Quote:
In case you saw my early musings on Aragorn and his sword: My references to Freud were mostly meant as a joke (and, btw, Freudian ideas are no longer in the forefront of psychology: good Sigmund has got others carrying the torch for him these days...hopefully with more success ). But I am curious to know what you mean by the word "modern" in the context of your last sentence.
I missed those musings, perhaps they were not in this thread. I am new to the forum, and it is a major undertaking to read--with some attempt at understanding [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] --even the few threads that I have. So I wasn't commenting on them.

It was another way of saying that I personally don't particularly need or enjoy an author's intimate examination of a character's psychological states and struggles to find depth. Maybe in LotR I am finding depth of character, not depth of psychology.

Anyway, my use of "modern" is not a technical term, but a way of saying modern writing styles that focus on the psychological treatment of the characters. So mentioning Freud was extraneous, perhaps just a slip. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
__________________
For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying. -Gandalf, The Two Towers
Theron Bugtussle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 11:53 AM   #90
Theron Bugtussle
Wight
 
Theron Bugtussle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Blowing the froth off a couple in this quaint little pub in Michel Delving.
Posts: 147
Theron Bugtussle has just left Hobbiton.
Sting

Quote:
Lush:I'm not out to demonize the Victorians or anything (lest I want the future generations to demonize me), but my original point was that they were not any better or worse than we are today; my discontent lies with the glorification of the good ol' days that simply never existed in human society (note I am placing a limit on my theory).
In my worldview (in the Christian vein), you are correct that men have the same fallen nature throughout history. I disagree, however, that the outworking of cultural and religious influences have not made "days" (or eras) that could be labeled as worse or better than today. Hence, my rebuttal of your Victorian hypocrisy reply.

Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture. But authors fantasize. Else, 150 years from now, people might think our era was full of vampires and aliens, and our mythology ran toward people being batteries for a machine-world.

Likewise, human nature has been, and remains, a curious mixture of good and evil. We can easily label the 1930's and 40's as "dark days," because so many people gave in to the evils of fascism and totalitarianism. If not for the influence of Churchill, we might still be in those dark days--or worse. Yet, the evil influences of the era were not uniform, for the British people did stand, even alone, until the US woke to the crisis and joined the fray.

I think cultural and religious influences on the English speaking people (Britain and America) caused them to act completely differently than their counterparts on the European continent during that time. Though all possessed the same sinful nature.
__________________
For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying. -Gandalf, The Two Towers
Theron Bugtussle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 12:51 PM   #91
Child of the 7th Age
Spirit of the Lonely Star
 
Child of the 7th Age's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,135
Child of the 7th Age is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Sting

Quote:
So, although Frodo's psychological struggle is interesting, it could, I think, have been portrayed with greater depth. Perhaps Tolkien wanted to leave the details of what was going on in Frodo's head to our imaginations. Any thoughts?
Regarding Frodo... I have thought about this for some time, long before this thread went up. Tolkien's treatment of Sam and Frodo are so different in this regard that I do not think it could have been unintentional.

With Sam, we know exactly what he was thinking when he decided to leave his master and put on the ring. We even have glimpses into his dreams where he remembers swimming in the Shire and thinks wistfully of Rose. With Frodo, it is very different. A certain amount is revealed to us, but so much more is purposely hidden. We know little of Frodo's dreams other than those which point towards his future doom in sailing to the West. Just look at the masterful passage at the Council of Elrond where Frodo elected to take up the Ring. Something of Frodo's thoughts are revealed, but much more is purposely couched in mystery.

Quote:
No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but they were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.

"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
If we study this passage closely, I think it gives us a hint as to why Tolkien did not let us see much inside Frodo's head. This is particularly true if we read this section in the light of a letter that Tolkien wrote to his son Christopher in 1944 while he was in the midst of writing:

Quote:
Cert. Sam is the most closely drawn characer, the successor to Bilbo of the first book, the genuine hobbit. Frodo is not so interesting, because he has to be highminded, and has (as it were) a vocation. The book will prob. end up with Sam. Frodo will naturally become too ennobled and rarified by the achievement of the great Quest, and will pass West with all the great figures, but S. will settled down to the Shire and gardens and Inns.
Tolkien's approach to the two characters was different then. As a mortal man, Tolkien could understand gardens and Inns and get into the head of a character whose basic orientation is in the Shire. But Frodo is in a different situation altogether. He has become a part of high and serious matters. And Tolkien is a humble enough writer to acknowlege that some things were truly beyond his knowing.

Just look at the words Tolkien uses to describe what Frodo is thinking at the Council of Elrond. It is as if Frodo has one foot in the Shire and the other in lands and mysteries that go back to ancient times. Words like "doom" and "dread" are not ones easily applied to hobbits, or even to your average man. I can not imagine such terms referring to Sam or Merry or Pippin. Phrase such as these as well as the reference to a mysterious voice speaking through the hobbit suggest that Frodo has slipped over the edge of what is normal and commonplace, becoming part of the older tales as represented in the Silm.

Just what was that voice speaking through Frodo? Perhaps Manwe, or Eru, or simply the voice of doom...? I'm not sure that Tolkien even knew for sure, any more than he knew whether Frodo would find healing in the Blessed Lands. Frodo's character is steeped in mystery for precisely that reason. How could Tolkien have known what went on inside Frodo since the hobbit was fighting the ultimate evil. Such things are not for mortals to know so we can only catch brief glimpses of what is going on.

As Tolkien indicated in another of his letters, Frodo was presented with a situation that was beyond the ken of any mortal (and even beyond that of a maia like Gandalf!). There was no way that he could succeed. It is precisely in situations like these that the author discreetly draws down the silver veil of mist so that we are left with wonder and mystery. For the same reason, we come to the end of the tale and are granted only a tiny glimpse of the white shores and far green country of the West. No explanation or psychological reason is possible or even desirable in such situations. The everyday has been swept away with something much grander and more mysterious coming to take its place.

Most modern literature assumes that, if we could only get inside a character's head, we would understand their actions, why they act in a certain way. With Tolkien, it is different. Psychology and internal characterization take second place to preserving a sense of wonder and awe. Most moderns believe that psychology can be used to ferret out the truth. Tolkien was not blind to such things, but for him it was a side issue. The truth at the core of the universe lay in myth -- both the real and the subcreated. So when Frodo becomes caught up in an ancient myth, it is more important for us to sense that wonder, his place in the mythological framework, rather than to have all his individual actions and thoughts explained.

I think it's precisely for this reason than many readers have difficulty with the character of Frodo. They are used to characterization and internal struggles being spelled out in modern stories. These are the same folk who complain that Frodo didn't pull his weight, relied too heavily on Sam, or was a "failure" because of what happened on the slopes of Mount Doom. They simply fail to see a struggle that is depicted in mythological rather than psychological terms.

There is a second reason that may come into play here. At least in theory, Frodo is the one setting the tale down on paper after he returns from the Quest. We all know there are many problems with this framing device. Many folk would have had to confide to Frodo numerous details about what happened to them during the course of the War, and even Sam would have had to reveal his private musings, since Frodo could not have read his mind.

Still, we can not totally disregard the author's contention that the tale was set down on paper by Frodo in the Red Book. The lack of internal characterization would be a logical extension of this, since Frodo would not have been privy to others' private thoughts unless they had cared to reveal them. Even more critically, would a naturally reticent hobbit who was still engaged in an overwhelming spiritual and emotional struggle reveal everything that had gone on inside his head during the Quest? Obviously not. So this is a second reason that helps to explain why we are not privy to Frodo's personal reflections.

Either way we consider the issue, it is clear that much went on inside Frodo that is intentionally hidden from us.

[ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote.
Child of the 7th Age is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 02:17 PM   #92
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,803
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Sting

Quote:
Your response was a little extreme (heroin needles, dirty, debased, acid flash-backs, and the like). But I took no offense.
As you very well shouldn't, because my intent was, naturally, not to offend. Not that heroin needles are in themselves that gruesome (rather the purposes behind them). The things I've described above are common, and even tame, comparitively speaking (for better or for worse, naturally). And no, I wouldn't those sorts of themes to be part of the LOTR. That would be freakish, to say the least.

Quote:
It was another way of saying that I personally don't particularly need or enjoy an author's intimate examination of a character's psychological states and struggles to find depth. Maybe in LotR I am finding depth of character, not depth of psychology.
Yeah. So as I predicted, this discussion is, at least in part, being re-focused on matters of taste. Which are useless to argue about. It's like asking someone why they like the colour blue and not pink, you know? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Quote:
Anyway, my use of "modern" is not a technical term, but a way of saying modern writing styles that focus on the psychological treatment of the characters. So mentioning Freud was extraneous, perhaps just a slip.
Ah, I see your point. I would argue that psychological treatment of characters is not necessarily a modern development (I mean, I think Sophocles was doing it back in the day...But I'll shut up about Sophocles before we bring Sigmund back for another round [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). But Tolkien was dancing to a whole other tune when he was writing the LOTR, and his interests, I believe, were in a different place. And it worked out nicely in the end, as we all know.

Quote:
Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture. But authors fantasize.
My opinion of Victorian hypocrisy stems from both historical and literary texts. Though I would add that every age is hypocritical in its own right, and dwelling on the short-comings of those who came before us is not in my taste anyway.

Quote:
Yet, the evil influences of the era were not uniform, for the British people did stand, even alone, until the US woke to the crisis and joined the fray.
Totally off-topic here (my apologies to everyone involved), but unless I am mistaken, WWII was fought on two fronts: the western and the eastern front. And the US and Britain were not the only ones fighting against Nazi Germany at the time.

Well, that's it from me. Thank you, Saucy, for reminding me again of Denethor. Now that dude was complex.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 02:48 PM   #93
Bêthberry
Cryptic Aura
 
Bêthberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,159
Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.
Boots

Might one member of the formerly British empire speak here, slightly off topic? I am very uncomfortable with some of what is suggested in this post.

Quote:
Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture. But authors fantasize. Else, 150 years from now, people might think our era was full of vampires and aliens, and our mythology ran toward people being batteries for a machine-world.

Likewise, human nature has been, and remains, a curious mixture of good and evil. We can easily label the 1930's and 40's as "dark days," because so many people gave in to the evils of fascism and totalitarianism. If not for the influence of Churchill, we might still be in those dark days--or worse. Yet, the evil influences of the era were not uniform, for the British people did stand, even alone, until the US woke to the crisis and joined the fray.

I think cultural and religious influences on the English speaking people (Britain and America) caused them to act completely differently than their counterparts on the European continent during that time. Though all possessed the same sinful nature.
Theron Bugtussle, with respect, I beg to differ. England did not stand alone. Not in World War I nor in World War II. Canada entered both wars from their beginning. In fact, it was a Canadian offensive which began the final 'Hundred Days' battle which led up to the Armistice on November 11, 1918. Were it not for the conveys across the Atlantic and Canadian support, England might well not have withstood until the US finally entered the fray.

And as for your suggestion that it was England and America which upheld the effort against fascism and totalitarianism, you might want to examine a little closer just how much support existed in the US for the fascist position. *coughs* The patriarch of the Kennedy clan being only one prominent name. You might also look at the role of resistance fighters throughout Europe before you claim religious superiority for John Bull and his successors.

There were, indeed, positive actions taken by people during the nineteenth century to work for the betterment of mankind. Yes, churches were in the forefront of the campaign to ban slavery throughout the British empire, which occured decades before the American Civil War. However, that did not stop British ships and captains from plying the slave trade even after the formal ban in the Empire. The history of English as well as European expansion into Africa is not one of the Western world's finest hours.

Nor, indeed, can the issue be referred only to literature. One need only look at several social issues to see that religion did not always in the Victorian Age mean moral superiority. The plight of chimney sweeps (poor working class children who were often left to die if they became trapped in the chimneys), the destitution of poor women, the effect of the enclosure laws, the Luddite Rebellion, the divorce laws, the creation of "asylums" for the insane (with their guided tours for the leisured classes)--one could name many areas where social reality left much to be desired.

For every example of human depravity in this age, someone can point to horrors of the past. Witch hunts, burnings at the stake, torture--all are complex issues with many different causes. I don't think any one country or any one religious sect can claim superiority. Historical issues are always, I think, very complex, more complex than general statements can perhaps allow and more complex than the scope of this topic allows. And, I would humbly suggest, this very issue of whether our age is a worse age than those which have preceeded us is itself determined largely by perspective and opinion.

But for my part I would humbly suggest that we consider the role of genre in any discussion of character. Is Lord of the Rings a novel? Or is it an heroic romance? Do the characters partake more of archetypes from mythology than of characters from the realm of realistic fiction? Should we expect realism (that is, depth or complexity) in their depiction?


Edit: My apologies, Saucy, for replying at length to a point very much tangential to your excellent thread. I must also say that I had not seen Lush's reply before posting my own.

[ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.
Bêthberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 05:54 PM   #94
Theron Bugtussle
Wight
 
Theron Bugtussle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Blowing the froth off a couple in this quaint little pub in Michel Delving.
Posts: 147
Theron Bugtussle has just left Hobbiton.
Sting

Quote:
Bêthberry: I am very uncomfortable with some of what is suggested in this post.
1. I was not speaking of WWI era, since my comments were specific to the '30's and '40's.

2. The comment about Britain standing "even alone" was an allusion to Churchill's speech of June 4, 1940 to the House of Commons:

Quote:
...we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. ...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
3. My point is/was precisely that different people, both entire countries and different segments of people within a single country, reacted differently to the same dark time. I don't see that the point is invalidated. I am not downplaying Canada or another country's role if I note that France and other countries capitulated. Or that the German and Austrian people accepted Nazism with more or less open arms.

That there were large contingents within both US and Britain that wanted to stay out of the war is clear, I didn't say otherwise. Britain elected Chamberlain as PM and got "Peace in Their Time." (That is intended as a light-hearted reminder.) But thank God for Churchill! America needed to be convinced it was indeed "their" war, too, and eventually came around.

Quote:
...before you claim religious superiority...
4. I don't know what attitude of "religious superiority" you refer to. But the WWII Allied forces "liberated" countries, then went home, except for defensive assistance to NATO. The Soviet Army "conquered" and swallowed countries into their system. That would be a clear difference in results produced by the outworking of the cultural and religious influences from these two 'sides.' Even though, as I said before,
Quote:
...all possessed the same sinful nature.
5. I hope the moderators will forgive this side foray. I would like to get my reply back on topic.

Remember, I was originally trying to counter Eurytus countering Mark's argument from the first page in the thread. I do believe that my examples show that certain people or societies or even eras can and do have differing values, concepts they honor and pursue, though they may struggle, or even fail, in the attempt to achieve those aims.
__________________
For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying. -Gandalf, The Two Towers
Theron Bugtussle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 06:10 PM   #95
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Pipe

Quote:
So as I predicted, this discussion is, at least in part, being re-focused on matters of taste. Which are useless to argue about.
Not just useless, Lush, but sometimes liable to provoke strong reactions. I thoroughly agree that we should steer clear from expressing our personal opinions on the relative merits of different writing styles.

What I am interested in doing here is exploring Tolkien's style of characterisation, and in particular the presence or absence of psychological depth within his characters. How does Tolkien use psychological depth to bring his characters to life and/or drive the story? Why are some (principal) characters imbued with psychological depth and not others? And why are we given access to the direct thoughts, feelings and internal struggles of some, but not others?

Child's post is an excellent example of just the kind of thing that I am looking for, and a highly enlightening response to the question that I posed concerning the difference in the (psychological) characterisations of Frodo and Sam. I think that you are right, Child, to mention Merry and Pippin in this regard too. Although we don't quite get into their heads to the same extent as we do with Sam, there are nevertheless instances where we get glimpses of their own internal approach to the events that they are witnessing. I have in mind here, in particular, their feelings of being on the edge of events (in Rohan and Gondor), which makes the central roles that they ultimately come to play in those events all the more striking. Like Sam, they are characters with whom the reader will find it much easlier to identify, much moreso than than Frodo, with his higher purpose.

This leads me to womder whether there is a link with mark 12_30's point about noble and worthy characters being much more appealing to the reader when they are characterised by reference to their external actions, rather than their internal thoughts. Perhaps, as you say Child, Tolkien was more inclined to give us glimpses of the minds of the likes of Sam, Merry and Pippin because their worldly attitude is so much easier for us to identify with than Frodo's other-worldly calling.

Bêthberry said:

Quote:
But for my part I would humbly suggest that we consider the role of genre in any discussion of character. Is Lord of the Rings a novel? Or is it an heroic romance? Do the characters partake more of archetypes from mythology than of characters from the realm of realistic fiction? Should we expect realism (that is, depth or complexity) in their depiction?
These too are, I think, eminently suitable themes to explore in this thread. Certainly much more so than a discussion of relative moral values in societies throughout history or the differing national efforts in the struggle against fascism in the 1930s and 1940s. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Although your post was excellently expressed, Bêthberry, and suffice it to say that I agree with it in its entirety. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Personally, I would describe LotR as a novel, but one which borrows heavily from the archetypes of mythology. And this, I think, is why many of Tolkien's characters are not drawn with great psychological depth. Heroic archetypes don't think, they do. We have our grounding in the Hobbits (with the exception of Frodo as the story develops, as Child has pointed out), as those are the characters that are (to my mind at least) the easiest for us to identify with. Personally, while I can admire the values displayed by the likes of Aragorn and Faramir, I find it far easier to identify with the likes of Sam, Merry and Pippin. Of the other characters, it is the Men who succumb to temptation or despair (Boromir, Eowyn and Denethor) who I think are easier to understand (whether personally or by reference to the society that we live in). And, funnily enough, they also seem to be characters who (to my mind) are drawn with greater psychological depth.

Edit: Or is it a chicken and egg situation? Do I see greater psychological depth in the likes of Sam and Boromir because I find them easier to identify with, or do I find it easer to identify with them because they have greater pscyhological depth? [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Edit 2: I'm fine with you having your right of reply, Theron, but from now on let's all stay on topic please. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 06:28 PM   #96
Estelyn Telcontar
Princess of Skwerlz
 
Estelyn Telcontar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,645
Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!
Silmaril

Quote:
from now on let's all stay on topic please
Yes, more Tolkien and less politics please...
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...'
Estelyn Telcontar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 11:12 PM   #97
mark12_30
Stormdancer of Doom
 
mark12_30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Elvish singing is not a thing to miss, in June under the stars
Posts: 4,407
mark12_30 has been trapped in the Barrow!
Send a message via AIM to mark12_30 Send a message via Yahoo to mark12_30
Sting

Please pardon me while I wildly applaud Child's brilliant post... and add a brief postscript: If Frodo is comparable to a saint, one who transcends (whether by opportunity or sheer neccessity) then surely his writings would also be comparable; and I think they are.

Peruse an autobiography or a diary of the average saint, and they will claim that they are a great sinner, even while those around them vouch for their great holiness, piety, humility, and continuity of action with belief.

And (I find it fascinating) that the few times we really do "get inside Frodo", if only for a moment, are those moments when he encounteres Elven spirituality, or Goldberry's spirituality, often via song. By GOldberry's song, he feels "his heart moved with a joy that he did not understand". Arwen's glance and song "pierced his heart. He stood still enchanted..." And Galadriel's lament "did not comfort him. Yet... they remained graven in his memory..." And then of course there are the dreams. What we do see clearly in Frodo are his various supernatural experiences that prepare him for his quest.

And then we see his struggles, when the darkness looms.

I think this is similar to many writings of Catholic saints which tend to emphasize the contrast between experiences that deepened their faith, versus their struggles and weaknesses.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve.
mark12_30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 04:24 AM   #98
Eurytus
Wight
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: England
Posts: 179
Eurytus has just left Hobbiton.
Sting

Quote:
Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture.
I would like to go off topic one more time if I may, given that the above quote was originally in answer to one of my posts.
I fully stand by my charge of hypocrisy towards the Victorian era and moreover address it to those who portray said era as a shining example to follow.

As Bethberry has already mentioned things were bad enough in the Victorian era if you were a resident of Britain. If you were poor or a Catholic then you could expect the harshest of treatment. Let us not forget that whilst Jack the Ripper was slaughtering prostitutes many of the upper classes did not express concern at their plight. No, in their eyes they had earned the “wages of sin”.

But things were even worse in the countries which the Victorians sought to “civilise” usually by slaughtering the population with high powered rifles. A look an the history of Indian or the African continent as a whole shows how honourable the Victorians were.

It is a sad fact that whenever a country becomes governed rigidly according to morals influenced by religion then tolerance and compassion go out the window.
In the Victorian’s case then I guess it is to be expected since they read a book that proclaimed that a woman who was raped in a city should be stoned to death as she could not have screamed loudly enough.

See Leviticus for details.

(If this post is too far off topic then I guess it can be deleted but since this thread has already run a pretty broad range of topics then I hope it can stay)

I would say that it could be that the absence of any strict religion in LOTR is one of the reasons it has attained such widespread popularity.
__________________
"This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!"

Lionel Hutz
Eurytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 07:47 AM   #99
Estelyn Telcontar
Princess of Skwerlz
 
Estelyn Telcontar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,645
Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!Estelyn Telcontar has reached the Cracks of Doom and destroyed the Ring!
Silmaril

Quote:
I would say that it could be that the absence of any strict religion in LOTR is one of the reasons it has attained such widespread popularity.
*sigh* For the same reason, this discussion forum survives - because it sticks as closely as possible to Tolkien and stays away from religion, politics and sexual themes unless they're on-topic.

Recent posts on this thread have really gone as far off-topic as I'm going to let it get. This is the last one I'm allowing; I expect all future posts to explore other topics only as related to the theme of this thread.

A reminder to all - the Barrow-Downs was created by the Barrow-Wight as a forum for Tolkien discussions and it is his expressed intention to keep it that way. All other topics must be related to that major theme in order to be discussed here. The Saucepan Man has repeatedly attempted to get the discussion on this thread back to his initial topic; please honour his valiant attempt! Thanks!
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...'
Estelyn Telcontar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 08:13 AM   #100
Bêthberry
Cryptic Aura
 
Bêthberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,159
Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.
Boots

Quote:
I would say that it could be that the absence of any strict religion in LOTR is one of the reasons it has attained such widespread popularity.
Eurytus, I'm sure this would make an interesting discussion on another thread, in terms of how a piece of creative writing attracts its audience, but I'm not sure what it has to do here with the topic of character development.

Saucepan, thanks for the nod about the question of genre. I think the presence of mythological archetypes brings another quality into the discussion of character besides depth and complexity, one which Child's excellent post and those of others talk about implicitly. This is change or the lack of it, stasis.

Most of the discussion here seems to concern male characters, although there was some initial consideration of Galadriel. I think that reading the female characters as archetypes helps us understand why only one of them in Lord of the Rings shows the kind of change like that we see in Frodo or Sam. I am speaking here of course of Eowyn. She is the only female character who is given the kind of conflict which leads to change externally.

The other female characters--Goldberry, Arwen, even (I am fearful saying this) Galadriel--function less in action and more as the traditional muse or inspiration. It is interesting that when Frodo has his intense reactions to both Goldberry and Arwen, we are not given any of their thoughts or dialogue except as they pertain to Frodo. (Goldberry replies, calling Frodo "elf-friend" while his vision of "her whom few mortals had yet seen" does not involve any interaction between them.)

Rather than saying Tolkien did not give his female characters depth or complexity, I wonder if a better way to read their static characterization is to see them as archetypal figures rather than novelistic characters.


EDIT: Sorry, Estelyn, we were cross posting and so I did not see your post until after I made mine.

[ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.
Bêthberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 10:31 AM   #101
mark12_30
Stormdancer of Doom
 
mark12_30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Elvish singing is not a thing to miss, in June under the stars
Posts: 4,407
mark12_30 has been trapped in the Barrow!
Send a message via AIM to mark12_30 Send a message via Yahoo to mark12_30
Sting

Bethberry, I'm intrigued, particularly about the seemingly limited interaction you mention between Frodo and the archetypal women. Could you expand on what you were driving at below? Thanks!
Quote:
It is interesting that when Frodo has his intense reactions to both Goldberry and Arwen, we are not given any of their thoughts or dialogue except as they pertain to Frodo. (Goldberry replies, calling Frodo "elf-friend" while his vision of "her whom few mortals had yet seen" does not involve any interaction between them.)

Rather than saying Tolkien did not give his female characters depth or complexity, I wonder if a better way to read their static characterization is to see them as archetypal figures rather than novelistic characters.

Edit: Bethberry on rereading your post you say:
Quote:
I am speaking here of course of Eowyn. She is the only female character who is given the kind of conflict which leads to change externally.
Interesting; don't you view Galadriel as changed by Frodo's achievements and his offer of the ring, nor had any inner conflict which changed her? Galadriel seems static because she is strong, but I think that's deceiving.

I guess I can ask the same question about Arwen; granted her greatest inner conflict doesn't come til after the quest is over and she's at Aragorn's deathbed.

I would agree Goldberry does seem untouched by change, as does Tom for that matter.

Anyway, please do expound on your theory of Frodo's relationships to archetypal women. Thanks!

[ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve.
mark12_30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 10:55 AM   #102
Mister Underhill
Dread Horseman
 
Mister Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,752
Mister Underhill has been trapped in the Barrow!
Sting

I’ve been trying to take in this idea that most of Tolkien’s characters lack psychological depth and see if it really holds water, but after much contemplation it simply doesn’t ring true for me.

If we buy Pullman’s dismissive assertion that only Gollum has psychological depth, 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.

So if we’re trying to steer away from matters of taste and attempting to focus on a more objective analysis, 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.
Mister Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 12:14 PM   #103
mark12_30
Stormdancer of Doom
 
mark12_30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Elvish singing is not a thing to miss, in June under the stars
Posts: 4,407
mark12_30 has been trapped in the Barrow!
Send a message via AIM to mark12_30 Send a message via Yahoo to mark12_30
Sting

Mr. Underhill, I quite heartily agree. And yet it is the intersection of Child's post (regarding Frodo's supernatural depth as well as his character-depth, which are difficult if not impossible to separate anyway) and how that related with his deeper spiritual encounters: primary examples of which were encounters with Goldberry, Arwen, Galadriel. I am certainly not suggesting that Arwen and Galadriel are psychologically shallow (and I haven't given Goldberry much thought, but I doubt she is either). Yet, as archetypal figures they do have a very strong effect on Frodo's spirituality. So I am wondering if considering them as archetypes (in addition to strong characters) brings another light into our consideration of Frodo's character.

I think (at least in Galadriel and Arwen) Frodo participates in encounters with archetypal figures-- who nevertheless carry deep emotional conflicts of their own.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve.
mark12_30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 01:52 PM   #104
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,803
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Sting

Underhillo and Helen:

It does seem peculiar that a work that had the power to move millions of people should be populated by characters that lack, according to great minds like Pullman, "psychological depth."

Why is it that some years ago, late at night with a single light burning, even a person like me had tears in her eyes as in my mind I was screaming at Sam to go on and choose wisely at the end of "The Two Towers"?

How is it possible for a reader to care so much about what happens in the LOTR, if some sort of psychological depth is missing?

Looking back on that night, I realize now that Tolkien's writing has the ability to put the reader inside the character; as I read "The Choices of Master Samwise," I was inhabiting Sam, I wasn't just rooting for him, I was also screaming at myself to go on.

Based on my late self-discovery in this matter, I would argue that the clarity with which Tolkien imagined his characters makes them psychologically inclusive.

Is what I'm describing another brand of depth?

Am I the only weirdo to have felt like this in this most interesting context?

Is Pullman still right? (I think he is, but, like Saucy pointed out, this could largely be one huge matter of taste)

Thoughts? Ideas? Complaints? Rotten vegetables to be tossed at my head?
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 02:45 PM   #105
Lyta_Underhill
Haunted Halfling
 
Lyta_Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: an uncounted length of steps--floating between air molecules
Posts: 844
Lyta_Underhill has just left Hobbiton.
Sting

Quote:
Based on my late self-discovery in this matter, I would argue that the clarity with which Tolkien imagined his characters makes them psychologically inclusive.

Is what I'm describing another brand of depth?

Am I the only weirdo to have felt like this in this most interesting context?
Not at all, Lush! Somewhere back a bit in this very thread, on the first page, I recount an instance of my own becoming and thinking as Frodo for a moment as he is watching the host of Minas Morgul marching West. Perhaps this is another brand of depth and does not require exposition but triggers that open up the reader's psyche to "fall into Middle Earth" completely. I remember somewhere on a Bombadil thread, there was a link to an article that posited that Tolkien speaks directly to the reader when Bombadil is addressing the hobbits, as if the reader is Bombadil on some level, and the story steps out of its fictional context to become an internal reality, rather than an analysis of it. Wish I could remember more about it! Great point though! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Lyta
__________________
“…she laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth; and there is her green grave, until the world is changed, and all the days of her life are utterly forgotten by men that come after, and elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the Sea.”
Lyta_Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2003, 09:24 AM   #106
Bêthberry
Cryptic Aura
 
Bêthberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,159
Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.
Boots

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.

Quote:
. . . 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 ]
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.
Bêthberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2003, 11:46 AM   #107
Finwe
Deathless Sun
 
Finwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Royal Suite in the Halls of Mandos
Posts: 2,609
Finwe has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to Finwe
Sting

I also think that there is something about the Trilogy that helps readers live with their grief. Yesterday night, I learned that my favorite cousin (who I loved as a brother) died in London. Let's just say that saying that I was devastated is an understatement. To help distract myself, and to keep myself from dwelling on that parting, I started reading LotR and then I realized that grieving over his death wouldn't accomplish anything except making me feel worse. Reading about the death of Theodred, the supposed death of Gandalf, the death of Boromir, etc. helped me take it in stride, and I think that is the true beauty of the trilogy and all the characters. The way that the Fellowship trudged on after Gandalf's death helped me, trudge on after my cousin's death.
__________________
But Melkor also was there, and he came to the house of Fëanor, and there he slew Finwë King of the Noldor before his doors, and spilled the first blood in the Blessed Realm; for Finwë alone had not fled from the horror of the Dark.
Finwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2003, 02:51 PM   #108
Orofaniel
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
 
Orofaniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lands of the North, where no man can reach....
Posts: 827
Orofaniel has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to Orofaniel
The Eye

Finwe- I'm really sorry about your loss, you have my sympathies...

~*~

Quote:
How is it possible for a reader to care so much about what happens in the LOTR, if some sort of psychological depth is missing?
Yes, I quite agree. There has to bee something about the story and the characters that make people love it. And not only that, but also feel that they have something in common with the characters. My point is, that if there were no thought behind the characters in LotR or other Tolkien' characters, I don't think that it would have come as far as movie making, action figure making, web site making etc. Books are often a hiding place for people, I think. At least it is for me sometimes. And when you've finished a book, you feel that you know the characters, it's almost as they are your friends. So if they had no psychological depth, I doubt that how can you then feel that. I think that every good book have characters with deep psychological. Because the book wouldn't be a "good book" without it, because we wouldn't be able to feel that we have something in common with the characters. But I think we must remember that a “good” book is different from person to person. Not everyone like LotR, maybe that’s because they don’t feel that they have anything in common with the characters? And if so, they think they have no psychological depth.

I think that Tolkien's character have a lot of psychological depth. The thing is that you have to read between the lines as one the previous posters on this thread said. I totally agree. I think that if you want to understand Tolkien's characters, and what history lies behind them, then you have to read between the lines. I have to admit that there are many of Tolkien's characters that are "unclear" to me, but I also think that maybe it is supposed to be like that. Maybe I feel that the character doesn't have that much psychological depth because I don't feel "one" with him/her. I doubt that everyone feel that they have something in common with ex. Frodo. Why is that? I think it's because each person as the characters have their own psychological depth.

And since there are so many characters I think it's even harder to sort out what really is behind.
Bêthberry wrote:
quote:

Quote:
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.
I totally agree with you. I think that how the tale is told is a very important factor when it comes to how "deep" the character is.

Quote:
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.
I would also like to say that I think the psychological depth has much to do with mystery. The psychological depth makes us curious I think. We are wondering what really is behind the character's actions/comments etc. Maybe each action has its own psychological depth, and that it doens't necessarily tell us all about the character's psychological depth. But of course, how the character acts tell us what the character thinks in that moment (I think so at least), but it doesn't mean he/she thinks that all the time.
Tom Bombadill is one of those characters. Is he an enigma? Is he a Maia? There are certain things that he does that would remind us of what he really is, but the thing is..:
Quote:
'Even in a mythical age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).' (JRR Tolkien, Letter #144)
So, Tolkien kind of leaves with nothing. But at the same time, he leaves us with the answer. We know that Tolkien made him a mystery for the readers intentionally. But what does this mean? That he has no psychological depth? I think it's the opposite. I think that there is a thin line between psychological depth and mysteries. Both of them make us curious. But then again, I said that psychological depth is "important" for us readers so that we can compare ourselves with the characters. So, if mystery is only a thin line away from psychological depth, does that mean that we can compare us selves with the mystery in the characters? The unknown things? But maybe there is a difference between psychological depth and mysteries. Psychological depth in a character, can be a mystery to us, which makes us curious what's behind it. So the psychological depth becomes a mystery within certain characters? Yeah, I think so. But I think that you can compare your self with characters that have "an open" psychological depth, but not characters that remain as mysteries.

So, maybe when Pullman said that he thought that Tolkien's characters didn't have any psychological depth, he didn't have anything in common with the characters, or (worse) he didn't read between the lines...... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

I've probably repeated myself many times in this post, I just hope that someone understood my point..... [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[ November 23, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_<
.....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^
Orofaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2003, 03:52 PM   #109
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,803
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Sting

I still think Pullman has a valid point; the sort of characterization that Tolkien employs relies heavily on the setting and the outside actions of the character to draw the reader in.

It is the reader's response to Sam, for example, that ultimately makes Sam come to life, I think.

Which is pretty cool, but does not negate Pullman's point completely.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2003, 07:31 PM   #110
Finwe
Deathless Sun
 
Finwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Royal Suite in the Halls of Mandos
Posts: 2,609
Finwe has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to Finwe
Sting

I think that Pullman had the right idea, but he was just a bit too close-minded about his idea. He didn't take into consideration that the setting/plot of Lord of the Rings made up for the "psychological deficiency" in the characters.
__________________
But Melkor also was there, and he came to the house of Fëanor, and there he slew Finwë King of the Noldor before his doors, and spilled the first blood in the Blessed Realm; for Finwë alone had not fled from the horror of the Dark.
Finwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2003, 08:26 PM   #111
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Silmaril

Quote:
I am speaking here of course of Eowyn. She is the only female character who is given the kind of conflict which leads to change externally.
Yes, Bêthberry, I would certainly agree that Eowyn has psychological depth, although we are not given direct access to her thoughts. We get to learn of her hopes and fears, and come to understand the motives behind her actions, from her interaction with other characters, most notably Aragorn, Faramir and (although less so) Theoden and Merry. We learn of her frustration at being trapped within the role to which she, as a woman, has been relegated. We see her attraction to Aragorn and her bitter disappointment at his refusal of her affections. And we can understand how these feelings, combined with the general hopelessness of the situation of her people (and the other free peoples), gives rise to the despair which leads her to ride to the Pellenor. In fact, the depiction of Eowyn's psychological make-up is quite startling in its depth now that I think about it. And yet it is largely driven by the needs of the story. It is precisely because she has been driven to a state of utter despair, akin to a "death-wish" in its intensity, that she is able to confront the Witch-King. It also provides a satisfacory resolution to her story, since we can see that, while Aragorn heals her physically, it is Faramir who is able to heal the psychological hurt that she has undergone.

As for the other principal female characters, I agree that they are more archetypal in their portrayal. They are not, to mind, depicted with any great psychological depth.

Quote:
don't you view Galadriel as changed by Frodo's achievements and his offer of the ring, nor had any inner conflict which changed her? Galadriel seems static because she is strong, but I think that's deceiving.
Yes, Galadriel does undergo her own personal conflict when confronted by the Ring, but I do not feel that this tells us a great deal about her inner thoughts and feelings. Rather, it tells us more about the nature of the Ring. Yes, she is tempted by the power it offers and is able to resist that temptation. But there is not much indication of why she might have been tempted in the first place. Unfinished Tales fills in a good deal here, and gives us a much greater understanding of her internal character. But I am talking about her characterisation in LotR, which is principally as an archetypal priestess figure, offering healing, wisdom, guidance and assistance to the Fellowship (and to Frodo in particular).

Quote:
If we buy Pullman’s dismissive assertion that only Gollum has psychological depth, 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 I am not saying that characters have to be drawn with great psychological depth in order to be interesting or believable, Mister U. If that were the case, then there are a great many books that would not have the enduring appeal which they (like LotR) clearly have.

I detect a slight confusion on this thread between "psychological depth" and "depth of characterisation". Psychological depth is, as I have said previously, only one aspect of characterisation. There are many other methods of characterisation which can make a character believable, interesting and appealing (or unappealing as the case may be) to the reader. So, I don't feel that a lack of psychological depth in certain of Tolkien's characters necessarily represents any failing on his part or any flaw in his works. Nor does it make them any less inspirational in the good qualities that they show. It is simply that he did not, in my view, feel any great need to give his characters psychological depth, save where the needs of the story required it. Many of his characterisations are rich, but not necessarily so on a psychological level. As Lush said:

Quote:
the sort of characterization that Tolkien employs relies heavily on the setting and the outside actions of the character to draw the reader in.
Mister Underhill, I think that you misunderstand the point that I am trying to make when you say:

Quote:
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
I am most certainly not saying that nobility, heroism, faithfulness or any other of the many great qualities displayed by Tolkien's characters are less interesting or profound than the internal conflict or moral ambiguity displayed by others. I am simply saying that these qualities in themselves do not give the characters any great psychological depth. It is only when we see such qualities challenged by, or at odds with, the circumstances in which the characters find themselves and are given some idea of how they deal with the situation internally that we gain any real understanding of their psyche. To my mind, this never really happens to any great extent with Aragorn. On the other hand, we do see it happen in Sam and Faramir and, to a lesser degree, in Merry and Pippin. And, since I don't think that anyone would accuse these characters of moral ambiguity, this is certainly not an essential element of psychological depth.

Quote:
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.
Quite right, Bêthberry. This illustrates precisely what I am trying to say. A character does not need psychological depth in order to have rich characterisation. Other elements within the characterisation can resonate with us and inspire us.

Quote:
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.
I also agree with you here, Bêthberry, and it is surely the case that some "gaps" are required in a character's psyche in order for us to do this. If a character's psychological make-up is carefully drawn in great detail, then there will be little scope for us to use our imagination to "fill in the gaps". So, a lack of psychological depth in a character allows us far more scope for using our imagination as readers and this, I think, is one of the factors in the enduring appeal of LotR.

Quote:
Psychological depth in a character, can be a mystery to us, which makes us curious what's behind it. So the psychological depth becomes a mystery within certain characters? Yeah, I think so.
On the contrary, Orofaniel, mystery in a character, to me, indicates a certain lack of psychological depth. But, as I have said, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Quote:
How is it possible for a reader to care so much about what happens in the LOTR, if some sort of psychological depth is missing?
As I hope is clear from what I have said above, I do not feel that psychological depth is necesary to make us care about the characters and what happens to them. We do not necessarily need to know the inner workings of their minds in order for them to resonate with, and appeal to, us. And where we do need to learn more about what they are thinking in order for us to understand, and respond to, their plight, Tolkien provides this.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2003, 08:39 AM   #112
Orofaniel
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
 
Orofaniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lands of the North, where no man can reach....
Posts: 827
Orofaniel has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to Orofaniel
Tolkien

Quote:
Psychological depth in a character can be a mystery to us, which makes us curious what's behind it. So the psychological depth becomes a mystery within certain characters? Yeah, I think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the contrary, Orofaniel, mystery in a character, to me, indicates a certain lack of psychological depth. But, as I have said, that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Maybe I was a bit unclear... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I think that the psychological depth, and the hunt for the readers to find it within certain characters, can be a mystery for us. But when I think about what you said, Saucy, I realised that it can be both ways. That's what I think.

Quote:
As I hope is clear from what I have said above, I do not feel that psychological depth is necessary to make us care about the characters and what happens to them. We do not necessarily need to know the inner workings of their minds in order for them to resonate with, and appeal to, us.
Wow...You don't think it’s necessary?

I would say that the psychological depth is a very important factor. I think they do have to have psychological depth so that we, the readers, will find the characters interesting. I think the psychological depth in the Tolkien's characters (and for that matter, other characters) is important also because we can compare ourselves with them. If they had no psychological depth, I don't think we could. And I also think we do care about them, just because they are deep, and much developed psychological, and the fact that we feel that we have something in common with the character(s).


Cheers,
Orofaniel [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_<
.....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^
Orofaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2003, 09:21 AM   #113
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
White-Hand

Quote:
I think that the psychological depth, and the hunt for the readers to find it within certain characters, can be a mystery for us.
If you are talking about "implied psychological depth" in the sense that a character's psychological depth may be implied from his or her actions and interactions, then I agree with you. I think that Eowyn and Denethor are both good examples of characters whose psychological depth is implied by their deeds and by their dialogue with other characters. But, if you are talking about characters whose depth we have to fill in with our own imagination, then I disagree. How can a character, as written, have psychological depth if we have have to fill in the gaps ourselves? We may imbue them ourselves with psychological deoth, but that is a different matter.

Quote:
I think they do have to have psychological depth so that we, the readers, will find the characters interesting.
No, there are a multitude of reasons why we might find characters interesting and care about them. Psychological depth is only one such reason. Heck, characters don't even need to have particularly great characterisation for us to care about them if they are important enough to the story or sufficently well integrated into it. I think that it would be difficult to argue that Legolas and Gimli are particularly well-developed characters, whether psychologically or otherwise. And yet you would presumably say that you cared about what happened to them. Why?
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2003, 10:03 AM   #114
Orofaniel
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
 
Orofaniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lands of the North, where no man can reach....
Posts: 827
Orofaniel has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to Orofaniel
Tolkien

Quote:
No, there are a multitude of reasons why we might find characters interesting and care about them. Psychological depth is only one such reason.
Yes, but it's a darn important reason, at least it is to me. I wouldn’t think a book was interesting or fascinating if it was full of characters with no psychological depth. I do think that it's different from person to person and what we emphasize. So, maybe we have totally different views on this one; you think that it isn’t that important, I however think it is. But I agree, there are many different reasons that we may find a character is interesting, the question is how important each of the factors are emphasized by us.

Quote:
Heck, characters don't even need to have particularly great characterisation for us to care about them if they are important enough to the story or sufficiently well integrated into it. I think that it would be difficult to argue that Legolas and Gimli are particularly well-developed characters, whether psychologically or otherwise. And yet you would presumably say that you cared about what happened to them. Why?
Yeah, I agree with you that the story has much to do with it. But I doubt that the story would be that good with characters that have none psychological depth at all.

I think Legolas and Gimli are that much developed that they make a good story. The story is good because of the people in it, and the relationship between the two of them. You ask why we would care about them afterwards; I think that could be different from person to person. You may not feel that you have anything in common with the two of them, others may though. So to discuss character's psychological depth will of course be understood differently from person to person. I, myself, think that the story about Gimli and Legolas has its own charm. They are two completely different people, but yet, they are on the same quest together; to destroy the ring, and protect Frodo. They become friends even though dwarves and elves don’t go well together. I think that says a lot about their psychological depth……

Cheers (again)
Orofaniel [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]

[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_<
.....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^
Orofaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2003, 10:17 AM   #115
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
White-Hand

Quote:
I wouldn’t think a book was interesting or fascinating if it was full of characters with no psychological depth.
Well, since I presume that you find LotR to be an interesting and fascinating book, you and I clearly have different views on what is meant by "psychological depth". Your definition is akin, I think, to what I would describe as "characterisation". I have sought at length to describe on this thread what I mean by "psychological depth", based on what I believe Pullman meant by it in the quote that started this thread. I am not sure as I can, or ought, really to say much more in that regard.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2003, 12:01 PM   #116
Eurytus
Wight
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: England
Posts: 179
Eurytus has just left Hobbiton.
Sting

Quote:
I, myself, think that the story about Gimli and Legolas has its own charm. They are two completely different people, but yet, they are on the same quest together; to destroy the ring, and protect Frodo. They become friends even though dwarves and elves don’t go well together. I think that says a lot about their psychological depth……
Of course it is also the basic plotline for a million "odd couple" cop films, buddy movies......This ones short and fat, this ones skinny. This ones Mr confident, this ones Mr neurotic. This ones starchy and set in his ways, this one doesn't mind bending the rules to get his collar. And ad infinitum.

I guess you could therefore call it an archetype, though I don't remember them being deep.
__________________
"This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!"

Lionel Hutz
Eurytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2003, 12:52 PM   #117
Mister Underhill
Dread Horseman
 
Mister Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,752
Mister Underhill has been trapped in the Barrow!
Tolkien

Whoo – fast-moving thread. I’ll try to catch up.

Bêthberry, I’m certainly not discounting the value of archetypes – on the contrary. LotR is chock full of them. I certainly don’t think that describing a character in terms of an archetype precludes depth or complexity, and I agree that there is value in examining Tolkien’s use of archetypes, especially in relation to how he draws his characters. I think the best characters strum that resonant archetypal chord you mention, yet are individuated enough to become “real” for the reader. There is a fine line between archetype and cliché, and as you point out, execution is everything.

I think we’re really on the same page in most other respects. You’ve made an especially good point regarding mystery. The things that an author doesn’t tell us or only hints at can be as important as the things they do tell us. Tolkien was certainly aware of the power of mystery, and I think his skill in using this technique to suggest a wide world, a deep history, and rich lives beyond the borders of his story is one of his strongest talents as a writer.

Saucepan, there’s a lot going on here, but you’re already opting out of the conversation. I’ll try to address a few of your points anyway, and you can respond or not as you like.

I think I’ll address your last point first. We’ve made a lot of distinctions to discuss different aspects of characterization, but these distinctions are really artificial and break down if taken too far. Really, in a good characterization, everything flows from and speaks to a character’s psychology – what motivates him or her. Everything from his job, to the clothes he wears, to the attitudes he holds, to the things he values, to the things he says and does.

I think part of the problem here is that you’re trying to box your definition of “psychological depth” into a very narrow concept, one that I don’t think can be so neatly separated from other aspects of characterization. And I don’t think that’s what Pullman had in mind either.

Let’s take another look at the most telling part of his criticism: “...[LotR] doesn’t really say anything to me because the characters have no psychological depth. The only interesting character is Gollum.”

Pullman’s definition – and I think what most people conceive of when they think of psychological depth – is much broader than you’re suggesting. It speaks directly to how we relate to a character, whether they’re interesting or not, whether they have anything to say to us and whether or not they resonate with us. Pullman most certainly cites a lack of it as a failing and a flaw.
Quote:
Mister Underhill, I think that you misunderstand the point that I am trying to make
Am I misreading you? I thought you were pretty clear in some of your previous posts:
Quote:
But there is less psychological depth here because, as I said earlier, noble characters who have no inner turmoil are less psychologically interesting than those who are struggling inside (note that does not necessarily make them less interesting characters, just less psychologically interesting).

As I said in my previous post, I believe that it is internal conflicts and struggles which makes a character more psychologically interesting.

Characters who are unambiguously good or unambiguously evil will be less psychologically interesting than those who are more ambiguous in this regard, or who are flawed in some way. The wholly good/wholly evil characters may be interesting and richly characterised in other ways, and have important roles to play in the story, but they will lack any real psychological depth.
I understand that you’re trying to confine your comments here strictly to a character’s psychology – yet I still think these are matters of taste and, as noted by Bêthberry, execution.

I think important characters must be drawn with psychological depth to be interesting to the extent that they must come across as believable, “real” characters, ones whose motivations and struggles we can understand and empathize with (as so ably described by Lush, Lyta, and Bb above) and not wooden pawns that the author shuffles around according to the needs of his plot. In a good story, there is interplay between the events of the story and the motivations and behaviors of the characters. Each feeds on and is informed by the other.

In a more general sense, I’d also challenge the idea of putting too much emphasis on Card’s “types” of stories (milieu, character, idea, and event). I think he’s off-base when he classifies LotR as a story that’s primarily concerned with “milieu”. Maybe the idea needs more explanation, but who writes stories that are primarily concerned with milieu besides Michener? Also, note that he emphasizes that all four elements are present in any story to some extent. You can’t just say that a story of 500,000 words is “event-driven” and leave it at that.

Regarding the characters and relationship of Gimli and Legolas – some may see no more depth than is present in a run-of-the-mill buddy flick, others (myself included) may find satisfyingly deep themes of friendship, loyalty, honor, chivalry, and more there. This is another matter of taste.

Hmm... I could say more, but this post is already stretching to epic length. I’ll leave off for now and let others respond.

[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]
Mister Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2003, 02:35 PM   #118
Aiwendil
Late Istar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Sting

Eurytus wrote:
Quote:
Of course it is also the basic plotline for a million "odd couple" cop films, buddy movies......This ones short and fat, this ones skinny. This ones Mr confident, this ones Mr neurotic. This ones starchy and set in his ways, this one doesn't mind bending the rules to get his collar. And ad infinitum.
Since when did the popularity of a device make that device bad?

Sure, the "friendship between opposites" thing has been used a lot, and (like anything that is used so often) it has often been used poorly.

A lot of popular songs use string ensembles, and in about 95% of these cases the result is schmaltzy, over-sentimental, and generally disgusting. Does that make "Yesterday" or "Eleanor Rigby" bad? Does it make genuine string quartets bad?

As a matter of fact, I think that the popularity of the device seen in the friendship between Legolas and Gimli stems largely from the fact that it is an effective device. Alas, such easily recognizable and easily implemented devices are often used as a desparate measure by poor writers. But that does not diminish the effectiveness of the technique itself.

Is it "psychologically deep"? That depends entirely on one's definition of "psychologically deep".

Mister Underhill wrote:
Quote:
I think part of the problem here is that you’re trying to box your definition of “psychological depth” into a very narrow concept, one that I don’t think can be so neatly separated from other aspects of characterization.
This is what I was trying to get at before. You can certainly define psychological depth in any way you like, but you must then ask how useful that definition is. I think that a much more interesting concept than psychological depth (as defined by The Saucepan Man) is characterization.

Of course, you can analyze psychological depth as a technique used in characterization. This is perfectly valid and, I think, very interesting. But you must then face the difficulty that there is no clear line between this aspect of characterization and others.

Quote:
I think he’s off-base when he classifies LotR as a story that’s primarily concerned with “milieu”.
I quite agree. There are, I think, stories in which the milieu is at least as central as the plot (for example, Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet or More's Utopia - if you can call that a story). But LotR seems to me to be primarily about things that happen - that is to say, plot.

Quote:
Also, note that he emphasizes that all four elements are present in any story to some extent. You can’t just say that a story of 500,000 words is “event-driven” and leave it at that.
Yes. But I think that the important thing to take away from Card's distinction is that we ought not to judge a story based solely on one of these criteria - and, moreover, no one of these is universally more important than the others. I think that modernists have a tendency to think that characterization ought to be, universally, the most important aspect of the book and part of their general dislike for LotR arises simply because it does not treat characterization as the most important element.
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2003, 07:30 PM   #119
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
Pipe

Quote:
Saucepan, there’s a lot going on here, but you’re already opting out of the conversation.
Well, it's more that I don't want this thread to be wholly taken up by my attempts to explain my understanding of "psychological depth", Mister Underhill. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

But, you have succeeded in provoking me to expound further. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I will start by agreeing with you. It really comes down to how you define the term.

Quote:
Really, in a good characterization, everything flows from and speaks to a character’s psychology – what motivates him or her. Everything from his job, to the clothes he wears, to the attitudes he holds, to the things he values, to the things he says and does.
You seem to equate "psychological depth" with "characterisation", whereas I see it as just one aspect of characterisation, along with the other factors that you have listed. Knowing a character's job or being told of their appearance will assist in giving us an idea of their character, but they will not, in themselves, give the character any psychological depth. Just as an understanding of a character's psychology will not, in itself, necessarily tell us anything about their job or what they look like.

Quote:
I think part of the problem here is that you’re trying to box your definition of “psychological depth” into a very narrow concept, one that I don’t think can be so neatly separated from other aspects of characterization. And I don’t think that’s what Pullman had in mind either.
Well, I agree that psychological depth cannot be neatly separated from other aspects of characterisation. It is the interplay between all of these aspects that gives us the complete character. But I do see psychological depth as just one factor in this fluid concept of "character". And I do think that is how Pullman sees it too. I find it difficult to believe that he would have described LotR as a book lacking in "psychological depth" if, by that expression, he simply meant "characterisation". To me he is saying that he wants to get into the minds of the characters, and that he doesn't get this sense from LotR.

I agree that he sees this as a failing of Tolkien's works. That is where opinion comes into it. I happen to disagree with him on two counts. First, as I have indicated in my previous posts, I think that we do get into the minds of a number of characters in Tolkien's works, whether by being given direct access to their thoughts or by being given an understanding of their internal reactions from their external actions and reactions, and their dialogue with other characters. And, secondly, where the characters do lack psychological depth (in the sense that I am talking about) I do not see this as a failing, because, in these instances, it is not necessary from the perspective of the story for us to get into their minds.

You have quoted an excerpt from an earlier post where I said that characters who lack internal struggle or who are unambiguously good will be less psychologically interesting. What I am really saying is that, if we simply see a character's actions and gain no understanding of what is driving those actions, there can be no psychological interest in that character. They will have no psychological depth (in the sense that I understand the term). The more we gain an understanding of their psyche, the more psychologically interesting they become. Neither inner turmoil nor moral ambiguity is necessary to give a character psychological depth but, where factors such as these are present, then I believe that there will be greater psychological depth, and therefore the character will be more interesting from a psychological standpoint. But, rather than being a matter of taste, I think that the difference between us is in our respective definitions of "psychological depth".

Quote:
I think important characters must be drawn with psychological depth to be interesting to the extent that they must come across as believable, “real” characters, ones whose motivations and struggles we can understand and empathize with
Again, the issue here is one definition. On my understanding of the expression, characters can be interesting, believable and accessible (in terms of empathising with them) without necessarily having any great psychological depth. As I said earlier, I find that I identify more with those characters in whom I do find psychological depth, although that, perhaps, is a matter of taste.

Quote:
You can certainly define psychological depth in any way you like, but you must then ask how useful that definition is. I think that a much more interesting concept than psychological depth (as defined by The Saucepan Man) is characterization.
Actually, Aiwendil, I agree with you. My purpose in starting this thread was to explore whether Tolkien's characters do have "psychological depth" in the sense that I understand Pullman to have been using the expression. And, if so, which ones and what techniques Tolkien uses to give them that depth. But I am happy for the thread to broaden out into a discussion of characterisation in the wider sense.

Quote:
Of course, you can analyze psychological depth as a technique used in characterization. This is perfectly valid and, I think, very interesting. But you must then face the difficulty that there is no clear line between this aspect of characterization and others.
Again, I agree. I wholly accept that there will be a blurring between different aspects of characterisation.

Ultimately, I suspect that this debate on terms of reference is unlikely to take us much further. But I see no reason why the discussion of "psychological depth" in Tolkien's characters should not continue on the basis of whatever definition people may choose to apply to that term. That, in itself, may assist us in gaining a greater understanding of what the term entails. And, if this means that the discussion broadens out into an analysis of characterisation on a more general level, then that is fine by me.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2003, 08:19 PM   #120
Lord of Angmar
Tyrannus Incorporalis
 
Lord of Angmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: the North
Posts: 833
Lord of Angmar has just left Hobbiton.
Sting

The term "psychological depth" seems to me to be simply the extent to which the reader can understand the thought processes of the characters and relate to the characters on an individual basis. Characterization is the process of building and explaining the persona or disposition of a character for the purpose of the story, in which case neither psychological depth nor characterization is a substratum of the other. Characterization seems to me to deal with advancement of the plot whereas creating psychological depth in writing is a means of making the reader care about the advancement of the plot. In this case, I would say (from my own rather biased perspective) that Tolkien succeeded in his efforts to create pyschological depth. Certainly he does not delve deep into the psyches of each individual character, but such is not to be expected (nor necessarily desired) in epic writing.

What he does do is provide the reader with an often subtle and often blatant advancement of the motivations and emotions of his characters. Take Aragorn for example. He is indeed left mostly uncharacterized throughout the whole of Book One, but nevertheless through his actions in defense of the hobbits and through his overall persona we are given an ambiguous look at his disposition, personality and psyche. His own inner turmoil is brought to light by Boromir's words at the Council of Elrond. When Boromir openly questions Aragorn's ability to wield Narsil reforged, we see Aragorn's lack of assuredness at his own preparedness to do so, giving us the groundwork for the plight that Aragorn faces. In "The Ring Goes South" in the Fellowship of the Ring, there is a particularly moving although subtle hint at the doubt and anxiety that Aragorn will face on his pending journey:

Quote:
Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant to him.
Given the furthering of his characterization in Rivendell (the revelation that he is in fact the heir of Isildur and that he will journey with the Fellowship at least until Minas Tirith) gives psychological depth to the above quote. Throughout the rest of his journey, the amazing burden that rests on his shoulders is made clearer. When Gandalf falls, he must lead the Fellowship, and it is clear he is entirely uncertain in his mind what to do after Lothlorien. It is also clear that the decision is tormenting him, and the fact that he puts off the decision to the last possible moment (where it is basically made for him by the coming of the Uruk-hai and the flight of Sam and Frodo) adds psychological depth to his character in that it illustrates his reluctance to make large decisions and his anxiety when faced with such decisions.

After Helm's Deep, when he reveals himself to Sauron via the Palantir and decides on his own to venture the Paths of the Dead to reach Gondor, his character grows in depth, as once again it is illustrated how deeply he is burdened with the task of getting to Gondor and, ultimately, defeating Sauron. This scene also advances the psychological depth of Aragorn in that it shows him growing as a person, being able to face a number of choices and willfully make a decision.

In the final stage of his physical and psychological journey, he is at first uncertain, coming to Minas Tirith but fighting on its flanks instead of claiming command over it. However, he becomes quickly decisive after the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, understanding the many variables of the War and coming to the conclusion that he should march with a host to Mordor, there to divert Sauron's attention away from Frodo and Sam and give the two hobbits a final chance in their quest of utmost importance. By now the reader is emotionally attached to the journey of Aragorn (at least I was, and still am upon re-reading the books). When he becomes King, the reader feels a connection with him, and a sense of fulfillment and pride in the fulfillment of his quest.

Of course, this is just my take on this character, and of course many of you may not agree with my definitions of psychological depth and characterization. I believe that the two coincide and depend upon each other, and in the case of Aragorn and many of the other characters, I felt that through characterization, through advancement of the plot and through subtle or obvious hints about the mind states and thought processes, there was a real sense of psychological depth achieved in the characters of Professor Tolkien's works.

Cheers,
Angmar
__________________
...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence.
Lord of Angmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.