# Lord of the Rings: 'Character depth'



## Úlairi (Apr 12, 2002)

I was having a debate (as I usually always do) last night with a friend of mine who has read LotR and the Sil and says that it does not appeal to him. I asked him why and he said that it was because of the fact that Tolkien doesn't go as deep into the character as other authors. I considered this for some time, and I must say that in some ways that I agree with him. I have read countless books, and the main characters are deeply explored. I then told him that the reason Tolkien doesn't go in-deep into his characters is because of the fact that there are just so many characters to explore. I told him that I could name 100 LotR and Sil characters off the top of my head with no problems. That shows that Tolkien has countless characters to explore the characters of. Anyone agree with my friend as I do?


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Apr 12, 2002)

Tolkien does use many carachters that is one reaosn but i think he doesn't go into thier individual deeply. but i think he shows sams growth of loyalty and courage and shows frodos developement of pain from the ring and shows gandalfs wisdom developing and merry and pippin developing and aragorn developing as a king from a wanderer. i think he shows how all his carachters develop thier personalitys instead of deeply going into a single carachter analysis he also shows gimli and legolas's friendship develope or sam and frodos, or theoden and merry, or pippin and denethor and faramir, again i think he develops personalities instead of depicting one main carachter very deeply and i like that in a sense it gives me a love of the book and the stroy instead of a love for the main carachter, like most books, you only feel for the one carachter. in this book i feel for everything that happens, somethings more than others but thats our human nature of taste.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 12, 2002)

Mr. Sam Gamgee, that is exactly what I said to my friend and it stumped him. You must be a mind-reader. There was personality development in LotR which is common in most good books, and I suppose that is what made me love LotR. He couldn't think of anything to say, so he just walked off.


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 12, 2002)

*Both right.*

Both sides of the argument are valid.
Granted, Tolkien does not make 'character development' his main concern, but so what.

LOTR and the Sil are written on epic scale. As such it follows the traditions of epic literature. Find deep character depth in the Iliad or Beowulf. I dare you.(take it from someone who has suffered through manditory classes on mythic lit)

In modern and post-modern literature, character and motive are the primary means of advancing the narritive. Whereas in pre-modern Literature (which Tolkien was most versed in) the plot and story are paramount.

So it really depends on whether you read Tolkien as a post-modern or classical reader.

Have a day
RD


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 13, 2002)

Great point Rangerdave! I have always been a 'modern and post-modern literature' reader until I read Tolkien. Now I am a bit of all of them! However, Tolkien's works I prefer above all.


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 13, 2002)

Might I suggest the Prose Edda if you can find a translated copy.
(I assume you don't read Icelandic)

If you want a more modern adventure, check out Parke Godwin's Firelord and Beloved Exile (the best of the new Arthurian sagas)

Also by Godwin are Sherwood and Robin and the King
a wonderful retelling of the Robin Hood tale

each should be available in any descent public library

RD


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Apr 13, 2002)

The reason tolkien didn't go into to much detail was because he had created so many things, so many a whole world. I'm sure you couldn't hassle the way he described his other things like language and places. You could really say that there were 9 main characters in the book. All of the fellowship. With Frodo and Sam at the head. To go into to much detail for 1 character would be unfair, you'd have 2 do it 4 all 9, they all play important parts and the story revolves around them, oh and sauron as well. Tolkien created soo so very much now i'm sure you can't hassle the amount of detail he goes into with sauron he has a whole history on him. Dating back many, many hundreds of years. While not going into 2 much detail in lotr and especially the sil it is because if he did it would be to long. In the sil who would you call its main character? Melkor probably then who??? It covers many hundreds of years and it would be impossible in anyones lifetime to cover everything in depth. He was also dead when it was brought out. XSo we don't know what could have beenh in it. While not going into to much detail in lotr and in the sil. You should get ur friend to read home and u.t that has heaps and heaps of info on many things. Most books have a standout character normally a good person, how many has tolkien have? Over hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years of history. U can't hassle the detail he put into many other things like language and places to name a few. Thats what i think.
Beleg


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rangerdave _
> *Might I suggest the Prose Edda if you can find a translated copy.
> (I assume you don't read Icelandic)
> 
> ...



Well no, I am Australian and I have never read icelandic, but many thanks for the suggestions Rangerdave!


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 13, 2002)

Well I guess your friend Ulairi didn't read the books in depth. The Silmarillion has too many characters and it's impossible to analyze them in depth. But I believe characters like Beren are analyzed deep. As for LOTR, well I disagree with your friend. Who has read the book and didn't feel the pain and the inner battle Frodo had to make? Who didn't uderstand the questions spinning in his mind and how hard his desitions where for him to make? Who didn't admire the loyalty of Sam and feel the pain he felt when he thought he lost his best friend? If this doesn't mean going deep in the characters then I quit! There are a lot of parts where Tolkien describes the characters talking to themselves, thinking and wondering. I agree it isn't i.e. like Dostogiefski's "Crime and Punishment" but this is a one character type of book.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 13, 2002)

I completely agree Anarchist.


----------



## Grond (Apr 13, 2002)

I'm with Anarchist on this one. By the end of LotR, I feel that I intimately know Aragorn, Frodo, Samwise and Gandalf. There is also significant character development in Faramir and Eowyn as well. I don't know Legolas very well, but Gimli reveals much about his inner feelings. Merry and Pippin also reveal much about their inner strength in reaching the point where they are the main catalysts for the "Scouring of the Shire".


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Apr 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *I'm with Anarchist on this one. By the end of LotR, I feel that I intimately know Aragorn, Frodo, Samwise and Gandalf. There is also significant character development in Faramir and Eowyn as well. I don't know Legolas very well, but Gimli reveals much about his inner feelings. Merry and Pippin also reveal much about their inner strength in reaching the point where they are the main catalysts for the "Scouring of the Shire". *




Yes he does go in depth with characters but not not just in 1 character but the quite a lot.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 14, 2002)

Yes, I agree also. But my friend doesn't believe that the characters in LotR weren't explored deeply enough, I told him because there were so many and he agreed. My friend is a person who thrives on literature that brings the main character to life, a book that explains every nook and cranny of the main character. Tolkien does not do this. He is based entirely on character development, and not the character itself. However, I told him to read 'The Hobbit', where I believe Bilbo is given great consideration by Tolkien. Tolkien can write in many ways, which makes him so brilliant. His books can be narrative (i.e. in the third person) or in the first person. The 'persona' of each character in LotR is given an overview, i.e. their background, who they are, what they have done, and then, before our eyes we see the character develop. We see Aragorn change from a mere ranger to a great King, we see Frodo turn from a meek hobbit to a brave and proud 'hero', we Sam Gamgee turn from a gardener to a hero also. This is what has always fascinated me about Tolkien, and will continue to do so.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Apr 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ulairi _
> *Yes, I agree also. But my friend doesn't believe that the characters in LotR weren't explored deeply enough, I told him because there were so many and he agreed. My friend is a person who thrives on literature that brings the main character to life, a book that explains every nook and cranny of the main character. Tolkien does not do this. He is based entirely on character development, and not the character itself. However, I told him to read 'The Hobbit', where I believe Bilbo is given great consideration by Tolkien. Tolkien can write in many ways, which makes him so brilliant. His books can be narrative (i.e. in the third person) or in the first person. The 'persona' of each character in LotR is given an overview, i.e. their background, who they are, what they have done, and then, before our eyes we see the character develop. We see Aragorn change from a mere ranger to a great King, we see Frodo turn from a meek hobbit to a brave and proud 'hero', we Sam Gamgee turn from a gardener to a hero also. This is what has always fascinated me about Tolkien, and will continue to do so. *






Yes i agree i also think that turin gets a lot of detail in u.t.He is a literacy genius and although a lot of books are revolved around 1 character lotr isn't thats why it ain't in that much detail, although it is. (I think i'm messing myself up??)


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Apr 15, 2002)

I've read everything from shakespeare (romeo and juliet, the tempest, a misummer nights dream, julius ceaser, most of his famous stuff ) to chuck pallinik (fight club, survivor) and i always will read whatever i feel like reading at the time. point is i read alot and like whatever it is i like it doesn't really amtter if the author is a developer or a analizer or a story teller. if that certain book and its story or its point appeals to me then that makes it a good book by a good author some people only like analitical authors like you said your friends does, some people only like mordern day fiction with intricate plot twisting, and i like whatever it is that i like. different styles have thier good sides and thier bad so i try to get the most good by reading all of them. but i do agree alot with anarchist i sure felt for sam and frodo and felt the freindship between merry and pippin, and legolas and gimli, and eomer and aragorn and faramir. i think i got to knwo these carachters more than in most books.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sam_Gamgee _
> *I've read everything from shakespeare (romeo and juliet, the tempest, a misummer nights dream, julius ceaser, most of his famous stuff ) to chuck pallinik (fight club, survivor) and i always will read whatever i feel like reading at the time. point is i read alot and like whatever it is i like it doesn't really amtter if the author is a developer or a analizer or a story teller. if that certain book and its story or its point appeals to me then that makes it a good book by a good author some people only like analitical authors like you said your friends does, some people only like mordern day fiction with intricate plot twisting, and i like whatever it is that i like. different styles have thier good sides and thier bad so i try to get the most good by reading all of them. but i do agree alot with anarchist i sure felt for sam and frodo and felt the freindship between merry and pippin, and legolas and gimli, and eomer and aragorn and faramir. i think i got to knwo these carachters more than in most books. *



Yes Sam, I have read basically all the books that you have listed also. Some of them I quite enjoyed, and in those book the characters are explored with the utmost depth, but in LotR they are not. I believe that Tolkien may have wanted to be a little different when he wrote LotR, and the fact that Tolkien had too many characters to analyze properly, so he stuck with a couple of characters, explored their character a little, but in my friends opinion not enough. LotR was already big enough as it was to make it more analytical of the characters. Can you imagine how big LotR would have been if Tolkien explored every character in proper depth?


----------



## Grond (Apr 16, 2002)

Ulari, I'm totally lost concerning your statements about Tolkien's characters. Frodo is one of the most developed characters I have ever come across in any novel. By the end of the RotK, I feel like I have become Frodo. I have seen him go from a frightened Hobbit entering adulthood at his own and Uncle Bilbo's birthday party to being a major player in one of the most suspenseful novels ever written. I have watched him grow into one of the greatest characters in the whole of Middle-earth and his feelings are as real and dear to me as any other character I've ever read.

Your friend is either jealous of our intimacy with the LotRs or he is ignorant and needs more schooling. As I said before in this post, Aragorn, Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise, Eowyn, Faramir and even Arwen if you read the appendices are all developed in an extraordinary way and I feel I know and can walk in each of their shoes.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Ulari, I'm totally lost concerning your statements about Tolkien's characters. Frodo is one of the most developed characters I have ever come across in any novel. By the end of the RotK, I feel like I have become Frodo. I have seen him go from a frightened Hobbit entering adulthood at his own and Uncle Bilbo's birthday party to being a major player in one of the most suspenseful novels ever written. I have watched him grow into one of the greatest characters in the whole of Middle-earth and his feelings are as real and dear to me as any other character I've ever read.
> 
> Your friend is either jealous of our intimacy with the LotRs or he is ignorant and needs more schooling. As I said before in this post, Aragorn, Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise, Eowyn, Faramir and even Arwen if you read the appendices are all developed in an extraordinary way and I feel I know and can walk in each of their shoes.  *



Don't feel lost my dear Grond. I agree with you completely. I felt that Tolkien did go quite a bit in depth to some characters, especially Frodo, but I also have read many other novels in which the character is explored much further. LotR has always been the greatest book that I have ever read, but my friend believes that it was not very character-based. I have read nearly everything to do with LotR, save the Letters, so I am very learned on Tolkien, and I believe that shows in my posts, as does yours. My friend definitely does not need schooling again as he is two and a half times my age, he was my English teacher last year, so he knows his stuff about English. When I posted this thread, it was based strictly on opinion, and it has remained very opinionated. I love LotR with an inexplicable passion, and always will.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 16, 2002)

BtW Grond, I seem to be having some problems with the threads that I frequently post in, like the 'Origins of the Istari' thread. A little help would be nice.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Apr 16, 2002)

As I said before in this post, Aragorn, Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise, Eowyn, Faramir and even Arwen if you read the appendices are all developed in an extraordinary way and I feel I know and can walk in each of their shoes. - By Grond







> _Originally posted by Ulairi _
> *
> 
> Don't feel lost my dear Grond. I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY. *






I was having a debate (as I usually always do) last night with a friend of mine who has read LotR and the Sil and says that it does not appeal to him. I asked him why and he said that it was because of the fact THAT TOLKIEN DOESN'T GO AS DEEP INTO THE CHARACTER AS OTHER AUTHORS. I considered this for some time, and I must say that in some ways THAT I AGREE WITH HIM.


> As I said before in this post, Aragorn, Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise, Eowyn, Faramir and even Arwen if you read the appendices are all developed in an extraordinary way and I feel I know and can walk in each of their shoes.







Did u Change your mind Ulairi? Seems so

Has he been caught again?


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 16, 2002)

No Beleg, I am afraid this time you have not caught me. If you'd kindly posted ALL that I said to Grond than you would read:



> _Originally posted by Ulairi_
> Don't feel lost my dear Grond. I agree with you completely. I felt that Tolkien did go quite a bit in depth to some characters, especially Frodo, *but I also have read many other novels in which the character is explored much further*.



So, I agreed with Grond completely that Tolkien does go into some depth, but not as much as some other authors. Sorry Beleg, good try, but I shall never be caught again! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 

(Why are these people out to get me anyway?)


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Apr 16, 2002)

Yes well if u take that way. No ones out to get u i thought u made an honest mistake.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 16, 2002)

I know there not Beleg, it was a joke. And It was no mistake, it was deliberate! Read the whole post next time!


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Apr 16, 2002)

Oh really it was a joke   . I know yes daddy.


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 16, 2002)

*We have a problem*

After much consideration of the original question, I have to agree that in the strictest sense of the term the pricipal characters show very little literary depth. No before Ulari flies down to smite me from his giant plucked chicken (or was it a bat?), let me explain.

The reason that most of us experience growth and understanding of characters like aragorn or Frodo, or even Gimli, is that Professor Tolkien presents his readers with this growth as part of the narrative. In short, he tells his audience directly through the action, rather than using the modern contrivence of the "inner monologue". In short, the characters do not so much grow, as they are grown. This highly annoying (in my humble opinion) of using interior monologues to let the reader in on the deepest thoughts of a character was all but unheard of before the late 1930's and was not widely used until the 1950's. The more traditional Universities such as Cambridge and Oxford thought the whole exercise was just one more example of Americans mucking up perfectly good literature.

What Tolkien writes is more envocative of the Epics of the High Middle Ages. While his subject matter is significantly older. The post-modernest style of writing is not well suited to Epic literature. Can you Imagine how much longer this text would have to be for Tolkien to have included all the unspoken thoughts. No, better to keep to a narritive telling than an introspective one.

So there you have it. Character growth without Character depth. How much better to let the reader make up his own mind as to the personal inner workings of Strider than to limit the readers view with psychological nonsense.

OF course I could be wrong, I often am.
RD.

I appologize if this was a little long-winded. I tend to ramble sometimes.


----------



## Grond (Apr 16, 2002)

At last, I've found a subject with which Rangerdave and I do not agree. I feel that character growth is easily converted in the human mind to character depth. Aragorn, Frodo and Gandalf all show very deep personalities that I come to know intimately through *the narrative*. The technique is different than modern American literary techniques but is no less effective in giving us a full characterization. 

I would rather say that Tolkien develops depth in his characters in a more classical way but the end result is almost impossible to differentiate.


----------



## ILLOTRTM (Apr 16, 2002)

*I'm new here*

Hullo fellow LOTR fans. 
Allow me to sound beyond stupid for a moment. This is my first time here. I'm interested in your discusions and would just like to ask a few things. What we do here is just find a topic we're interested in.. and start posting oppinions? Is it really that simple?I would appreciate if someone would just explain these message boards to a HUGE LOTR fan and make it a bit eaiser for her, she's just a bit lost


----------



## Tyaronumen (Apr 16, 2002)

Forgive me for generalizing, but I find that in an *awful* lot of modern (20th century) literature, "character depth" is a code-phrase for character-driven mental angst. 

Tolkien's characters (esp. Frodo) have certain amounts of angst, but they are not ruled by this, and nor is the narrative.

Frankly, IMHO our society here in the U.S. spends entirely too much time focused on self-angst, conflict, and anguish. I don't feel that this angst, etc. is without basis or that it should not be acknowledged within us... but I do find the way in which Frodo simply cut through the mental morass of "I don't want to do this" to examine what the REAL choices were, and what the REAL right thing was to do (for him and for the situation) to be very admirable. 

We all have angst, but it should not own us, and Frodo is a great example of someone with a lot on his mind who still manages to get the job done. 

Again, this is all IMHO.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 16, 2002)

Dear ILLOTRTM (what the heck does this stand for? ). It is indeed that simple. Just state your opinion but don't be offencive and you will soon be welcome in the forum.
As for the subject, dear Ulairi, now I understand what you mean with character depth. You go to a level where the whole book is based on the character. Well friend, I am sure you understand how different it would be if Tolkien wrote the LOTR in this style. But I believe that the Hobbit was going into real character depth. We can all see how Bilbo, a lazy hobbit became the hero of the day. But still, Tolkien goes a bit into other characters like Thorin. But I guess LOTR would be annoying if it was of that style, because the fellowship is divided in a phase. It is perfect as it is. If your friend wants character depth, he should read the Hobbit. But I suggest that you tie him on a chair, use a wip and make him read the LOTR. HE will thank you for it afterwards.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Anarchist _
> *Dear ILLOTRTM (what the heck does this stand for? ). It is indeed that simple. Just state your opinion but don't be offencive and you will soon be welcome in the forum.
> As for the subject, dear Ulairi, now I understand what you mean with character depth. You go to a level where the whole book is based on the character. Well friend, I am sure you understand how different it would be if Tolkien wrote the LOTR in this style. But I believe that the Hobbit was going into real character depth. We can all see how Bilbo, a lazy hobbit became the hero of the day. But still, Tolkien goes a bit into other characters like Thorin. But I guess LOTR would be annoying if it was of that style, because the fellowship is divided in a phase. It is perfect as it is. If your friend wants character depth, he should read the Hobbit. But I suggest that you tie him on a chair, use a wip and make him read the LOTR. HE will thank you for it afterwards. *



Don't worry Anarchist, I am your *friend*! At last, someone has seen the light! Actually, I believe many people already have such as Rangerdave, and someone on the previous page, I can't remember who. 20th Century novelists seem to go very deeply in to its characters, whereas Tolkien does not go as so deep. I agree with you on 'The Hobbit' Anarchist, I have always felt that Tolkien explored Bilbo to with the uttermost depth.



> _Originally posted by Grond_
> *At last, I've found a subject with which Rangerdave and I do not agree. I feel that character growth is easily converted in the human mind to character depth. Aragorn, Frodo and Gandalf all show very deep personalities that I come to know intimately through the narrative. The technique is different than modern American literary techniques but is no less effective in giving us a full characterization.*



Well, this post definitely caught my attention Grond.



> _Originally posted by Grond_
> *I feel that character growth is easily converted in the human mind to character depth.*



I am unsure whether or not to agree with you on that point Grond. *It depends on the mind.* I can see where you are coming from Grond, as in my mind, as it does in yours I believe, charcter growth can be easily converted in to character depth. But with the average reader, I believe that many can not see the similarities because they see character growth and character depth as two entirely diiferent things. You see the character (not as well as in some other novels) and with character growth you see the character(s) change. This can be related to character depth. But IMO, character growth is a part of character depth. Not only does character depth contain character growth, but it contains what the character is really like, in real depth, at the start of the novel. In LotR we see them 'grow', but when we are introduced to each character, Tolkien chooses not to go deeply into the character. I believe this is because Tolkien has so many characters in his novels and also that LotR is so huge that perhaps not being inclusive of the true nature of each character is a way to shorten or to summarize the novel slightly, so it is not to big a read. Otherwise, IMO, people would get tired of the book as it would be a much harder read for the person who may not have time to read the book.


----------



## Grond (Apr 16, 2002)

I must concede that Ulari is basically correct. The narrative style does not lead one to come to know the intimate depths of the character as a first person internal dialogue. We could have had paragraph upon paragraph of Frodo's horrible choices and Aragorn's physical attraction to Eowyn. All of these things would have added nothing to the story but would have given us a better understanding of each character so probed. I like it the way it was written better.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 16, 2002)

Thankyou Grond. You summarized exactly what I meant.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Apr 16, 2002)

I liked it to it is great. Yes he is basically right.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 16, 2002)

And the way LotR is written, well, it is brilliant. Otherwise I wouldn't be here today on this forum talking to you great people. Especially Grond, it's nice of you to agree with me.


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Apr 17, 2002)

THE LORD OF THE RINGS ROCKS!!!!!!!!!! and that is the bottom line.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Apr 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sam_Gamgee _
> *THE LORD OF THE RINGS ROCKS!!!!!!!!!! and that is the bottom line. *






Don't see to many people arguing!!!


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 17, 2002)

Except there will always be one or two things that will forever chew on my mind, and if anyone wants to find out what they are, go to the 'Why didn't the Valar receive the One Ring' thread in 'The Silmarillion' forum. I need to have some debates with some of the more argumentative people such as Mormegil, Bucky, Greenwood and Gromd. Check it out guys, I need to argue with you. I will post the link below.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 17, 2002)

Here is the link:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3275


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 17, 2002)

*To Grond*

Actually, I think we agree more that either of us realize. To paraphrase Shakespeare "Surely sir, we argue in print" I think that we both see the growth and depth of the characters. Our differences seem to come from the literary terms used to describe said growth.

So please, don't hammer me to hard.

Great rebutal though
RD


----------



## Grond (Apr 17, 2002)

Rangerdave....
you da man!!!!


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 17, 2002)

Well guys, perhaps Tolkien didn't go too deep in his characters, but you must admit that his characters where complete adn strong. What do I mean? Well we can all see how easy tempered Gandalf is, how easy to anger and laugh he is. Tolkien is very careful to keep it that way all the way. He never makes a mistake with a character. Maybe some characters change, and this is also shown very cleverly. He could indeed create strong characters and very complete. Perhaps he had deepened them in his mind but never wrote about it on paper. But he really considered them as "real", and that's what made them so true and easy for us to understand. Maybe he didn't describe them to us, but still they are very "deep", with my translation of the word .


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 17, 2002)

Anarchist, read the post on the previous page that I wrote of the difference between 'character depth' and 'character growth', you may have already read it I do not know. Rangerdave, did you?


----------



## ILLOTRTM (Apr 19, 2002)

*Anarchist/Sam_Gamgee*

I'm sorry I'm so late in my reply  ILLOTRTM stands for.... actually, why doesn't someone give it a guess? I've had a lot of people ask me that .


> THE LORD OF THE RINGS ROCKS!!!!!!!!! and that is the bottom line



Pure genius IMNSHO


----------



## Ice Man (Apr 19, 2002)

There are some thoeries that beleive that the main characters in some books, novels, stories are the places where all the evnts take place, and not the character who live such events.

By these theories, the Middle Earth could very much be a character in Tolkien's stories. And there is no denying that the Middle Earth is very well described, detailed, and very deep. There are those who may even consider to have a life, which inclused birth and death, a life which begins in Silmarillion ends with he end of the 3rd era.

Tell your friend that Tolkien's stories have the exact ammount of details and deepness that we need to cherish them as lost tales of a glorious past we have not had.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 19, 2002)

Yes Arcanjo, I have always pondered this and it was nice of you to bring it up. However, Middle-earth was the setting and not a character in 'The Lord of the Rings'. In this threadf we are debating as to whether or not Tolkien went 'deeply' into his characters. Grond and I have come to the agreement that he did not, as there is a difference between 'character depth' and 'character growth'. Middle-earth was the setting and it was described very 'deeply' I agree, but in most books the setting is always defined down to the very last detail. Middle-earth may or may not have had a character of its own, but that is not the point that we are debating.


----------



## Ice Man (Apr 20, 2002)

Yes, yes.

Perhaps Tolkien didn't go very deep into his characters, but still, he went just as deep he he needed to go, and now we enjoy ourselves going deeper than he did and filling all the blanks we might have in our minds.


----------



## Tar-Palantir (Apr 20, 2002)

Okay - my 2 cents:

First of all, my belief is that "character depth" is in the eye of the beholder. Some characters that I think are drawn finely may seem to others as if they are painted with a roller. I'll discuss a few that I find interesting.

1) Aragorn. I remember reading some critic's comment that Aragorn has "all the qualities of a good horse". I couldn't disagree more - although you need help of "The Tale of Aragorn & Arwen" to fully flesh out his character. I think Tolkien does a wonderful job of showing us a fully-rounded "human" with hopes, humor, fears, and doubts. His decision at Parth Galen, his relationship with Elrond, his introduction to the Hobbits at Bree, the Houses of Healing, etc...not the earmarks, to me, of someone who's "too good to be true".

2) Gollum. One of the most memorable characters in modern fiction and, IMO, Tolkien's masterstroke. Definitely not one-dimensional (like Sauron), you feel the war going on inside of him between Good and Evil. The most haunting (and haunted) character I've ever come across and the most indespensible person in the book.

3) Faramir. I think Tolkien gets more bang for the buck with Faramir than just about anyone else. He is us, or us as we would like to see ourselves. But even he makes mistakes, has what could be termed disfunctional relationships with his dad and brother,and evidently falls in love at the drop of a hat when he's sick.  He's a normal guy, but just a little bit better. It's no stretch to recognize him, but he kind of shames me too. Make any sense?


----------



## ReadWryt (Apr 20, 2002)

> I asked him why and he said that it was because of the fact that Tolkien doesn't go as deep into the character as other authors.



Ask your friend to name another Mythology in which the character development is more fleshed out and complete, where even the minor characters are as three dimentional and rationally thought out and "real". Until Sam Raimi made the Herculese franchise the Greek Mythology was actually pretty stark in these areas, and the rest of the Mythologies only come close to being as fleshed out as LOTR. Truth to be told if the character development were any more complete in LotR then it would have been 12 books and the Silmarillion would have been 20 times it's size.

The Bible is a good example of the kind of lack of character development that is common in Mythologies like the Silmarillion, and you certainly rarely hear complaints that it is incomplete because of it...


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ReadWryt _
> *
> 
> Ask your friend to name another Mythology in which the character development is more fleshed out and complete, where even the minor characters are as three dimentional and rationally thought out and "real". Until Sam Raimi made the Herculese franchise the Greek Mythology was actually pretty stark in these areas, and the rest of the Mythologies only come close to being as fleshed out as LOTR. Truth to be told if the character development were any more complete in LotR then it would have been 12 books and the Silmarillion would have been 20 times it's size.
> ...



Yes, I did. He could not come up with anything and I believe that I ended up winning the argument ReadWryt.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Apr 21, 2002)

Ask him which book/s he think that have lots of character development.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 21, 2002)

I will, don't worry. Tar-Palantir, I was going to argue with you but I cannot be bothered, sorry.


----------



## Tar-Palantir (Apr 21, 2002)

Ulairi, I'll try to muddle through without the benefit of your arguments - you'd declare yourself the winner anyway, regardless of the actual outcome.

Readwryt, you're correct about the lack of characterization in classic mythology. However, even though Tolkien wrote his stories as a mythology for England, his work is still "literature" where the Greek myths aren't (at least not in origin). I'm speaking here of LOTR and the Hobbit in particular, not the Silmarillion - which *is* closer to traditional mythology in form and content. So, if you look at Tolkien as "mythology", I can't think of another set of myths with the depth of characterization of JRRT's work. Seen as traditional literature, I'm sure people could come up with many examples of what they consider better characterization in other writers' works. But Tolkien still does a pretty fine job at it. I think part of the problem may be one of comparison - JRRT did such a masterful job of creating a world of wonders and telling a rousing good tale that *something* has to be the weakest point. I guess.


----------



## Xanaphia (Apr 22, 2002)

I think that Tolkien tried to consuntrate more on the plot of thte book than the characters themselves, which in my opinion make scence. Furthermore if you want to know about the charactors then you can look in the back of the book.I think that is quite in depth.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tar-Palantir_
> *Ulairi, I'll try to muddle through without the benefit of your arguments - you'd declare yourself the winner anyway, regardless of the actual outcome.*



Come now Tar-Palantir, that's not very nice. I know when I am defeated in an argument, it has happened before. 



> _Originally posted by Tar-Palantir_
> *Readwryt, you're correct about the lack of characterization in classic mythology. However, even though Tolkien wrote his stories as a mythology for England, his work is still "literature" where the Greek myths aren't (at least not in origin). I'm speaking here of LOTR and the Hobbit in particular, not the Silmarillion - which is closer to traditional mythology in form and content.*



There you see, Tar-Palantir, I couldn't agree more. 



> _Originally posted by Tar-Palantir_
> *So, if you look at Tolkien as "mythology", I can't think of another set of myths with the depth of characterization of JRRT's work. Seen as traditional literature, I'm sure people could come up with many examples of what they consider better characterization in other writers' works. But Tolkien still does a pretty fine job at it. I think part of the problem may be one of comparison - JRRT did such a masterful job of creating a world of wonders and telling a rousing good tale that something has to be the weakest point. I guess.*



Once again Tar-Palantir, I couldn't agree more. Why on earth should I argue with you when I agree with you 100%?


----------

