Characterization in Lord of the Rings

[Vlad!]

In the movies board, Afro said this:

Perhaps you may find them more interesting than other literary characters but they are certainly not very complex. Like most good quest narratives (because that's what LotR is), you have a character who must go on a quest, but doubts himself, and struggles along the way. That's Frodo. Neither is he the first, nor last, but this key character--the hero if you will--in the quest narrative is not very complex. Other fantasies have very powerful good wizards like Gandalf. And Gollum, well, he seems to be suffering an acute form of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde syndrome, don't you think?

First off, I would like to point out that one of Tolkien's goals was to create a 'mythology' for England. He felt that the English mythos was lacking the epic stories that the Scandinavian, Greek, Roman, and other great civilizations had. In the mythic style, actions are more important than characters. You see this in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Greek and Roman plays, and even in the Bible. What people say and do is usually emphasized over who they are.

Second, Tolkien's style is inclined more towards actions. Some authors create characters and put them in situations, other authors create situations and put characters into them. I think Tolkien is more of the latter.

It may be that, on a scale of one to ten, Tolkien's characterization is merely a six. But that's arbitrary, and these things are much less quantifiable than that. I don't think that the characterization (or lack thereof) interferes with the story or diminishes it in any way.

And that's what you get for riling up a Tolkien fan

[Josh]

Don't forget, Afro, that Tolkien is a highly influencial author. Is Gandalf something of a cliched wizard character? You bet. But did that cliche largely START with Gandalf? Yes, I'd say so. Tolkien has been emulated so much that I think his invention and originality has lost some of its luster. A shame, that.

Anyway, if you compare LotR to a character-study book or something a little on the "artsy" side, then I'd probably give Tolkien's characterization a 6 or a 7 out of ten. When compared to other stories of its kind, though, I'd be more inclined to give it a 9 or a 10.

What I love about Tolkien's characters:

1. Gollum. Man, the moral issues raised by this character alone make LotR one of the richest, most rewarding stories ever told.

2. Frodo is not a hero. Most writers would have made him the hero. Tolkien doesn't. And that's really the single most important point of the whole saga, in my opinion.

3. The relationship between elves and dwarves, and the nuances and complexities of the relationship that develops between Legolas and Gimli. (Alas, this part is all but nonexistant in the films).

4. Gandalf and Galadriel refusing to take the Ring.

5. Boromir the betrayer.

6. The camradarie shared between the hobbits, particularly in FotR.

These are just the first few that come to my mind. There are many, many other things that Tolkien does to enrich his characters. And that's why I love the story so.

[Vlad!]

Josh, those are all excellent points. How dare you not insert something for me to disagree with?

Well, there is one minor comment I would make about your intro: Tolkien wanted to be emulated. He wanted to create a universe for others to write in and play around with. Much like the Star Wars universe has attracted a lot of writers, so does LotR have its writers and imitators. It's sad, though not unexpected, that many of them don't meet the high bar set by Tolkien himself.

Additionally, I would like to point out that the Silmarillion contains a lot of character information and additional stories that flesh out a lot of the stuff that he merely touched on in the books. It's even more historical than the volumes themselves, reading at times like the Old Testament rather than a work of fiction, but definitely worth the time.

[oneafroboy]

I don't have the energy or sleep time to sacrifice to reply to your posts yet. But I'd like to interject some things.

I am a Tolkein fan. I like Lord of the Rings. I think it's a great series of books.

Admittedly, I'm an English major, and am learning to be a literary critic in the process. All I am saying is the Tolkein's characters aren't exactly what you'd consider English literature's most complex characters. As I said in a previous post, Middle Earth itself and the languages, were the focal point of Tolkein's work. Out of these, couple with his fairly standard quest/fantasy characters, he has produced a great work of literature (not all literary critics would agree, but I am not one of them). Still, his characterization (not his characters, notice the slight difference) isn't much to speak of, relatively speaking of course.

Oh and one more thing that I picked up in your post Josh. In a literary role sense, Frodo is the hero. He is the one with the mission who is going on the quest. Tolkein was a European mythology scholar. He loved this stuff. Frodo was meant to be the hero--in a literary sense. He does add a different twist, but from a literary standpoint, in the quest narrative that is LotR Frodo is the hero.

More late...

[Vlad!]

Oh and one more thing that I picked up in your post Josh. In a literary role sense, Frodo is the hero. He is the one with the mission who is going on the quest. Tolkein was a European mythology scholar. He loved this stuff. Frodo was meant to be the hero--in a literary sense. He does add a different twist, but from a literary standpoint, in the quest narrative that is LotR Frodo is the hero.

More late...

His point was, if I understand him correctly, that Frodo is not the archetypical hero. This is indeed one of the stunning points of Tolkien's characterization: Frodo, though he has saved the entire world, remains humble. He refuses to fight, and cautions others to refrain frrom killing. Rather than becoming powerful in the world's sense, he has become wise and, as we see in how he deals with Saruman, his wisdom is a quiet but strong form of power in itself. I think Sam mentioned at one point near the end that, though Merry and Pippin were receiving much honor in the Shire, Frodo had been all but forgotten. That's not what happens to returning heroes...that is, unless they allow themselves to be forgotten.  

[Josh]

My point about Frodo was this: He fails. He gives into the Ring. When the moment comes, he does not want to destroy it. The Ring is destroyed and the world is saved, but not because of Frodo's pure heart of bravery.

And that is the genius of Tolkien.

[Vlad!]

Yes, that's another aspect of the awesomeness that is Frodo. If anything, Tolkien is proof that a book can have incredibly complex, atypical characters without devoting reams to developing them.

[oneafroboy]

Just because Frodo doesn't win the battle doesn't make him totally complex. En contrair, it means he's like the other mortals--they could not overcome the power of the ring. In a literary sense, this does not make Frodo complex, nor does it mean he is not the hero figure in the trilogy.

In a way, it makes Frodo a kind of tragic hero. One who can't overcome his "flaw." Like Oedipus in Oedipus the King, or MacBeth in the Shakespearean play of the same name.

I'm not saying Tolkein isn't good or great or anything. I just think you guys are building him up beyond the truth of things--I mean you're being a bit fanboyish. As I said I like the books. I like 'em a lot. But characterization was not Tolkein's strength, nor do I think it was his intent to create incredibly complex characters. Frodo probably is the most complex of them all, and I'll admit, he's not flat. But in a wider literary scope Tolkein's not known for his characters. Shakespeare is known for his characters. Tolkein is known for his extremely complex fantasy world. That's where a good bit of Tolkein's genius lies.

[Vlad!]

I think you're getting caught up in a sematic difficulty: Frodo may be the protagonist of the story, and a 'hero' character, but he is neither a stereotypical hero nor a hero in the eyes of his people, the Hobbits.

As for his so-called hamartia, or flaw, it's not really his. The ring corrupts anyone--Galadriel, Bilbo, Gandalf--who uses it. Theoden was killed in the Battle of Pelennor Field, but I wouldn't call it a 'flaw' of his that he was killed. In the same way, I wouldn't call Frodo's corruption a flaw in his character, unless his humanity itself can be considered a flaw. Not that having a flaw in that sense is a bad thing in literature, but I just wanted to point that out.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that we're getting anywhere...you seem to be caught up in this specific literary defintion of 'complex characters' that is such that some scholars consider Tolkein's characters to be insofficiently developed, where as we (that is, Josh and I) think differently because (at least in my case) I can relate to a lot of the characters, see what they're thinking and how they're changing, and watch the dynamics between them and as they struggle to complete their quest.

Maybe we are fanboys, but if we are than we're fanboys because it's great. If liking something and wanting to defend it makes me a fanboy, then how can I claim otherwise?

[ThePurplePerson]

Frodo is an amazing example of our...humanity, I think...

*wants to make her own list*

What I love about Tolkien's characters...

1) Sam. He, quite simply, laid down everything for Frodo... even to the point of risking his own life many times. "Greater love hath no man than this..."

2) Elrond. His own brother chose mortality, and he had to watch his daughter make the exact same choice...

3) Gollum. Can we say "man against himself" conflict?

*will most likely do more later*  

[oneafroboy]

As I've said for the umpteenth time, I like the trilogy. I think Tolkein is great. The stories are great. The world is great. And yes I do like the characters.

As I mentioned before, I'm an English major. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but literature is my speciality, and it's what I'm working towards getting a degree in. I'm not saying the characters are bad. I like them, and I do find them intriguing. As I think I said over in Films, I'm really trying to say that the characterization isn't the most complex in the world. Tolkein is great, but you know he isn't the greatest in every aspect of literature. He uses characters differently than say Shakespeare or Joyce. His purpose is not to give us detailed characters, but instead he uses characters with certain characteristics to help further the story. As I said Frodo is certainly not flat. But I wouldn't say the characters in general are that out of the ordinary. I think Tolkein's strength is his world, his "subcreation" as he would put it. I'm not implying that his characters awful and boring. I don't think the movies captured everything about the characters, but therein is the advantage of a book. For example, Gimli and Legolas' relationship is more detailed in the books. But I don't think the movies undermined the books by not totally capturing the characters, because the story, the adventure, the quest is much more important and is what carries a lot of the meaning of the story. Now, obviously the transformation of Frodo's soul is important, but I don't think it took that much away from the story for Gimli and Legolas to be mainly comic reliefs in the movies.  

And I think that's all I'm trying to say.  

Edit: The Purple Person posted while I was writing this. I think people think I'm knocking the characters. I am *not*. I think Tolkein strategically picked characters for the greater story. I love Sam, too. I think he may be my favorite character. But he's kind of just the sacrificial side kick--we don't see the conflict of "should I stay with Frodo?"--"maybe we should give up"--etc... Does that make him bad? No. Just less complex. And there's nothing wrong with that. The fact that he exemplifies sacrifice (not that he's an allegorical stand-in for sacrifice, Tolkein hated allegories) is an important aspect of the book. And there's another thing to Tolkein's credit. His characters aren't allegorical, and yet his story represents so much truth about humanity and the battle between God and the fallen angels.  

[Vlad!]

Afro, we're not suggesting that you are a Tolkien hater or that you don't like the characters. We, or at least I, are trying to show you ways in which you are wrong. Consider this:
-To disprove something, all that is required is one counterexample
-To prove something, an example is not sufficient

The arguments I and others make are an attempt to provide a base upon which we can prove that Tolkien's characters are complex or well-characterized characters. The examples we provide are to show that they are not not complex, if you get me. So you see these examples as us merely ranting about the qualities of the book without producing any useful arguments, but we see them as counterexamples to your claim.

There, now that we're (hopefully) all on the same page, let me make this really clear: I think you're wrong. But let's look at your points:
1st post: Tolkien's characters are fairly standard fantasy/adventure characters, and he was more concerned with the language and the history than the characters.

2nd post: Frodo's character is not made more complex because he succumbs to the Ring. You go on to compare him to Oedepus and Macbeth in terms of his hamartia, a fatal flaw that is (almost, in this case) his undoing.

3rd post: Tolkien isn't the greatest in every aspect of literature.  He doesn't use characters the way other 'classic' authors do, and his strength is his world, while his characters are 'stereotypes' (I assume that's what you mean by 'characters with certain characteristics) inserted to move the plot along. In the edit, you state that Sam's lack of apparent internal conflict makes him more flat.

None of these points really are sufficient to establish much of anything. In fact, by comparing Tolkien's use of Frodo to Shakespeare's Macbeth or Sophocles' Oedipus, you contradict yourself in post three where you say Tolkien uses his characters differently than does Shakespeare. Your allegation in post 1 and repeated in post 3 is that Tolkien's characters are mostly 'stock,' inserted more to move the plot and expose the world than to be interesting of themselves. This is a fairly common fallacy; in fact, many of the cliches of the genre were started by Tolkien, so when he used them, they weren't as overused as they may seem to fans of the genre today. And those who do possess elements that were 'standard' when he wrote the books are still developed to the point that they are no longer just cutouts but actual characters.

Tolkien certainly was mostly concerned about the world, but part of the world is the people in it. Three things that may cause his characters to seem flat are the vast amount of them, the historical style of writing that tends more towards direct characterization, and the comparitively small slice of their lives the main events in the book are concerned with. But, to give an example that contradicts one of your points, the character of Sam, which we all are apparently fond of, shows that the main characters do indeed show plenty of development. At the beginning, Sam never really knew what he was getting into...he followed along due to his love for Frodo and his fascination with the Elves. Even after this fascination was satisfied, though, we see his attachment to Frodo carrying him forward. One part that shows much of Sam's character and never ceases to amuse me is when, after they had departed, it mentioned that Sam had brought along several trifles of Frodo's that he had forgotten and that Sam could bring out triumphantly when they were missed. But after it appeared that Frodo had died, we see a major internal conflict: should he continue on with the mission--a mission upon which the fate of Middle Earth rides--or stay with his slain master? And it truly was only the extreme moment of the quest that drove him to make his choice. And after it was apparent that Frodo had NOT died, even that couldn't keep him from throwing the quest to the winds and rushing to save his master, berating himself all the way. And once he finds him, we see that Sam is truly the one ringbearer--the ONE, out of all the Ring's history--able to overcome the allure and hand it over. Though he certainly had not borne it for long, recall its effect on Bilbo, Smeagol, and Isildur after only a short time. His love for Frodo and dedication to him and his mission overcame even the strength of the Ring's pull. So Sam certainly does NOT lack internal conflict or character development.

We're not suggesting you're not a Tolkien fan...you've already reiterated that ad-nauseum!

[oneafroboy]

Well, Vlad!, I think me must agree to disagree.

I could continue the discussion, but honestly, it seems to just be going around in circles.

I don't think I contradicted myself actually. And there are many literary critics and historians who think this about Tolkein's work. But that's not why I agree (and I don't necessarily agree to the same degree as they do). I have read the books and other books, and as I said literature is my specialty.

You're example about Sam is indeed true.  I never said that Tolkein didn't add twists to his characters. I know he does. But I think you build up these twists more than they deserve. That's my point.

But whatever. We both like the books and think Tolkein's great. We can disagree on our literary analysis of his characters. You think they're incredibly complex, and one of you (Josh I think) thinks they are some of the best, well-developed, in depth characters in all of literature. I disagree. His characters are fine and all, but I think if you were in a literary circle, you would be much better off arguing that Tolkein's world is one of the most, highly developed fantasy universes ever created. And I think many literary critics would agree.

[Vlad!]

I suppose we must.

I know you qualified it by saying that you don't think this way just because others do, but I really don't care what others in a 'literary circle' think about my ideas. My peers (scientists) predominiately believe in Evolution, the Big Bang, and other ideas that I disagree with. If you don't intelligently evaluate these things for yourself, uninfluenced by what others think (and again, I'm not claiming you haven't done this), you have no right to argue your ideas--because they're not really yours. And when I look at Tolkien, I see characters that are just as complex as Shakespeare's. Perhaps Joyce's Dedalus in Artist is more complex, but the whole book is devoted to the one man, so that is no surprise.