Are Tolkien's Characters Archetypes with no "Souls"

[Ophelia]

*Waves back at Tosh*

Re: my earlier question. It's just that I've seen people refer to ALL Tolkien's characters as archetypes, not just the Valar etc. I suppose they're either misusing the word or they don't happen to identify that closely with any of JRR's characters - or perhaps Tolkien's style of characterisation just doesn't work for them.

[axordil]

Ophelia:
I just figured the discussion would start with the most clearly archetypical and work its way towards the more mimetic.

But you mention characterization, and it's worth discussing in general. One of the hallmarks of more modern, mimetic storytelling is the concept of showing, not telling; filling in your audience on a character's traits from the beginning by simply enumerating them is more along the lines of epic and romance. That said, GOOD epic and romance then proceed to throw those set expectations into sharp relief, either reinforcing or undercutting for effect.

Compare and contrast the techniques used by JRRT in scenes where the hobbits are present in LOTR versus those in which they are not. There is a palpable difference in tone: the more hobbit, the more mimetic, as a rule. It's like the hobbits carry a little mimetic bubble with them as they move into the world of romance and epic.

[Primula Baggins]

Sort of a bathyscaphe from which those for whom the epic is unfamiliar or harder to penetrate can observe the great events and come to understand and eventually love the rest of the story.

[Lindréd]

Very interesting! I really want to understand this all better. I hope you won't mind some back to basics questions! (It's been a long, long time since I had a Lit. class). I have no problem with understanding the archetypical characterization definition.

But could you expand a bit on why mimetic storytelling is called that? (the dictionary defines mimetic as: using imitative means of representation) Who is imitating whom? It seems a strange term for a descriptive process...I'd like to understand the term in regard to literature a bit better.

One of the hallmarks of more modern, mimetic storytelling is the concept of showing, not telling; filling in your audience on a character's traits from the beginning by simply enumerating them is more along the lines of epic and romance.

Would this be in terms of style: "showing" through dialog versus "telling" through narration? Or is it more in terms of timing: a gradual revealing of character versus an upfront narrative declaration of it? Or both?

Compare and contrast the techniques used by JRRT in scenes where the hobbits are present in LOTR versus those in which they are not. There is a palpable difference in tone: the more hobbit, the more mimetic, as a rule. It's like the hobbits carry a little mimetic bubble with them as they move into the world of romance and epic.

This is quite helpful. I suppose it's another example of the Hobbits being the bridge between the reader and the mythology.

[axordil]

Lindred--

Both, yes. Action and dialogue reveal character, not outright description, and it's a gradual process, like peeling an onion (and with as many tears, sometimes ).

Mimetic in the literary sense means an attempt to imitate life "as it is," as opposed to in an idealized form: the characters and settings are familiar, not larger than life, nor epic in scope. Think nineteenth century novels.

In terms of characterization mimesis works thus: people don't walk around with signs on them telling you they can't be trusted, or they're really nice at heart, or they're deeply conflicted. Well, tee shirts perhaps, but not signs. You figure out what people are like by spending time in their company, listening to what they say, watching what they do. Mimetic literature makes the same assumption about character.

This can be supported in literary settings by narrative peeks inside characters' heads, of course, but even that is qualified: many narrators are not always honest with themselves, or can even be generally untrustworthy. If you push too far that way, though, you end up in a purely ironic milieu.

[Lindréd]

Thanks Ax! That helps a lot!
(the light bulb in my head has gone from a dull glow to fully lit)

I'm currently reading Shippey's RtMe, and last night, after reading your reply, I happened to run across some sections which relate to this, although here Shippey doesn't use the actual terms of archetypical and mimetic:

The convention of Norse saga, then, is to say what a man is like as soon as he comes into the story...these statements are always true, though there is still an interest, and a suspense, in seeing how events will prove them so - RtMe, p. 248

(i.e. archetypical )

and

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings can be seen as primarily works of mediation. In the former Bilbo acts as the link between modern times and the archaic world of dwarves and dragons. In the latter Frodo and his Shire companions play a similar part.....Outside these works, though, hobbits are not to be met with; it would be almost impossible for them to exist in the much more rarefied air of the legends of the First Age, and without their existence modern readers lack guidance and a secure point of comparison. The very success of the hobbit cycle was bound to make a work without hobbits a disappointment, or a puzzle - RtMe, p. 228

Your point, that this is done through literary (mimetic) style, really helps this passage to fall into better focus for me. (I must add that although I did initially find it a puzzle, I certainly have never found the Silm a disappointment!)

I really like the image of the "mimetic bubble" and that the non-hobbit characters can wander in and out of it depending on JRRTs desire to bring them into a more accessible characterization mode. In doing this, would it be fair to say that Tolkien achieves a full sliding scale or gradient of characterization in LoTR, with the hobbits at the mimetic end, and (who? Galadriel?) at the other end, with characters such as Gandalf and Strider/Aragorn, for eg. somewhere in the middle, drifting in and out of the "bubble"?? (But even in Galadriel's case we get revealing glimpses into her character during her interactions with Frodo and Sam at the "Mirror")

[solicitr]

It strikes me also that in Tolkien, characters are more 'mimetic' the more modern they are. The hobbits, of course; but compare (as T intended) Denethor with Théoden. Or, especially, Saruman, a character who is described, but then reveals himself through speech and action to be something very different: as Shippey pointed out, Saruman's language is that of the modern politician. The archetypal characters tend to be the antique ones.

[axordil]

would it be fair to say that Tolkien achieves a full sliding scale or gradient of characterization in LoTR, with the hobbits at the mimetic end,

Yes. A character's position on that scale has several components: their race (elves tend to be more remote than the others), their place of origin (Gondor v. Bree--distance from the Shire overall), and their own place within their society (Denethor v. Beregond). The most important factor, though, is proximity to the four hobbits: the longer a character is close to them, the more mimetic they become. Partially this is because of the simple fact that the hobbits are the focus of the story, and characters who aren't close to that focus are harder to "get into" as a result.

But it's also a matter of authorial intent: the story was conceived of as being hobbit-centric from the beginning, and the "higher and deeper" material forced its way into that structure. Tolkien himself more or less says so, and the HoME volumes that show the development of LOTR support the notion, so far as I know (disclaimer--I've only read the first of those).

Prim--

It is sort of like viewing WWII through a periscope, except during those moments (the large battles come to mind) where the flow of events overwhelms the underlying point of view.

[axordil]

soli--

I was thinking something similar about Saruman in particular. I wonder if it's significant that he's (off-stage for the most part) in more contact with the Shire than most other supporting characters...but your point about the antiquity vs. the modernity of characters is well taken. Some characters do come off as written on parchment, with illuminated commentary, while others are comfortable with Garamond on pulp.

[Primula Baggins]

When I was first learning to understand LotR better, I sorted out the differences in the characters, but I also noticed the wide range in the language Tolkien uses. I've seen him mocked for it, in fact, and I knew it was an unusual approach to say the least—to vary with context from a very informal, "homey" tone to the peak of the heroic. I loved (still do love) that Tolkien used the full range of tools, in characterization and in narrative voice, to say what he wanted to say. Both modes still move me deeply.

I'm ill-equipped for this discussion in terms of terminology; as a chemistry major I never closely studied literature or the structure of writing in school, and my reading since has been unguided and unanalyzed, for the most part. So I doubt I've given everything the right name. I'm learning some things from this discussion even if I don't post much or articulately.

[yovargas]

I'm ill-equipped for this discussion in terms of terminology; as a chemistry major I never closely studied literature or the structure of writing in school, and my reading since has been unguided and unanalyzed, for the most part.

What?? I thought only people with masters in Literature were allowed in this forum! Who let in the riff-raff???

[Frelga]

soli--

I was thinking something similar about Saruman in particular. I wonder if it's significant that he's (off-stage for the most part) in more contact with the Shire than most other supporting characters...but your point about the antiquity vs. the modernity of characters is well taken. Some characters do come off as written on parchment, with illuminated commentary, while others are comfortable with Garamond on pulp.

Good point, and one that has to do with the device of using not just the hobbit POV, but the memoirs and records of the hobbits as the source of the book. The difference in tone depends largely on whether the hobbits experience the events, witnessed them, heard about them first-hand, or reconstructed them from records.

While hobbits are conscientious narrators, they are not entirely reliable. Boromir's portrayal is especially interesting in that regard, as it is highly colored by Frodo's perception of Boromir's ring-lust. At first we see him as grumpy and disagreeable, challenging Gandalf and Aragorn, who of course can do no wrong in Frodo's eyes. And yet, he turns out to be right. Rohan was not in league with Sauron, it was a good idea to bring wood to Carhadras, Moria did prove disastrous, at least on the surface. We can still see a strong and courageous man, a leader, one who cares for the halflings, but we have to look real close, and penetrate Frodo's dislike.

Then we switch from Frodo's POV to that of Merry and Pippin, and now we can see only love, respect and grief for Boromir. It turns out that Rohan loves him as does Gondor. By the time Frodo's own struggle with the Ring becomes clear to us, we can recognize that Boromir was not the bad guy, but a really good one, a tragic victim of the Ring. That is clinched by Frodo himself echoing Boromir's words in the tower of Cirith Ungol. "What have I said? What have I done?"

Boromir is clearly a minor character, but Tolkien is a master of subtle characterization, and uses him deftly to highlight the plight of his heroes.

[axordil]

He's a master of subtle characterization when it suits his larger purpose, which is why characters with flaws in LOTR are more aptly presented than those without. Let's be honest: saints' lives in and of themselves are pretty dull. That's why medieval hagiographers came up with all those exciting sea voyages and such to set them in.

It's also why Faramir is only interesting as a reflection of his more-flawed brother, in the book. It's why Strider is more engaging than Elessar. It's why Gandalf the Grey feels like a person, and Gandalf the White, a supernatural being.

[Lindréd]

...I also noticed the wide range in the language Tolkien uses..... I loved (still do love) that Tolkien used the full range of tools, in characterization and in narrative voice, to say what he wanted to say. Both modes still move me deeply.

This is such an informative thread! I realize now that though I've been reading T for years, and though I've been greatly moved by many particular passages and characterizations, I've never really understood his literary "modes", 'til now.....it makes me appreciate his skill so much more.

We can still see a strong and courageous man, a leader, one who cares for the halflings, but we have to look real close, and penetrate Frodo's dislike.

Great point! Just like RL, or reading history. We have to look carefully and from many angles or POV in order to get a fuller understanding of the real personality.

characters are more 'mimetic' the more modern they are......especially, Saruman......Saruman's language is that of the modern politician.

Another "lightbulb" moment for me. Thanks for this!
In fact, now that I think about it, Saruman's manipulative, divisive manner, caustic wit and "superior" tone does remind me a bit of the style of a particular modern politician who was in a secondary position of power not too long ago...
(just an observation. I really don't mean to open that can of worms here)

[solicitr]

...we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak and idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.

As Shippey points out, Saruman's usage is slippery and largely empty. No "real change"? What does "real" mean? This is the slithering rhetoric of the demagogue and political pander.

And notice what if anything Saruman's meaning is: ally with evil. It can't be defeated, it's a fact of life, so we should come to a 'negotiated settlement' with it; "we may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it."

[Lindréd]

Slippery indeed! (and manipulative). This passage is just plain creepy.

The scariest part may be:

deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose

How many times in history have established higher standards been compromised with "temporary" dark methods to justify a 'high and ultimate purpose'? Gives me chills.....and not the good kind.

This leads me to another question about characterization: Shippey discusses another difference between the Norse myth inspired characterization (archetypical) versus the more modern (mimetic) as static versus dynamic through the example of two versions of an old saying
1. "power tends to corrupt"
(modern version, assumes that character changes over time due to circumstances)
2. "a man shows what he's like when he can do what he wants"
(Old English version, static, assumes character is fixed, and true character is merely exposed through circumstances.

Are examples of both of these versions present in T?
And who would be good examples of each?
(I would tend to say that Gollum exemplifies #1, whereas perhaps Saruman is more #2-ish, but then again, as discussed here, Saruman tends to be quite 'modern', so does that work? I just can't get over the gut feeling that Saruman was always rotten at the core)

Edit: I guess another related question would be: Is this fair? By establishing certain characters as archetypes, must they be static? Or does Tolkien work around this?

[Siberian]

I'm not sure main characters can be neatly classified into either "modern" or "archetypal". Hobbits are the most "real" and do change a lot, but they also can be called an archetype from the "rite-of-passage" story.

Gandalf and Aragorn are very archetypal but they also make mistakes in judgment. And they smoke!

Legolas? Gimli? True representatives of their races... but with some unexpected quirks.

As for Saruman, his fall is gradual and happens over time.

[axordil]

Lindred-
There seems to be a latent character flaw in the followers of Aulë that, under the correct circumstances, makes them too fond of their own cleverness, or the works thereof. Curunir and Sauron seem to have shared this.

As to characters being static vs. dynamic: compare, just to pull an example out of my hat, Denethor and Théoden. Denethor was always proud, but with exposure to the palantír and the will of Sauron, he slides into despair and madness. Théoden was less proud, but under constant manipulation by Wormtongue, he slides into passive decrepitude. One is saved by Gandalf, one is not, and it's hard to dismiss their initial moral state as being the underlying reason for the difference in their fates.

But other supporting characters are clearly static, at least by the time of the events in LOTR: Elrond comes to mind.

Siberian--
There's a difference between a character archetype and a plot archetype. One can make a very strong case for some of the characters in LOTR following the Campbellian Monomyth, the Hero's Journey: Frodo certainly, Aragorn as well. But that doesn't make them, by default, character archetypes. Frodo is not Gilgamesh.

[Lindréd]

There seems to be a latent character flaw in the followers of Aulë that, under the correct circumstances, makes them too fond of their own cleverness, or the works thereof. Curunir and Sauron seem to have shared this.

Ah Ha! This makes a lot of sense. I knew the Noldor and Sauron were associated with Aulë, but somehow missed that Curunir/Saruman was too. So perhaps being "rotten at the core" is a bit too strong for Saruman, but it seems as if his potential to turn rotten (because of this prideful, materialistic tendency among many of the associates of Aulë) was part of his core from the beginning. (So he had the "rotten" gene, but it was latent, until Sauron turned it "on")

As to characters being static vs. dynamic: compare.....Denethor and Théoden...... it's hard to dismiss their initial moral state as being the underlying reason for the difference in their fates.

Got it! So, regardless of whether they were Maiar or Human, Saruman, Denethor and Théoden all had propensities for their own particular types of long-term behavior written into the code of their most basic moral character (so at least the "initial" portions of their character were static). And while their individual dooms may not have been cast in stone, certain types of outcomes were more probable for each....

I suppose since Olórin/Gandalf, as one of the Maiar, was more aligned with Manwë and Varda (as opposed to Aulë) his basic makeup was quite different at the core, allowing him to resist the temptation of the ring, and also to become a leader based on necessity rather than desire (as in Saruman's case).

But other supporting characters are clearly static, at least by the time of the events in LOTR: Elrond comes to mind.

Excellent example.

[Elentári]

Hmm, I believe Olórin was a student of Nienna...even if Manwë was the one who proposed him for the trip to M-e. Of course you are right about his character being very different - he had humility: Olórin initially begged to be excused as he feared he lacked the strength to face Sauron.