A different sort of Hero ...

[Algamesh]

Isn't it amazing how JRRT was able to write in such a different mode, when one compares LOTR with the Silmarillion? One thing that really grabs me when I ponder the differences is the way in which the Hero is represented (I've been on this hero kick all day ... hehe).

When I read the Silmarillion, I find it easy to interchange all the major heros into each others stories. Try it! The reason being, I assume, is a lack of character development in the Silmarillion. Each of the heros are of the default stereotypical type. Is this a necessity for the Silmarillion mode of writing or do you feel that it rests, in part, as a literary flaw in Tolkien's writings? Could better character development have been possible in the authoring of the Sil. stories?

[LúthienTinúviel]

Very interesting topic, Algamesh. I am also struck by the stylistic differences between the two books.

The Silmarillion is an overview of the epic history of the elves, and as an overview, necessarily does not admit much depth in any story, though some stories in the Sil are more detailed than others. But The Lord of the Rings is an epic retelling of one story, and thus naturally allows for much more character developement. I do not think that The Silmarillion, in it's current epic overview form, cannot admit more character depth. If it were to be rewritten and each story given a book in and of itself, more character developement would be possible and the heros would not resemble each other so nearly. They would be much more 3 dimensional.

Just my two cents. :)

[Maedhros]

I really don't think that the heroes are interchangeable as you suggest.
You cannot change Fingon by Turgon. Finrod Felagund for Maedhros.
Also there are other characters such as Echtelion Lord of the Fountain, which are not given it fair representation in the work.
It might seem that the elves are interchangeable but they are not. Fingolfin is definitely not interchangeable and neither is Maedhros.

[Mirkgirl]

well the Silm is a great field for speculations (in good sense) and imagination... I guess the characters are interchangeable, but the thing which thrilled me into the Silm is developing the stories... the things that were not said, a pointless talk even - how would they react, what would they say and what would they think? That's the interesting thing of the Silm IMO, as a story it's quite boring if you don't use your imagination...

The first time I read LotR, when I was little, I created a heroin, long lived one... I'm a bit ashamed to say so, but she's been growing from then on... Just lately I dared to think what she'd be doing in the Silm, there are quite many possibilities, even though she has some restrictions due to my idea for her....

Well now I think I have said too much... I'm not crazy, just I don't want to give up the child who created her... and the early teens which shaped her character...

but back on topic, the charm of the Silmarillion is that, to tempt you to delve into the story, creating it on your own, but under the wise guidence of the author :)

[Finrod Felagund]

I too have to disagree about interchangability, I feel they all had their own individual good and bad points.
For instance you could not interchange Tuor and Turin. To me Turin was more trouble than he was worth, he caused a lot of trouble, His main character flaw,pride, caused the downfall of Nargothrond. No bridge... no orcs and dragons strolling through the gates, just Elves on the ramparts waiving thier private parts in the general direction of the silly doggie bottom biter orcs and one particularly nasty Dragon.
:p

Turin and Feanor... lots a troubles from those two

The Sil leaves lots'a room for imagination is a good

[Mirkgirl]

I don't know whether that's Algamesh's point too, but IMO it was more how the the very few sides of their characters, which Tolkien reveals, would not change the story significantly if they are exchanged.., in Turin's case I think everyone would have fallen in the trap, just he'd have walked another path...

[Catz]

i think youre right there Mirky......and i think everyone who loves a story puts themselves into it by creating their own character or by identifying strongly with an existing one.....you should be proud that yours has held up througout the years...
Anyway......the characters in the Sil are not deeply drawn....and thats in fact for a reason.......the Sil was Tolkiens mythology,,,and in mythology, characters are not characters in the generally accepted literary sense of the word, but are archetypes....tools of the myth...due to his literary leanings and his habit of rarely being satisfied with what hed written, Tolkien fleshed out these figures more than would be usual in a mythological cycle, but they are still just tools with which to illustrate the story.
:catz:

[Maedhros]

Anyway......the characters in the Sil are not deeply drawn....and thats in fact for a reason.......the Sil was Tolkiens mythology,,,and in mythology, characters are not characters in the generally accepted literary sense of the word, but are archetypes....tools of the myth...due to his literary leanings and his habit of rarely being satisfied with what hed written, Tolkien fleshed out these figures more than would be usual in a mythological cycle, but they are still just tools with which to illustrate the story.
Again, I have to totally disagree with this statement. The characters are not deeply drawn as compared to what? Personally, I could see the motivations of the major characters in the drama (Fëanor, Fingolfin, Túrin, etc). Maybe the Sil has not the LOTR writting style, but I don't think it takes away from the characters in it.
When you compare it to mythology, which mythology are you comparing it. I don't think that you could say that characters are just characters in the Greek mythos. Take for example Achilles (son of Peleus), with only what is written in the Illiad, you have a great depth of the working of the mind and motives of Achilles. If you go further into the Greek Tragedies, you would see that the Ancient tragediest went more in depth in the stories themselves to teach the populace, laying bare the characters. The Greek mythos is very rich and complex and no way I could say that their characters are not deeply drawn.

[Mirkgirl]

I have to agree with Catz here.

Your argument is right but it's not precise. The only reason Greek mythological characters are easy to distinguish and they seem to have deep character, but the reality is that they are described only through one or two characteristics, but those characteristics are extreeme and you easily build up everything else around them.

However, in the Silm there isn't even that deceptive depth as the characters aren't the extreemes in one or other characteristic (well most). The only thing that holds the characters in their places is Tolkien's great talent and the wish of people like you to see deep drawn characters.

[Catz]

the thing with a mythos is that its added to in the telling...but i stand by my statement that in myth characters are not drawn fully.....they have human characters yes...but theyre drawn very broadly....yes lets take Achilles...the hero archtype for example....hes bigger than life...his faults and his virtues are all bigger than a normal man....there is not a moment in his story when he is not being the "Hero" because thats what he IS...hes a metaphor....not a character...the less drawn a mythological player is, the more poeple can identify with him/her and i think this is the power of myth...it takes those human foibles(be the myth about humans or gods) and makes them obvious and then shows us the consequences of them, this also allows them to be fleshed out to suit (and you have to remember that many of these myths have had "literary" interpretations made of them, in which "real" characters do appear)...that is thier power...to reduce myth to mere stories (in the entertainment sense of the word) is belittling a fundemental part of human culture i think.
I understand why you think the way you do Maedhros, but i think Mirky is right...i think that in the Sil the characters have this richness because you put it there....and thats no bad thing. it is very difficult to seperate our reaction to a figure in a book from the actual writing....and in the general run i wouldnt suggest it at all, but in this case its vital to do so.....
:catz:

[Maedhros]

Your argument is right but it's not precise. The only reason Greek mythological characters are easy to distinguish and they seem to have deep character, but the reality is that they are described only through one or two characteristics, but those characteristics are extreeme and you easily build up everything else around them
Again, I don't agree with this. Maybe you can give especific examples, but I don't think it's right to say that. For example, Medea, one of the greatest tragedies ever written, gives me personally the motivation behind the character, what makes her tick and her history. To say that greek mythological characters seem deep but are not, means to me a great dishonor to Homer and the Great Tragedist who made excellent stories with excellent and deep characters. Granted, not all of them have the same depth, but the majority are more than "seeminly" deep characters.

[Mirkgirl]

Dishonour? No, it's not. It's just another type of characters. Acording to the accepted meaning of 'deep character' they are not deep. But that doesn't mean they are lesser characters or the tragedists are lesser authors. It just means they are another type of characters, as they are characters of another type of literature.

You are prejudiced that what I call "only seemingly deep" is bad, you know that the Silmarillion, the ancient tragedies and mythology is good (with which I agree 100%) and you say the characters cannot be seemingly deep, they must be deep.

That's not true, and even being honest I must say that to make a "seemingly deep" characters, which are liked by the audience, is even harder and (maybe) deserves more respect. But of course they are not for every genre.

So if your only argument is that I'm trying to abuse the characters and their authors, I have to exuse myself that I didn't clarify the meaning of the phrase "they only seem deep".

[Maedhros]

Ok, so what is the accepted meaning of a "deep character" then?
So if your only argument is that I'm trying to abuse the characters and their authors, I have to exuse myself that I didn't clarify the meaning of the phrase "they only seem deep".
Ok.:)

[Catz]

i would say that a deep character shows all of the dichotomies and contradictions inherent in human nature......to take your example of Medea, Maedhros....shes another archetype....the devouring mother...a theme in many pagan religious systems....now this depends on what you are reading......ive read many tales with Medea used where her complexities are explored very deeply....but in the most original versions, there is nothing said about her that does not lead to what she is...there are no contradictions save for the one that is central to her as a mythic figure...that is...mother/murderer....in the earliest texts there isnt even much sympathy for her...she is cast as the dark woman....a figure of fear and used as an example of what a woman with power would become
and using that definition.....the characters of the Sil are not deep...that does not make them any less powerful....quite the opposite in fact....theyre like a jet of water from a fire hose as compared to a spray from the garden hose.....same stuff, different concentration
and archetypes touch us on a very deep level.....we dont so much identify with archetypes as recognise them within ourselves...and that is a very powerful thing....it resonates....
whoa....ramble on catz:blush: lol lol
:catz:

[Maedhros]

i would say that a deep character shows all of the dichotomies and contradictions inherent in human nature......to take your example of Medea, Maedhros....shes another archetype....the devouring mother...a theme in many pagan religious systems....now this depends on what you are reading......ive read many tales with Medea used where her complexities are explored very deeply....but in the most original versions, there is nothing said about her that does not lead to what she is...there are no contradictions save for the one that is central to her as a mythic figure...that is...mother/murderer....
Well, I'm reading the tragedy by Euripides:
For Jason hath betrayed his own children and my mistress dear for the love of a royal bride, for he hath wedded the daughter of Creon, lord of this land. While Medea, his hapless wife, thus scorned, appeals to the oaths he swore, recalls the strong pledge his right hand gave, and bids heaven be witness what requital she is finding from Jason. And here she lies fasting, yielding her body to her grief, wasting away in tears ever since she learnt that she was wronged by her husband, never lifting her eye nor raising her face from off the ground;
MEDEA (within) Oh, oh! Would that Heaven's levin bolt would cleave this head in twain! What gain is life to me? Woe, woe is me! O, to die and win release, quitting this loathed existence!
First I see Medea as someone who was betrayed by someone very dear to her, his husband Jason and she wanted to kill herself for the grief that she felt.
O my father, my country, that I have left to my shame, after slaying my own brother.
She loved Jason so much that she killed her own brother.
CREON Hark thee, Medea, I bid thee take those sullen looks and angry thoughts against thy husband forth from this land in exile, and with thee take both thy children and that without delay, for I am judge in this sentence, and I will not return unto my house till I banish
She was even banished from that place where she resided. (Corinth)
I saved thy life, as every Hellene knows who sailed with thee aboard the good ship Argo, when thou wert sent to tame and yoke fire-breathing bulls, and to sow the deadly tilth. Yea, and I slew the dragon which guarded the golden fleece, keeping sleepless watch o'er it with many
She was really betrayed by her own husband.
MEDEA My friends, I am resolved upon the deed; at once will I slay my children and then leave this land, without delaying long enough to hand them over to some more savage hand to butcher. Needs must they die in any case; and since they must, I will slay them-I, the mother that bare them. O heart of mine, steel thyself! Why do I hesitate to do the awful deed that must be done?
I do not see a mad woman who simply goes and kills her children. I see a woman who deeply loved her husband and children, who was betrayed by her husband and banished from his land and in utter desesperation and revenge killed his husband future bride and her sons. Seems to me a deep character, who is always in conflict with her own inner emotions.

[Algamesh]

I fear this conversation may have gotten a bit deeper than intended ... although it has produced some lovely debate! I hope you guys can keep it civil because I see points on both sides of the net. Keep it up!

I would like to explain the depth and the circumstance with which this post was made though.

First of all ... I would like to get away from Greek Tragedy here. The characters therein are more developed than the Silmarillion (although I must say that I believe they are archetypical).

What I mean by interchangability is that I can take Turgon, for instance, and put him in Thingol's situation expecting the same outcome as the original placement. The Silmarillion characters have no personal agendas. They are motviated solely by what occurs around them without any deep psychcological implications. There isn't much differentiation between the personalities or individualisms of the Sil. characters. The story is the driving force of their actions ... not their own convictions or innovations.

LOTR, as opposed to the Sil., is different. We really have a grasp on what sort of person Pippin is, for instance. Put in Sam's place ... choices would have been different and the story would have been changed. There's a lot of personality in LOTR ... something that is not present in Sil.

I'm not condemning Sil. here by any means. I don't think Tolkien wanted to flesh out the characters in it. This was meant to be a Myth as opposed to LOTR's historic feel and th sense of realism implied.

[Catz]

Agreed Algy....and of course itll stay civil lol lol
i always argue with claws sheathed;) roflmao youre right tho.....we do appear to have gone off an a Greek tangent here roflmao
i entirely agree with your statement comparing the Sil characters to LOTR characters....there is a vast difference...but both have their own power....simply because the figures in the Sil are archetypes does not diminish their power......if anything it increases it.....they are more iconic if you will....
:catz:

[Maedhros]

I agree that there is a difference in the characters in the Sil and those in LOTR but the books in themselves are written in different styles altogether.