Tolkien's Rare Character Descriptions - "What is essential is invisible to the eyes"

Zephen12

Member
Hello Professor! I was struck by Tolkien's continued avoidance of physical descriptions of characters, and I thought it felt familiar. Do you think it fair to say that Tolkien is describing "essential matters" of which physical appearance does not account for much? Here is what I mean...

In Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince, the narrator provides this aside:

Grown-ups love figures. When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you , "What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?" Instead, they demand: "How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?" Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him . . . If you were to say to the grown-ups: "I saw a beautiful house made of rosy brick, with geranium in the windows and doves on the roof," they would not be able to get any idea of the house at all. You would have to say to them: "I saw a house that cost $100,000." Then they would exclaim: "Oh, what a pretty house that is" . . . But certainly, for us who understand life, figures are a matter of indifference.
Those familiar with the story know that the narrator is painfully aware of his inability to describe the Little Prince. Details such as height are practically irrelevant because they fail to convey the person of the Little Prince, fail to convey who he is. He opts instead for pictures and drawings because art conveys the Little Prince in a more expressive form than mere words. At the end of the day, however, the narrator knows he will ultimately fail because "what is essential is invisible to the eye."

If I am not wrong, Tolkien seems to be going for the same thing here. Mere physical description cannot convey the glory (fairness) of the Elves (or Gandalf, or any of his characters, for that matter). As we discussed in class, even the physical descriptions tend to tail off into more "spiritual" or non-physical depictions. (I particularly note that Tolkien describes the sound of Glorfindel's voice, answering one of the questions which Saint-Exupery's narrator proposes.) I also find it significant that Tolkien describes the eyes of Gandalf, Glorfindel, and Elrond given that the eyes are often associated with the inner soul.

I also think there is a parallel with the arts. The narrator of The Little Prince wants to express himself through drawings and pictures, and the hobbits often desire to express themselves through song. This was especially true in the house of Tom Bombadil when the hobbits felt that singing was "easier and more natural than talking." (Another aside, Tom Bombadil himself is another great example of failing to sum up a person with added description - "Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer.") And of course we've already discussed Pippin struggling to find words to describe his experience.
 
Fascinating ideas there. . . JRRT's landscape descriptions also: he always gives a "feel" for the scene, not just a physical description. Leaving stuff out leaves room for the reader's imagination, and this applies everywhere in Tolkien. We've seen how much he takes out from explicit text without changing his mind about its truth/existence in the HOME sessions. . .
Mere physical description cannot convey the glory (fairness) of the Elves
Which, of course, is one place where any movie adaptation must necessarily fall down, since movie Elves are just people with makeup on.
Must think more on this!
 
Back
Top