Real and Fake History: Can it be the Same?

[MatthewM]

I'm aware theyre have been threads similiar to this, but not exactly the same.

We are all here because we share a love for J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth, most notably The Lord of the Rings. I'll speak for myself for a bit---I spend countless amounts of time within the realms of Middle-earth, whether I am reading the text, watching the movies, participating in forums like this one, painting the miniatures, admiring my decked out room and all the collectibles, etc. I even find myself almost always thinking of some sort of Lord of the Rings related thought. I find myself thinking like or relating to certain characters and their decision making. Whenever I go for a bike ride or a walk I am scaling Middle-earth. Call it Tolkien syndrome or whatever you like, I am addicted, and it's been this way for years...it's here to stay and I love it!

But the thing is...kind of ironic...it is fantasy...not real, never happened (although sometimes we all think otherwise ). I spend insane amounts of time in a fantasy world, and it's not like I'm trying to escape the real one. I'm not depressed, although I've seen my share of tradegy for such a young age. I lost my mother a year ago, and the pain will never heal. Besides that, I live a life I am happy with. So I know that I am not trying to "get away" from life...I just wish things that were in Middle-earth came to our earth.

There are two kinds of history. Real and fake. As a history major, I fully appreciate both. But just how real is "real" history to us living in our age? Of course most of it really happend, it took place hundreds and thousands of years ago. But when you think about it---isn't it just as real to us as a fictional work such as The Lord of the Rings is? We have history textbooks that give us detailed accounts of what happened. We read them and study them. We find a similiar idea with The Silmarillion, a history of Middle-earth (although I haven't read it yet). We have these tales such as LotR and the Sil that give us complete knowledge of this world that came out of the mind of one man. But all history is the sequence of events coming from the decision making and the minds of one man at a time. Even as a group, the decisions that we read of and outcomes that came had to be pulled back to a starting point, or one man's idea or plan. This is what I find to mostly be the case. So to us, isn't real history just as real as Tolkien's? We can never go back in history, we can never see the grandeor that was Rome, we can never see the peoples of the Medieval ages, we can never shake hands with George Washington. The list goes on endlessly, but what I'm saying is...we can't go back in time or to Middle-earth. So doesn't that make it almost as real as history? What's the difference? We can't go to either. We can study both. Middle-earth existed in the mind of one man, but he left us a textbook to follow and to study, and to live. Just like you can do for a real textbook of documented history.

I believe that the world of Middle-earth truly has something special, and we give it life everyday by relating our time to it. It is a place of beauty and wonder, and magic. We all want to go there and walk with The Fellowship.

Do you think it's possible that by diving into Middle-earth and it's characters so much, we become it and/or them in a sense? Do you think that Middle-earth exists within us, living with us and our imaginations? I do.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, one major difference is that "real" history, ie the events that have actually occurred in our past, has had a very real effect on the way that we live our lives today. Of course, fictional history can affect us too, as individuals, but not in nearly so concrete, significant and widespread a manner.

Another key difference that occurs to me is that real history is rarely "high, purged of the gross".

That said, "perceived" history can sometimes be just as fictional as Tolkien's created history.

[Bêthberry]

MatthewM, I see by your profile that you are from the New World, New York.

It seems to me that America's attitude towards real history is somewhat different than the European attitude. "History" is all around the countries of Europe. Ancient buildings still stand and are used, people remember what happened in places because they don't--or didn't at a high rate--tear down useful buildings and structures to make room for modern things. England still has Roman roads--and they are called such. Castles still stand. And barrows are all over the land, real barrows that were funeral grounds.

Here in America, we tend to tear down old things rather than reuse them. We also have fewer centuries of 'lived' history behind us. Mores to our pity I think, as there is much in our history that bears remembering, especially how our lands were explored and taken over.

So I think it is easier for North Americans to blur the distinction between fictional and real history, or to be cynical about the histories recorded in textbooks. For us, it is a 'textbook', always written by someone with a particular perspective; for Europeans, to a large extent, history remains something which shaped their land and cities. It isn't something that comes out of a book.

After all, real history is told by witnesses and participants, rather than by journalists and scholars.

Of course, I'm sure some of our European BDers can easily refute my thoughts here, but certainly my visits to Europe gave me a sense that Europeans live under a weight of history that North Americans cannot quite appreciate.

[narfforc]

History is fluid, at any one time new evidence is unearthed for investigation, we in the real world can feel it, touch it and see it, the problem with Middle-earth is that it's published form is static, you can not change it. In real history we normally have one account of a period in time, there is sometimes an opposing view ie: America has Independence from Britain, however many British Military types will tell you, that if the full force of The British Army had been brought to bear immediately then things would have been very different, these are called 'What If's' and they change nothing. Conquered peoples and lands will tell a different story to the one published in histories, propaganda can twist reality, yet we do not have the ability of the author to rewrite and supercede a previous storyline, in time truth has the victory. The problem MathewM is that The Lord of the Rings is just a book, it is dangerous to become enamoured of Faery, one day you will wake and realise that you dreamed your life away on the unsubstanstial. In the real world we have real problems, food on the table and rent to pay, we need not worry of orcs hanging on the bell, and my life is tempered by reality, I do not need any book to tell me how I should act, think or do. I have a cellar (basement) at my home, in it I have:

51 copies of LotRs
307 other Tolkien or related books
14 swords
5 helmets
2 shields
2 axes
2 staffs
25 rings
the finger of Sauron
various statues
70-ish painted models
and more assorted Tolkien clutter than you can imagine

I have to my Tolkien collection, two ex-wives who I denounce as unbelievers. I have been reading Tolkien for nearly 40 years, it is a huge part of my life, I have spent the last three years writing a parody (spoof) to be called The Lord of the Grins, if you met anyone that knows me, they would say 'Oh yeh, that Tolkien geek', yet they would be wrong, for I have many others interests that I love, one is life, real life. However I commend you on a very interesting topic, thank you for bringing it up.

[alatar]

MatthewM, I'm with you. That said, all things in moderation/balance.

Regarding history, your point is well made. I think that to many, the past might as well have been written by a bunch of fiction writers with little else to do. Many of my fellow citizens remember even little of their own personal histories, let alone read about/learn about their community's/nation's etc histories. For most people, time begins sometimes after they are born, and like rear view mirrors, history sometimes has its uses but when you're blazing down the highway on your cell phone, you really don't have much need for it.

More important issues fill the day, like the latest celebrity birth/death/faux pas. History is just one of those things that you have to do to break out of the public school monopoly. And don't even get me started on people's discernment abilities (the lack thereof )...

Anyway, the difference between Tolkien's and those other fiction writers' histories is that the fiction writers have more to work with. You can find artifacts to use in your creative writings, and sometimes others will participate in your fantasy, claiming to be eye-witnesses to the events. You can even find good forgeries of documents that also help with the fiction.

To date we've not found one artifact or manuscript that independently validates the Middle Earth world, and until the time that we do, we have to go along with the other fictional history.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

MatthewM, I see by your profile that you are from the New World, New York.

It seems to me that America's attitude towards real history is somewhat different than the European attitude. "History" is all around the countries of Europe. Ancient buildings still stand and are used, people remember what happened in places because they don't--or didn't at a high rate--tear down useful buildings and structures to make room for modern things. England still has Roman roads--and they are called such. Castles still stand. And barrows are all over the land, real barrows that were funeral grounds.

Here in America, we tend to tear down old things rather than reuse them. We also have fewer centuries of 'lived' history behind us. Mores to our pity I think, as there is much in our history that bears remembering, especially how our lands were explored and taken over.

So I think it is easier for North Americans to blur the distinction between fictional and real history, or to be cynical about the histories recorded in textbooks. For us, it is a 'textbook', always written by someone with a particular perspective; for Europeans, to a large extent, history remains something which shaped their land and cities. It isn't something that comes out of a book.

After all, real history is told by witnesses and participants, rather than by journalists and scholars.

Of course, I'm sure some of our European BDers can easily refute my thoughts here, but certainly my visits to Europe gave me a sense that Europeans live under a weight of history that North Americans cannot quite appreciate.

Well, do speak for yourself. Not all Americans are like that. As I said, I'm a history major in college, so I value history very highly. When I visited England in May of this year indeed it was different, for history was still living there. Castles, rolling green lands, buildings that have been left. The sense of history is just so much more present there than it is in America, but I wouldn't confuse that with appreciation. We still have things here to appreciate, but our air is not filled with it as is England's. As a Swedish friend told me once, "America is built for cars". It's sad but true, but that doesn't mean we do not appreciate the history of our land and our world.

narfforc, I think you're missing the point of the post a little. You're making it sound like I'm a dreamful nut who thinks he is in Middle-earth. Believe me sir, I know when to draw the line between fiction and reality. However, I'm talking about deeper into the mind, trancending what we really know. I mentioned that sometimes I tend to think myself to think like certain characters of Tolkien, but by no means do I think I am them. Middle-earth is alive in our minds, for we let it live. Don't confuse that with ultimately "wasting your life away"!

[Formendacil]

I rather agree with Bêthberry- the presence of real and historical artefacts has a profound interest in one's (well, mine anyway) perception of history.

Although not a history major (one needs to be in school for that, which I am not), I share your interest and fascination for "real" history. But although I have always appreciated the distinction between True Past Fact (Real History) and Feigned Past Fact (Fake History), the real difference for me between the former and the latter was that in the case of the latter, I could get out a globe, spin it 1/3 of the way around, and say "There: that's where the Roman Emperors ruled. X distance form Here, where I am".

I had no such comparisons for the Kings of Gondor. Yes, I could take out the Map, point at Minas Tirith and say: "There: that's where Aragorn ruled." But I could not make the tie back to myself- back to reality- that I could do with the Romans.

And being able to go TO Rome made it even more real, last year. To walk the Roman forum, where Julius Caesar must have walked, to see the Colosseum, and the Circus Maximus, and St. Peter's- whatever I saw and visited, the force of history is there BEHIND you. You can look at it, and know that the persons of history have been there.

Even if you could construct a perfect replica, ideal to all fans, critics, and Tolkien himself (which is impossible on all three counts) of, say, Minas Tirith, you could not go there and say "Aragorn has walked here." In the case of Rome, history was caused by what you see and walk through. In the case of this Minas Tirith, the "history" is what caused it to come to be. Facts must precede and cause history. In the case of Middle-Earth, there are no Facts to cause and precede it, other than the workings of Tolkien's pens, pencils, and typewriters.

[narfforc]

MathewM I did not wish to offend you in that way, however if you are a Tolkien nut, then we probably all are. The idea of thinking of the way a character would feel or even act is a slight problem for me, as all that would achieve is following how Tolkien felt, I believe that certainly in his herioc characters he imbued them with many of his own thoughts and ways, they are the children of his mind, in some ways as the Ainur were of Eru. The stance of his heroic characters in their fight against evil, the way they fight and fall, is real history, for it is tempered by Tolkiens knowledge of real events in our own real histories. There is not much actually new in Middle-earth, his vision is a amalgm of real world history/legend/mythology, anyone having read Norse/Celtic mythology or real world histories will recognise most of the characters and their actions.

Having said all this, I must admit that I also wander Middle-earth, however I wander in many places and all for different reasons, There are many times I have walked through the forests of Neldoreth, once as a Guardsman in The 1st or Grenadier Regiment of Foot Guards I stood on the battlements of Windsor Castle and in the East a thunderstorm was brewing, lightning filled the skies, for a moment I was transported, I felt like Beregond. I also understand the need to be elsewhere sometimes. The one regret I have is that there is no real Miidle-earth either in the present or the past, I visited the Valley of The Kings recently, for a short time I was in two places at the same time, this is what real history can achieve. The thing about most of us Britons, is that we are surrounded by our history, many of us have an affinity with it either locally our nationally, to stand at Stonehenge or Skara Brae is to stand in the ancient world, we are a living part of its history, no elves remain to tell of the wonders of Tirion upon Tuna, I wish with all my heart there were.