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.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by narfforc

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.

As do I. Like I've said, I've been to your wonderful country, and it was amazing. Truly a beautiful place. Coming from the US, it was a whole different experience for me. I know what you mean about living part of it's history. I could actually feel the history in the air, it was all around me. It was also great because I have English blood in me, I felt connected.

[Valier]

Well I just wanted to add that I too see middle Earth around me. I am Canadian and here nature is a big part of everyday life, (as I know it is in other countries I am sure, but there's just so dang much of it here!). But wandering around the woods here you sometimes think an Elf could walk right out. We have not the longest history, but our present is just as rich. I think all the thoughts about M.E being a real history, well it's not, but who cares? We all have fantasies in our minds of far off things and places so naturally having been influenced by the books and then the visuals in the movies how could you not be whisked away at any point to wonderful, simple Middle Earth.

[narfforc]

I envy you Valier, for if there was anywhere on earth an Elf would live, it would be your beautiful country. One day I will live in the middle of a forest, I promised myself that a long time ago. Some of my friends and I took Ted Nasmith on a tour of the Ale-houses of Chester, on the occasion of his giving a speech at The Tolkien Society AGM, I asked what it was like to live in a country of such stunning beauty, the twinkle in his eyes was enough to convince me to one day see for myself.


Sorry to go off track.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I've been a student of history myself from time to time, so I ought to give some sort of response to this question.

As several people have already pointed out, actual history (perhaps I should say 'past events') have shaped every aspect of the world we inhabit. Every law, custom and national border exists in its current form because historical events and decisions made them so. The structure and vocabulary of every language, and the groups of people who speak those languages are as they are because of historical events, and fictional history will never have that connection with our everyday lives. More significantly, real history is re-evaluated on a regular basis as new facts emerge or new theories and methods develop. Each generation of historians approaches the basic matter of history from a different perspective, identifying different aspects as important, or overturning old suppositions with new research. History, therefore, exists in a constant state of dialogue with the present. There is no one definitive version of events and there never can be.

Tolkien's history is not a dialogue. It's a monologue from Tolkien to his audience. Unless new material from Tolkien emerges, the events and their significance remain as they stand. Nobody will ever be able to trace a place-name back to the Fourth Age, because the Fourth Age never happened. Comparison of Gondorian and Elvish records with those of their enemies will never be possible because Tolkien only wrote one side of the story. More than that, he wrote in such a way that we know Sauron's perspective to be morally bankrupt. That will never be true of the real world: no real society or person has a monopoly on truth or virtue.

Therefore, as Saucepan Man pointed out, the history of Middle-earth has only a personal significance, or significance within the context of Tolkien's fiction. Real history has universal significance: its facts and their interpretation directly affect how we see one another and the world in general. Even the language I am using has risen to prominence by historical accident, and the fact of its ubiquitousness will affect the history of the future. There will never be a real political problem caused by the creation of Rohan, but the opposite is true of real countries. Real history is an integral part of our lives, Tolkienian history is an integral part of some works of fiction.

I have never noticed a great difference between approaches to history in Europe and the Americas. The United States does tend to mythologise its own history, but Britain is no different. Most people know that the leader of the Boston Tea Party had a cellar full of contraband tea, which he proceeded to sell at an inflated rate once the competition were out of business; but similarly, Richard the Lionheart hated England, refused to speak English and scarcely visited the country during his reign. Not only that, but his entire career consisted in fighting a holy war against a more advanced society, which he lost. People in general like a nice, heroic past that shows their own society in a positive light, and no amount of ruined castles and ancient country houses will ever change that. Perhaps if the international film industry had found its base in London instead of Los Angeles British people would still be talking with pride of the Pax Britannica, and burning Napoleon in effigy, but I suppose that would be a 'what if?' I'll say this for Tolkienian historiography: as far as I know it hasn't killed anyone yet.

[drigel]

Im no histoy expert, rather a buff or a hobbyist. But, that wont stop me from taking ahold of SPM and Squatter's threads, and ride them out a little further. This may make me sound like a Fairy chaser but oh well.

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.

As several people have already pointed out, actual history (perhaps I should say 'past events') have shaped every aspect of the world we inhabit.

Lets go waaaay back. The magic that JRRT (other authors too- RE Howard etc) brings to me is the nuance coming from my realization that what real history (ancient) we have IMO falls pitifully short for conclusiveness. Science gets better and better at fully analyizing what we do know, as well as present and future discoveries. But the reality for me, is that beyond 6-7 years, the picture that real history can paint for us is sketchy at best. There is a huge swath of human existence out there that either has not been, or can not be, discovered and analyzed by today's science. Maybe we were sqatting around a rotting mammoth carcass. Mabye it was something else. Something special - like my favorite RE Howard quote:

Know, oh prince, that between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars.

And mabye an era or two before that time. Civilizations rise and fall, most are forgotton, eventually forgotton by history as well.

Imagined history? perhaps... but perhaps the connections that people are talking about here are felt for a reason. Our genes have a memory greater than any computer.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by drigel

Imagined history? perhaps... but perhaps the connections that people are talking about here are felt for a reason. Our genes have a memory greater than any computer.

If you are speaking of the connection to Middle-earth, then I completely agree with you. I also feel connections to our past that is reality. I wanted to say, that in a rational/realist sense, Squatter made an excellent post, and is right. But what I was speaking of initially was more of a spiritual/mental thing. How Middle-earth and it's characters live within our minds, and in a sense transcends reality...

[drigel]

I would say that the vast and broad appeal of ME and the Legendarium in general exists. I would also so say that there is a reason or explanation for that reason. The reasons are as varied and myriad as there are people with opinions. But, IMO, part of that reason, I would say, is genetic, and therefore historical in nature (whether we are aware of it, or not).

The nature of it's importance has a direct relationship to time. Or, you can see it in two different lights - 1: the farther back in time you go, the more diluted the importance becomes, and/or 2: the farther back in time you go, the more monumental the influence we see on us, the end result becomes. Like a river: if you want to see why a river flows this way or that, you don't look at the last fork, you look at the first. If that makes sense to anyone at all...

And in the "you never know" department - as I reread this thread, I always go back to a guy who profited (as did history and archeology) somewhat from exploiting "imagined" or "perceived" history: Heinrich Schliemann. Who's going to be the next Heinrich Schliemann, and what will be the discovery?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

I have never noticed a great difference between approaches to history in Europe and the Americas.

I dare say you probably haven't, as you have never been to America to notice the lay of the land. It's all book study to you, and journalism. At least, you once told me in person that you had never travelled to North America.

I was thinking of situations where historical sites in NA have literally and physically been moved, two, three, four miles, to accomodate new freeways, etc.

One difference between historical sites in the UK and here in North America concerns how the sites are presented. Admittedly, this is based on just a few samples in the UK (and nine provinces and about 35 states) but at Stirling Castle, The Tower of London, York, and Mary Queen of Scots' birthplace, the tours I went on were lead by guides (always middle aged men) who spoke the stories, in costume of course, but mainly the experience was a verbal walking tour, so to speak. Here in NA, I think there is a greater reliance upon a "hands on" approach, with many of the historical parks offering dramatic recreations and activities which the visitors can physically engage in--not that Brebeuf's torture was itself recreated.

I haven't heard yet of any Tolkien/Middle-earth theme park, although possibly the touring movie exhibits of the weapons, costumes, etc, satisfy the urge for movie fans. The conventions, with their costumed banquets, of course, allow us to imagine a Middle earth more concretely.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I dare say you probably haven't, as you have never been to America to notice the lay of the land. It's all book study to you, and journalism. At least, you once told me in person that you had never travelled to North America.

That's true, and I should have mentioned it. In my limited experience, though, North Americans show as much if not more interest in their history than people in my own country. Being surrounded by relics of the past doesn't necessarily mean that you know or care very much about them. In a survey about fifteen years ago, several teenagers had Winston Churchill down as one of the Ghostbusters; and one boy (who was interviewed at a Civil War re-enactment) thought that Oliver Cromwell lost to Charles I.

I'm always wary of suggestions that North America is perhaps less appreciative of its past or less culturally aware than people on the other side of the Water. It's common in Britain to claim that the rest of Europe is more sophisticated, more open-minded and generally socially superior to our own backward, reactionary and vulgar culture; but that's been a common rhetorical device at least since the Romans (whose cultural attitude toward Greece is very reminiscent of Britain's toward France). I would hate to think that Canadians and Americans were falling into the same trap with Europe in general over something so minor as having a couple of thousand years' less European history, so I try to argue against anything that looks like that sort of argument. I say 'European history' because there are millennia of inconveniently unrecorded human history in the Americas going back long before Leif Eiriksson first set foot on Newfoundland. I expect I've misread your meaning.

That was flagrantly off the Tolkien trail. In a flailing and desperate attempt to return, I shall clumsily draw Tolkien's portrayal of the Hobbits and their nomenclature over my shameless pontification. Names such as Peregrin, Paladin, Meriadoc, Saradoc and others are specifically referred to by Tolkien as heroic names given not for their forgotten meaning, but because they sounded nice. Similarly their transformation of 'Baranduin' to 'Brandywine' due to ignorance of its meaning is fairly typical of English conventions. The Hobbits are like the average Englishman: living in the midst of thousands of years of history, yet blissfully unaware of its meaning or import; or even, in many cases, of its existence. I would suggest that this applies to more people in the world than the Warwickshire villagers who were Tolkien's models, and I don't think that the attitude respects either national or continental boundaries.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

I expect I've misread your meaning.

You have indeed, but when did that ever stop you? It's my own imprecise form of argument, as MatthewM also misunderstood my comments as a personal comment on his attitude towards history. So let me try again...

There is ignorance wherever humans gather; its seems part of the species. Yet I was not thinking of ignorance so much as a social perspective. It is always difficult to talk generally of a culture, as individual differences are also a part of the species. Yet it is possible to argue that America was founded upon a rejection of history-- of European history--a rejection of its religious intolerance, a rejection of its social hierarchy, a rejection of its appalling history of inequality and lack of individual liberty (while conveniently accepting slavery). It is this general sense of creating newly which I think subtly informs American attitudes towards history, an encouragement not to be weighed down by the past or by tradition. Why, I remember a television interview with a coal miner years ago when Baroness Thatcher was attempting her new world order; he was on strike, he said, to defend tha pits so his son could go down to the mines, like him and his father and his father before him. The poor soul could not imagine a future for his son if there wasn't a mine to go down. (And what do I know? Maybe there in fact was not anything else for the son to do.) Until very recently, I would think that attitude would have been rare in North America, where there was the general expectation that each generation would "do better" than the parents in terms of wealth, position, etc (whether that happened or not is another matter). Perhaps a way to express is to say 'we are free to make our own history rather than forge a place in history'. This is a mythology of course, like any other. It was this very manifest destiny which allowed some of the most flagrant cruelties in North American history...

Originally Posted by Squatter

That was flagrantly off the Tolkien trail. In a flailing and desperate attempt to return, I shall clumsily draw Tolkien's portrayal of the Hobbits and their nomenclature over my shameless pontification. Names such as Peregrin, Paladin, Meriadoc, Saradoc and others are specifically referred to by Tolkien as heroic names given not for their forgotten meaning, but because they sounded nice. Similarly their transformation of 'Baranduin' to 'Brandywine' due to ignorance of its meaning is fairly typical of English conventions. The Hobbits are like the average Englishman: living in the midst of thousands of years of history, yet blissfully unaware of its meaning or import; or even, in many cases, of its existence. I would suggest that this applies to more people in the world than the Warwickshire villagers who were Tolkien's models, and I don't think that the attitude respects either national or continental boundaries.

Hobbits don't have grammar schools, don't have public libraries, don't have newspapers or broadsheets, although interestingly they do have a postal service. Their history lies in the oral tradition-- or at least this how Bilbo and Frodo come to learn of things elven--and it belongs apparently to the 'upper classes' of Hobbit society. The elves themselves, at least those in Rivendell, seem to use that oral tradition in public events or feast meals. Come to think of it, doesn't Bilbo's and Frodo's attitude towards things elven sound a bit similar to that rhetorical device Squatter mentioned about English attitudes toward European sophistication?

And this is also flagrantly meandering away from MatthewM's original idea. I suspect I misread his meaning.