Interesting view on Lord of the Rings

[Jeunemaitre]

....What I really liked, and really picked up on thanks to the history class I'm in talking about "chriastianizing natives", and "social darwinism", was a bit from the last part about, if this were a real history, what Sauron was actually doing.
[right][snapback]90470[/snapback][/right]

First, some warning: I realized this got really longwinded, so feel free to start from the "Now the bottom line section."

Second, some recollection: Haven't read the article, but did take a course in "medieval history" which turned out to be a lot more about historiology (the study of the writing of history I mean) than history. The instructor liked to take class time to illustrate how the interpretation of some piece of an annals type document from 1175 or so was preposterous. I thought about this course when I read your post, and I think you might be right: we all might do well to not believe everything we read and consider the authors' affiliation and PoV (point of view).

Now, some hyperbole: analysis of the LotR series as though they represent history is a bit like analyzing Greek or Roman or Norse or Native American or Australian Aboriginal or (your favorite old nation here) as history. They all have their epic heroes and tales (and most, oddly enough, have some story of a great flood), but we must keep in mind not only the authors' PoV but the original purpose of the stories as well.

Now some connection: This leads me to the sort of thing that seemed to be more popular a few years ago then it is now: the study of the bible as fiction. There was a course like this at my college and many folks I know had something like this, either at school or at their religious institution of choice, but I haven't heard much in this vein lately. The point of such studies is to evaluate the contents of "sacred" texts in terms of secular criteria (development of character, integrity plot, power of message, etc.). The analysis of the bible (torah, koran, book of mormon, dianetics, etc) as fiction, or history for that matter, seems ludicrous to many "fundamental" believers who feel that the bible is indeed the word of God recorded by the men to whom s/he spoke most clearly. However, equally ludicrous is the fundamental interpretation in the eyes of atheists or skeptics in general: these folks might fell it ludicrous to hold sacred a text which has been translated through three languages into no fewer than 15 different versions, which some people claim is free of contradiction, while others claim that is fraught with problems. (I'm not trying to recruit with this link, and I'm not advocating one religion or another, just providing a citation for the version line, check the dropdown in the "Quick Search" block).

Now, the bottom line: I guess the point here is if we are going to get out our tools to judge literature by interpreting it as though it was history, we may as well take purported history (at least purported to be history by the espousing religion) and judge it as literature. We therefore blur the line between intended fiction and intended history, so you may make a lot of people angry in doing so. You also would be wise to consider the additional parts of the LotR mythology, and the things that they would tell us about the world in which such history would have been written. Perhaps you're just asking around about whether you have any hobbit in you, and maybe I'm jacking this thread too much. I think anthropologists and historians have enough cultures to screw up the interpretation of without asking them to get involved in mythology or fiction.

Now is the time on Sprockets vhen ve dance!