davem said:
Quote:
|
Also, we have to keep in mind always, that some readers like to indulge in the fantasy that LotR is 'real' history, & don't want to be reminded that its all 'made up' by being presented with different versions of the story - it can destroy the magic (breaking things to find out what they're made of, etc)
|
I think that alternate versions of stories
promote the fantasy/conceit/whatever that LotR et al is real history. It seems to me that most of historical research consists of sifting through conflicting reports of events and trying to find or compile the account that is most in accordance with the historian's motives (such as an abstract idea of "truth," the glorification or demonization of particular historical figures or cultures, or some parallel with present events, for instance). The messier and more contradictory the sources, the more they are like real historical primary sources.
Not that I'm trying to weigh in on whether HoME should be part of these discussions--I haven't read it myself, and in fact haven't even been posting much on the chapter-by-chapter discussions, simply because they move too fast for me to keep up! I'm enjoying following along, though. There are lots of great ideas going around.
(I apologize if this comment is not appropriate for this thread--it's not really a suggestion at all--it's just that the possibility of alternate accounts is one of the things that I've always liked best about Tolkien.)