[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Clearly history is neither dead nor ignored, judging by this thread. Anyway, here's what I think:

People like things to be simple: they like heroes and villains; beginnings and endings (preferably happy) and, above all, no challenge to their view of how the world works.
History offers none of these things without revision, which is why you'll find massive inaccuracies in most historical films, which have to appeal to a mass audience: the heroes and villains are usually just people, many of whom had less of an impact than one might think; the story begins before the records do and ends in the future and more often than not the morally bankrupt come off best.
As for challenging none of our beliefs: the civilisations of the past present thousands of alternatives to the way we live: religion, politics, even ethics are always changing and nothing, but nothing, is simple or clear-cut. This is why history becomes myth, which has all of the things that history doesn't, and also helps to bond a culture closer together, just like literature and music; also, just like literature and music, myth is fluid and bends with the wind of opinion. The facts, on the other hand, remain exactly the same, however uncomfortable they may be. "If ignorance is bliss", as the saying goes, "'tis folly to be wise."

Of course, it isn't usually a conscious decision that keeps people in ignorance: most people are just too lazy to find out about things that won't earn them more money, impress the opposite sex or advance their careers. Most of them, like Betjeman's clerks of Slough, "don't look up to see the stars / But belch instead". Sad but true. Personally the only thing I have against such ignorance is its tendency to create an idealised (ie fictional) version of the past that tells us only what we want to hear and, far from teaching us any lessons, only reinforces decisions that have already been made, however idiotic they may be.

Just to bring us back to some semblance of being on topic; far from steering away from this tendency, Tolkien follows a similar impulse in creating a fictional world and setting it in the past. The very people who say that they don't enjoy The Lord of the Rings because it isn't based on reality often blithely believe in a totally fictional version of the past that's less convincing than the Professor's fiction. Who, I feel compelled to ask, is the bigger fool?

Tempus is fugiting quite quickly, so I must dash.