Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwen
I just read a story, and it got me thinking: how much of the history we read is actually the truth, and how much is the case of 'history is written by the winners'? Were Maeglin and other demonized people (Beruthiel, Ulfang and co. etc.) truly evil, or were they presented as such by those who wrote their history?
(I left Pharazon out because I hate him)
|
I think it depends on what story of how the story got to us you are following.
If you go by the "Tolkien translated the Red Book" hypothesis, then yes, history is written by the winners (or rather, it's written by the hobbits, who have heard the versions of the winners).
But if you take it as the story in its true version (though still with individual characters and POVs having their own perceptions and biases, where applicable), which was in some retelling of it used as the basis for the Red Book translations, then it's the true story.
I prefer to think of it as the real deal. The issue with the first case scenario is if you start questioning the validity of the history, you gotta question all of it. To give an example with your favourites, you might say that Maeglin was painted as less sympathetic than he really was, but then you also have to accept that Tar-Miriel might have been less goody-good than she was portrayed, and maybe Hurin didn't actually stand up to Morgoth so steadfastly (cause who was there to witness it?), or maybe Nienor knew full well she was marrying her brother and did it anyways, but the people of Brethil would rather not admit to the fact that their favourite was a perv and covered up for her. If you start, where do you stop? Yes, it's possible, but I would rather not go that way. I would rather leave the beauty of the story intact the way it is than start doubting its bits and pieces.
Saying that, it doesn't mean the story itself doesn't have its own biases, as I said before. When we see into a character's POV, we know them better and we relate to them better, so sympathy is partially created that way regardless of what that character is or does. By sharing the thoughts and motives of one character but not the other in an exchange, the story automatically biases us towards the one we know better. You get this sometimes with Maeglin, who is seen in the context of other stories and only chimes in with an arrogant comment. So while the story is true, it might still not be perfectly well-rounded.
How's that for the resolution of your debate? Thoughts?