[Child of the 7th Age]

I have been prodded to start a thread that was initially inspired by Beth's musings regarding how history always is written by the winners.

Good thread, drigel ! I think I will be the historical curmudgeon here and argue that Bb's maxim doesn't always hold. The reigning interpretation of an historical event or epoch is generally written by the "winners". But that isn't the case with the historical record as a whole. You frequently get chronicles, narratives, and interpretive studies that reflect the opinions of those whose cause (or interpretation) didn't win out. One splendid example of this is U.S. civil war history. The South has a tradition of producing wonderful historians, but their interpretation frequently differs from that of their northern counterparts, even today.

In the real world, the only time you totally lose the voice of the "losers" is when they are wholly illiterate, and simply can't produce a written document. Then we are reduced to studying physical data and "official" records that might shed some light on their condition and opinions.

The latter isn't true of Sauron's folk. While I can't see Orcs taking up the pen--it seems to be wholly contrary to their nature, I can imagine Sauron and Saruman, especially the latter, writing down their thoughts. Perhaps it would be letters or a private diary rather than a narrative written for public consumption. Unfortunately, except in the pages of fan fiction, we do not have access to such documents, either ones that would be termed "original" or "secondary" sources.

There is a reason for this that goes back to Tolkien's personal beliefs about goodness and evil in the world. Both in the actual narrative of the LotR and in his personal letters, there are indications that Tolkien felt it wasn't too wise to dabble too deeply in the study of "evil". Otherwise, one might end up in Saruman's shoes. Given JRRT's personal values, there is no way the author would ever have produced an extensive narrative or record that reflected the experiences of the "losers" of the late Third Age.


There is another way of looking at this, however. I think we are oversimplifying things if we only speak of "winners" and "losers". There are many other voices in the historical record, and these voices are not identical. Just take a look at Silm. Although the translation is supposedly by Bilbo, the dominent voice is that of the Elves. Their perspective colors what is put in and left out of the narrative. It also influences our view of other peoples, especially the Dwarves. Some of the most direct instances of the "human" voice occur in Morgoth's Ring, for example in the interchange between Andreth and Finrod. In LotR, by contrast, there is much more evidence of a hobbit perspective. In this respect, I would disagree with Dancing Spawn :

The books have been written in a manner that you can't really tell who the author is. We know it's Frodo because Tolkien told us. Though "Frodo's" version of LotR seems very neutral, a hobbit who has had to endure much pain and agony is doubtlessly rather biased.

I do think it's clear that there is a hobbit voice in LotR. Perhaps not on every page, but it is is especially evident in two places: the early chapters in the Shire and the experience in Minas Tirith and Rohan. If someone like Aragorn had written those later chapters, he would have taken much for granted because it was already familiar to him. For the hobbits, everything is new and exciting, and it is their perspective and detailed descriptions of Gondor (and Rohan) that are passed on to the reader, who is also a newcomer on the scene.

As far as "biased" goes.....this is what I would say. There is no such thing as "unbiased" history. It simply doesn't exist. Every history has an interpretation underlying it, and the same holds true for Tolkien. That he did not try to express the viewpoint of Sauron is not a shortcoming: it is part of his interpretation.

The line between writing "good" and "bad" history is very fine. Every historian is entitled to an interpretation. It is only when there is blatant distortion of the facts that we cross the line from history to propaganda. Tolkien, to my knowledge, did not do this (at least in the context of the world he created). And although we primarily have the ideas and viewpoints of the "good guys" in LotR, Tolkien was also careful to give us some hints about Boromir and Saruman, folks who weren't wholly in one or the other camp. (Indeed, the author even tells us that at one point Sauron was "good".)

My real desire is not to get the perspective of the "bad" Sauron. I truly think that would be boring, since it's more likely to read as simplistic propaganda rather than history. But I would love to be inside Saruman's head as he was gradually won over to the Shadow, or to experience Boromir's torment in deciding whether to try and snatch the Ring, or, best yet, Frodo's inner growth at the same time as he is being tempted by the Ring.

If we're going to have history written by a true baddie, my own preference would not be Sauron but a narrative composed by the Ring itself. That does have certain possibilities, and would answer any number of perplexing questions.

Cami ......like Bilbo.... back after a long journey on the road.

P.S. A side comment. Isn't it interesting how many of us (including me) love to play the baddies in RPG's? Is it our own human nature that lures us to an ivestigation of the dark side or a desire to fill in what Tolkien left out?