[Child of the 7th Age]

There are so many interesting ideas in this thread! A number of points ring very true: that Elves are less dependent on the physical book than those who follow them, and that Tolkien's emphasis and hence that of the Elves is more on language and stories than collections of books per se.

I'd like to point to two areas, however, where I think we need to be careful how we are using terms. At points, this thread perhaps postulates too sharp a distinction between certain categories of writing: "history" versus "not history", and oral versus the written transmission of the past.

Let's start with the latter, which is easier to deal with: the supposed distinction between the "shifting annals of oral history" and the more "rigid" history recorded in books. A slew of recent studies have shown that this distinction is not as clear-cut as one might suppose. The very nature and essence of history is change, at least if we are referencing the history of modern Western Man (the tradition with which JRRT was concerned). Although a cliche, it is nonetheless true that every generation of Western Man regularly rewrites its past. Whether the record is oral or written, new material and interpretations are put forward. In the case of oral history, the changes in the record are more often accidental and less often intentional. With written history, the equation is reversed, but change is the mode of operation for all varieties of Western History. As to why history changes, it is quite often a reflection of the fact that changes are occurring in the present: new material is found and attitudes change. Changes in modern ideologies and technology actually bring about new ways of looking at the past.

The Elves are wholly exempt from this equation. Unlike Men who are somewhat more accepting of change, the Elves desire to embalm both the past and present to ensure that no change occurs. This would be as true of their oral history accounts as it would be of those chronicles that are set down in book format. It is the intention of the Elves that is the key rather than the mode of transmission of their stories. It's interesting to note that there are certain traditional cultures (not part of the modern West) similar to the Elves in that they cling to the ideal of an unchanging past. These tribes pass along sacred stories in an oral format that never varies. The worth of the storyteller is judged by the degree to which he/she is able to replicate a story without a single change.

Judging from what Tolkien tells us, I would guess that this changeless transmission would also have appealed to the Elves. Even if a story was phrased in new words, perhaps written in prose rather than poetry, they would not have wanted to see the heart of the story alter in any meaningful respect. It would have gone against everything they stood for. Yet, at the same time, there would have to be some inherent tension between the desire to preserve and the desire to sub-create. The two could not always have been an easy fit.

Will post later about "history" versus "non-history" (fantasy, fiction, ...or whatever you prefer to call this category).