> Historical myths and legends of were not controlled in the same sense that modern fiction is. I think this point misses a bit of context - notably the contra

> Historical myths and legends of were not controlled in the same sense that modern fiction is. I think this point misses a bit of context - notably the contrast between oral and written literature. Many historical legends and folklore originated in some kind of oral context, which gives rise to a huge set of interconnected stories (and it's only later that we get some kind of "canonical" version of these stories, when someone writes down one of those oral performances). The oral performances of such stories necessitated some of the attributes you allude to. The characters and plotting are formulaic and interchangeable because that makes them easier to memorize; the details are sparse and interchangeable because that allows the bard to fill in details to fit the meter and appeal to the preferences of their audience. > And then of course modern stories are generally single-source and totally controlled. Tolkien was incredibly aware of this written/oral distinction, and this whole post is great evidence! Tolkien uses the way that oral storytelling functions as an in-world device to explain away a discrepancy between conflicting written versions of the same story. This ends up feeling incredibly satisfying because people intuitively understand the nature of oral folklore, as opposed to, say, George Lucas's endless revisions to Star Wars (which conflicts with the audience's desire for a single "canonical" version.)