I was looking for info on the Merovingian Kings, and decided to look up Pseudo history on wiki. I found an entry for Deep England, and every detail sound like nostalgia to me, not Pseudohistory . What am I understanding wrong?
Here, for ease of access, I will past the whole, short article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_England
Hmm. No wait, I won’t. Too long. Anyway…
Ever hear a conservative activist wax eloquent about how much society has declined since the 1950s? It hasn’t. I was living then, and though a slightly naive child, a pretty good observer of what was wrong with things – and there was plenty. The “idyllic 1950s” is a modern myth, to be contrasted against an alleged decline today. “Deep England” is much the same thing – an idyllic past for England. As the Wikipedia article points out, Tolkien’s Shire was a gentle caricature of what “Deep England” was supposedly like. But the evidence of the time speaks quite otherwise, as may be learned from any history that gets into social trends in addition to wars and politics.
It’s not Pseudohistory in the way that Geoffrey of Monmouth or “And did those feet in ancient time” are, but it’s an idyllic, slanted depiction done out of nostalgia, and hence a misrepresentation of the truth.
Ah! I didn’t realize. Thank you very much.
What’s the difference?