Patriotic_‘Truthiness’__the_Myth_of_English_History_in_England,_England

Patriotic ‘Truthiness’: The Myth of English History in England, England A reverence towards their history which borders religious worship is one of the defining characteristics of the English people in England England, by Julian Barnes. At Martha’s childhood school the students went through religious rituals on a daily basis, but those prayers were seen as superficial and hurried; a simple case of going through the motions in order to be able to consider them complete. This is contrasted with the daily ritual of the recitation of English history which is described as a type of worship, with the teacher who oversaw it depicted as “a charismatic priestess, keeping time, guiding the gospellers” (11). The history that England worships is not factually based, nor is there a wide desire for it to become such; patriotism and national pride are built upon a culture of fabricated memories and manufactured myths, thus putting the self identity of Englishness on shaky grounds as it moves into the future. Often the best way to understand a group of people is to look at those who are not a part of them; without the ‘other’ the ‘us’ would cease to exist. The first example of a foreigner that is brought into the world of Englishness is the French intellectual, who came in to consult and advise Sir Jack and his employees on their England, England project. He describes the project as not an attempt to replicate English heritage and tradition, but rather the attempt to make something altogether novel and new. Overall his attitude can be described as extremely postmodern and as a result it was greatly distasteful to his audience at Pitco, in particular Sir Jack, even thought what he was saying was pleasantly reassuring in terms of the England, England vision. The French intellectual put an emphasis on the detachment of the replica from the original, whereas Englishness, and by extension of potential success of England, England, is centered on the notion of an emotional attachment and sense of pride directed towards their version of history, as well as reluctance to confront any possibility of fraudulence associated with it. When Martha, in her old age, settles in Anglia she encounters Jez Harris, an American who had decided to settle in the rustic community. He enjoyed trading invented folk tales with visitors to the community in exchange for a free meal and a drink. This is considered quite offensive to the English natives in the community, some going so far as to say that it is proof of his foreign roots. The village school teacher, Mr. Mullin explained to Martha that he simply wishes that Jez would exchange his stories for theirs because then, at least they would be true. The man however, then clarified his statement; “well, maybe not true, but at least recorded” (255), which is very indicative to the overall English attitude towards their history, and not simply their folk tales and myths; the legitimacy of their cultural history does not lie in the objective truth, but rather the mass perception and interpretation of that truth. English history is not the record of what necessarily happened in an objective sense, but rather the way that things are reproduced in society’s memory. Memories in the context of the novel are considered very faulty; they can be combined, forgotten or even completely invented and written records are not given any more credit in terms of their reliability. Paul Harrison is Sir Jack’s official Ideas Catcher; his job is to take written note of the thoughts and musings of Sir Jack that are thought to be of particular insight or quality. The very nature of this act of filtering out the uninspired and mundane and holding onto Sir Jack’s pearls of wisdom is representative of the faulty and biased nature of written records but even beyond that, Paul knew that he was also encouraged to make improvements to the caught ideas, so to speak, for example he changes Sir Jack’s contemplative “Perhaps what I need is one last great idea” (35) into a much more assertive statement by deleting the word perhaps. Sir Jack’s thought will be recorded in the improved form and thus be remembered as such which speaks to the revisionist nature of history. Over time, the stories of events and people, of which there can arguably never be an objective recollection of to begin with, get told and retold, remembered and re-remembered, written and rewritten until the associated cultural history has little to no basis in fact whatsoever and so are created the myths that characterize England’s past, and thus its present and future. The makers of the England, England understand that the myths must be presented as the people want and expect to see them; they do not want their perception of Englishness to be altered, but rather reinforced by their visit to the theme park. The myths of England’s past have been framed by the modern world in the only context they know; a modern one; thus the planners felt the need to include differently-abled people in Robin Hood’s Band of Merrie Men, for example, and to filter the opinions of the historical figures, whose opinion on race and sexuality would seem offensive to the people today. The people of England’s past thought and acted differently than the behavioral conventions of today, but it was not something that the visitors necessarily wanted to witness, which became problematic when the actors began to interpret their characters more realistically, bringing out a side of Englishness that was more violent, smelly and lacking in political correctness than either the owners or visitors were comfortable with. The most profound myth that is presented in the novel is the one that is intrinsically interwoven with the country’s identity and sense of patriotism; the myth of the royal family. The English royal family, over the course of the better part of millennium has risen well beyond the status of a normal group of people; they have been put on a pedestal by their subjects and as such, a very high standard of behavior is expected from them. This standard of behavior does not fall in line with the moral conduct that has been set as a precedent for the family by royals before them; socially deviant behavior has characterized British Royals for centuries. The notable example of this in the novel is the problem of Nel Gwynn; the mistress to King Charles II and the self described “protestant whore”, who was known for her sexual exploits and, even worse, was a child by modern standards when she and the King’s relationship began. This is irrelevant, however, because it is not part of the English cultural history and thus does not come into account in the construction of public expectations for the modern royals. The pervasiveness and freedom of modern press has, for many English subjects, destroyed the myth of the Royal Family by simply showing them what had always been true. Much in the same way that the King’s enjoyment of cosmetic adjustment only lasts until its existence is brought to his attention, the English people enjoy their myths until they can no longer ignore the contradictory reality. Patriotism in England boils down not to a love of the country as it is, but rather a stubborn commitment to the nation’s historical myths, a sentiment that is eloquently expressed by Dr. Max when he muses that “patriotism’s most eager bedfellow is ignorance, not knowledge” (85). In England, England the patriots are generally those who continue in their support of English royalty, even in the face of the “treasonous libels” (89) of the press. For example, one of the women in England, England playing the role of Lady Godiva was described as a “whooping patriot” (173) because of her willingness to have sex with the King, and the fact that the publisher of The Times of London, England, England’s official newspaper, was a “true patriot” guaranteed to the King that there would be no interference with the Royal family. Patriotism as considered in this novel, it must be noted, does not guarantee or even suggest any degree of loyalty to the country or government itself. Sir Jack is described as a patriot even while he initiates and oversees the complete economic and social devastation of the original England and sponsors the notions that his company would serve as a far better leader than the British Government. This is because Englishness, as he sees it, is not inherently a biological or geographical fact, but rather a list of transferable characteristics, landmarks and people. At the end of the novel, the public had all but forgotten that there was or had ever been an England before England, England at all. All that was mythically English had been transferred to the replica and as such “old England had lost its history, and therefore – since memory is identity – had lost all sense of itself” (259). Moving back to what the French intellectual had said, all things are simply replicas of older replicas and thus, in Old England losing its history, it lost the tools with which to build a new future, forcing them to slide backwards into the ways of the past. Much like young Martha’s England puzzle, Old England lost an important piece of itself when England, England was created which indicates that, as flawed as their collective history is, they have become dependent on it for survival. It seems that modernity, whether it is in the form of an intricate theme park or nosy press threatens to continue to break down the myths that are critical to the English identity. The loss of a collective history, as seen in the state of Anglia does not indicate the end, but simply a reversion; the people are forced to rebuild the history that was taken from them when England, England was created. Perhaps the missing puzzle piece will never be found, but in time it can be predicted that, in the same way Martha forgot the significance of her childhood memories, its existence will be forgotten and it will no longer be missed or needed. Such is the nature of a collective history; what is known is considered truth, and what is forgotten has, for all intents and purpose, never happened at all.