HISTORY SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN NOVELS

(Or How a Name Could Be So Much More Than Just a Name)

Writing historically accurate novels about every important event and/or person may sound like a strange idea. It certainly seems impossible, and most likely is, too. That doesn't mean learning history wouldn't be a lot better this way, though.

Last semester, I took a class in English literature. Good times, good times... Anyhow, we had to read this book on the history of literature (Michael Alexander: The History of English Literature, 3rd edition, in case anyone wants to know), and I stumbled upon a certain name in it. George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, in case that tells you anything.  Nobody famous, really. I think he was only mentioned in the book once, and even that was in connection to somebody else's commenting on something else...

But there it was. The name. It made me think about these things a bit. If somebody reads that book, all they'll see is some name that means nothing to them, especially since the book provides no information about the guy whatsoever. He's just a name.

Now, I wonder how different he'd seem if the reader thought about his life for a moment. (Don't look at me like that. I happened to have had somewhat of an obsession with certain people during certain times in the English history...) Imagine growing up in the 17th century. Imagine your father is probably the biggest celebrity in the country not counting the king. Perhaps even counting the king. He's certainly the most powerful man in the kingdom, having the poor full of a king wrapped around his finger. The court loves him, the people hate him. And then there's you. The child. Probably separated from your parents more often than not, forced to listen as peasants badmouth them, and fearfully waiting every time your father goes away on yet another escapade. Of course you get the best education available, and eventually, you start writing.

Now, I don't know that much about the second Villiers, but I dare say he was never as (in)famous as his father (though our history books mentioned neither, which is a shame, really. I only have Dumas to thank for knowing these guys...). He wrote some plays, I think. It doesn't really matter right now.

The point I'm trying to make is this: history reduces people to names, to one or two (or thirteen) important things they've done or haven't done. It takes away all that really made them human, and with that, it also robs us of many, many valuable lessons.

In year XXXX, this person did that. This is what we learn, what we read in history books. Sometimes, they even add a reason why. For example, this country declared war on that country because of this and that. Oh, but wait! What if the real reason was the man who (was suspected to have) seduced the kings wife? The king couldn't possibly have declared that as a reason in public, could he? And the queen—the books  would tell us she was unfaithful. Why? Was the king an abusive bastard? Was he cold-hearted and ignored her? Perhaps she only wanted to make him jealous?

There are so many emotions, so much tragedy and love and heartbreak, in these stories no history book ever tells. So many wasted opportunities for us to get to know those people a little.

I've read a few history novels so far. Let me go back to the Villiers guys I mentioned for a bit and talk about Philippa Gregory's Earthly Joys for a bit. Villiers the Father is an important character in there, and you know what? Sure, he was a bit of an ass, and a huge social climber, and he lost the battle at the Isle of Re due to sheer arrogance (if the book is to be believed, and I'm almost inclined to do so because everything in it seems to be historically accurate if it's only possible), but in the book, I also saw him terrified of being executed for failing, and excited about sneaking to Spain with Prince Charles, and many other things. I saw a human, not a name.

 I was given an opportunity to understand, even to sympathise, and I know compassion in one thing people are in desperate need to learn.

History is there to teach us, right? Why not teach  us understanding instead of dates? Why not teach compassion instead of peace treaty names?

It's not like this way we wouldn't learn about the important events. On the contrary, remembering history would be easier. I still know perfectly well that King James united England and Scotland, that there was the thirty years war between France and England (involving the rest of Europe, too) because of religion (and allegedly unfaithful queens), or that Charles I tried to sell the crown jewels (succeeded, too, I think), or that England was headed towards the civil war. Most of that stuck with me precisely because I read it in a novel. In my History class, those events (the ones that got mentioned in the first place) were just few in the line of many.

So... You hate history? Go pick up a good novel. (Everything by Philippa Gregory should be worth your while, and I'm sure there are many other wonderful writers out there.)