I remember being told by a film director out in California that movies based on historical events have to somehow reflect the here and now. I didn't buy it then...and, honestly, I don't but it today when it comes to my writing. Good creative work is good creative work, after all, and that's basically all there is to it. Besides, I write with pretty much two simple goals in mind - to express my own thoughts and experiences through historical fiction, and try to make my work as artful as possible. Still, now that my new novel, Lexington, is published and out in the world, I can't help but realize how much of the work reflects today's society, even though I hadn't intended for it to do so.
Lexington, as you might have guessed, deals with the dawn of the American Revolution. The book tackles such issues as class differences, personal guilt, relationship challenges, faith, personal expectations, and, ultimately, bloody combat. While such themes could apply to millions throughout the world and throughout history, I realize that Lexington relates directly to America in 2022 - to the here and now. This might not come as a surprise, as we are a very divided nation at the moment. Still, I didn't realize how uncomfortably, profoundly divided we actually are.
First things first, though - America in 2022 is in nowhere near the state it was in 1775. That's a good thing. We may be divided, but by and large we're not blasting away at each other. That's the good news. The bad news is that now, just as in 1775, one group of Americans views the world in an entirely different light than the rest. And that's alarming. Reflecting on those loyal to the King of England during the time of my novel, I find they would have much in common with a large percentage of Americans today. King George III of Britain, after all, was seen - or was at least presented - as a benevolent leader, one kindly put in place to protect the people he ruled over.
The word "ruled" is important here. For George III's 18th century American fanbase embraced him as a ruler rather than as a leader. That's a fine distinction. A ruler is to ultimately be imagined as a the loving parent who figurately tucks you in and keeps you safe at night. A leader, on the other hand, is seen as first among equals, someone who controls people by their consent rather than by decree. Those Americans who rose up against England during the Revolutionary War went on to have a leader, rather than a ruler, after the break from Britain was complete. Ultimately it all came down to trust. Those loyal to the King trusted that he and his government were the right people for the job. The individuals known as the Patriots on the other hand, had by that point no trust whatsoever in the English monarchy.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Some in today's America want a government to protect them, to act as the nation's moral arbiter, to - in effect - tuck everyone in at night, while many others don't think it's the government's place to play such a role. Yet those who trust in government would prefer to have things like the internet and media judged for content by authorities. I would argue most of us don't want our government to play the role of warm blanket. Many do, however, perhaps more than at any other time since the late 1700s. And that's something worth pondering.
Two small matters:
First, King George III appears to have been a genuinely decent if misguided man.
Also, it's said George Washington, America's first President, could have become the United States' first king had he so chosen to do so.
