History: Is there some fact in the fiction?

On the first day of class, we discussed what we believed to be the meaning of history and fiction. Many of us saw a clear distinction between the two. For the most part, the consensus was history is a series of events that are factual and fiction is a concoction of the imagination- made up events, if you will. After reading Tey’s, The Daughter of Time, it is clear that both history and fiction can be one of the same and that it is very difficult to sway from popular beliefs that have been credited as history. But what is history? Is it just a series of beliefs that have been adapted over time and commonly viewed as factual? These are questions that arise from the novel. Even until this very day Richard III is viewed as the epitome of villainy. Our protagonist, Alan Grant, begins to question that view because to him, how could the face in the portrait be a murderer when there is so much sadness and pain behind his eyes? Grant adopts this notion of topandy; an idea that much of what is viewed as history is just a myth.

Now I am no history buff and I really do not know much about English history, but I question why Richard III became the quintessential villain of English history. Then I turned to something that interests me a little more- American history. I googled “American historical myths” and came across this list of top 10 “myths” that Americans believe to be fact (here is the link if anyone is interested:  http://all-that-is-interesting.com/american-history-myths ). The first myth took me by surprise. It was the story of Paul Revere and how he had warned American troops that “the British are coming!” According to the article (and I am sure if I researched it more in depth I would find similar evidence), the story has been twisted in a way to make Revere appear to be this grand hero, when in fact he did not utter those words and was accompanied by a group of people. Despite what actually happened, Americans still views Revere as the quintessential American patriot.  But this was the point. The story was adapted as a sort of American propaganda to instill pride and patriotism in the American public. This idea is very similar to Grant’s notion that Richard III was portrayed as this evil creature to arouse support for the Tudor monarchy.

I concluded my reading and research of historical myths questioning history as a whole. Obviously, many events occurred and are told as they had happened, but it is difficult to know the truth behind everything that we believe to be fact. Were heroes really heroes? Were villains really villains? I guess we really will never know. But in the mean time, history really does make one hell of a story.