Betsy and the Emperor

Betsy and the Emperor is a strange book. On the one hand it is an engaging story for children; and as such it is very enjoyable. On the other, it is intended to be historically accurate. We are told that the characters in it really existed and that many of the words put into Napoleon's mouth are cited as having been said by Napoleon. In other words, it is also history. However, the history is adapted to fit the novel. The words said to be by Napoleon (his last words are in dispute, however, according to the source you choose) were not all originally spoken on Saint Helena. Characters are invented (a brother for Hudson Lowe, for example), and the biographies of others are changed (who knows why, but Toby the Malayan gardener is made to come from Haiti – perhaps because it is closer to America??). Even the chronology of events is altered. And Ms Rabin is totally upfront about all this in her author's notes. Indeed, none of this would pose any problem for me whatsoever were it not for the fact that the authoress maintains that she had a purpose in writing the story, namely, to “expose a whole new generation to Emperor Napoleon's softer side and the rough treatment he received at the hands of Sir Hudson Lowe”. You can't help however feeling cheated by this procedure. It is as if in a court of law the defence council, instead of sticking to the facts, starts telling you a story. Only if she writes history can Ms Rabin attempt to 'rehabilitate' Napoleon and 'damn' Hudson Lowe. Otherwise it's just hagiography or libel. This novel fits however into a currently growing tradition of books and films on historical events re-worked, usually by Hollywood. Given that the book here has been considered as the basis for a film script and that Ms Rabin's training is in film, it is perhaps not unfair to compare it with the semi-historical films Enigma and Master and Commander, where a similar cavalier approach to historical fact (or the original novel, in the case of Master and Commander) has been taken. These two films sparked objections because they mis-represented history simply because the screenwriters thought it would 'work' better – in Enigma the German WWII enigma code (originally cracked at Bletchley Park in England) is cracked by an American, and in the latter film, the dastardly American enemy of the book is made French in the film!!! In a period were counter-factual or 'What-if' history is a common sport and where many people blindly take what they see at the cinema as fact (particularly if it is packaged as history – as here), it behoves authors to be extra careful. Novels are novels, but history is history!
P.H.