How and when is rebellion acceptable? This question has plagued me for some time. As an American, it seems obvious. Once the legal government violates its legal agreement with its people, it is no longer a legal authority. Or that is the argument that our Founders made. But this explanation lacks the poetry of other rebellion and revolutions both fictional and historical.

Rebellion is a revolt against a legitimate authority renouncing allegiance to that authority and an armed uprising against it. Revolution is a rebellion that also replaces the previous authority with another. Both imply a sudden and major change.

[French vs American Revolutions]

The French Revolution was like a shooting star—burned brilliantly and quickly. The complaints of the French people were legitimate. Only the poor and merchant classes were taxed, a poor harvest led to food shortages (hunger, diseases, and discontent), and when faced with the complaints of the third Estate, the King dismissed the Estates General and locked them out of the Assembly. But their goals were unclear. Fueled by Enlightenment ideas and resentment toward the nobility and clergy, the revolution was bloody and violent from start to finish. It started with an absolute monarch and ended with an emperor. Each phase of the revolution became more radical and, in phases, rid itself of the former radical, now conservative, elements. They completely changed their society, restructuring everything from religion to calendar days and length of days. As they persisted, more heads began to roll, literally. The blade from the guillotine grew dull from use.

And in the end, it was a total failure. Napoleon came to power and declared himself the sole Consul, and then invaded much of Europe. Neighboring European states like Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia felt compelled to intervene and bring his brief reign to an end.

Despite their spectacular initial failure, this revolution is more widely emulated in fiction and film. More flamboyant and passionate, the French Revolution is the ideal for any romantic at heart. It’s passion easily inspires. But history has taught us that sudden and violent change isn’t lasting.

The American Revolution is less romantic. From its leadership to its spies and soldiers, all socio-economic classes participated. The struggle was not simply to burn everything down, but to rid the Colonies of illegitimate governance. Because the previous two kings neither spoke English nor lived in England, they left the American colonies pretty much to their own devices. The people still saw themselves as British citizens and were loyal to the crown. However, when George III came to the throne, he spoke English and desire to rule England. To the English people, he was a good king. To the American colonies, a tyrant. Buried and war debt, he (and Parliament) levied a series of crushing taxes on the colonies, housed soldiers in private citizens’ homes, and worst of all, refused to give them a voice in Parliament. They ignored the American representatives sent over. Their cry was not Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, but “no taxation without representation.” Again, not very romantic. But the means over governance was, for the most part, already in place, making the transition into an independent nation a bit easier. The drafting of a constitution was the hard part as it derived from, but also varied from, the British Constitution.

The American Revolution is less sensational, but more stable and doesn’t make provocative fiction.

I have often wondered though if fiction and screen play writers suffer from the same syndrome as those who avow that because Communism ended badly in every country it has been tried in, that they simply executed it incorrectly. Do people think that they can make the French Revolution end differently?