[ SECRET POST #3354 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3354 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Yu-Gi-Oh]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09. [ warning for homophobia / transphobia / misogyny take your pick, people seem to be divided on this one ]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 009 secrets from Secret Submission Post #479.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. http://i.imgur.com/bIuV5EH.jpg

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

I understand there are fic readers who can't tell the difference between Regency and Edwardian and don't care if an author makes mistakes in the historical details. It doesn't ruin your enjoyment of a fic. It's cool, I get it. Maybe it's better that way, but-- it DOES bother me. A lot. I want a good story AND somewhat accurate detail! I try not to hold any grudges but the fact is, less discriminating readers like you make it much harder for readers like me to find the fic we like. And that is really frustrating.

[(Anonymous)]

Wait am I crazy or aren't Regency and Edwardian a good 80 years apart

[dancingmouse]

Roughly, yeah.

[(Anonymous)]

How do you confuse them what

[(Anonymous)]

Approximately, yes.

[(Anonymous)]

It's kind of Napoleonic vs. WWI, I believe. Prertty different.

[(Anonymous)]

That isn't what the first WW1 generals thought. "I say Favershaugh, take ten thousand men and walk slowly over open ground towards the enemy", was the type of order that got given in both conflicts.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

And wasn't the Victorian era in between them? I definitely know it came before Edwardian, because the King Edward in question was Queen Victoria's son.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes it was.

I can kinda see confusing Regency/Victorian, or Victorian/Edwardian, but leaving out the whole huge dizzying Victorian era? Ee.

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for pointing out the time frames. I knew Regency was a thing, but I didn't really know when it was. But my historical eras are largely based on my knowledge of period fashion and my mind kind of goes Rococo > Colonial > Victorian > Edwardian.

[tree_and_leaf]

Eighty years in which a hell of a lot happened in terms of social and cultural change, to boot.

[(Anonymous)]

What specifically bothers you?

[dancingmouse]

It depends on what they were going for in the story. If they were just going for vague "Victorian" style then, whatever, I'll let inaccuracies slide.

Now, if they bragged about how they did HOURS of research to make it REALISTIC, and yet have glaring, 5-minutes-on-Google-to-find-out inaccuracies, then that's when I start foaming at the mouth.

[(Anonymous)]

For me, it's not so much that I care about accuracy. It's more that, like, there's a certain kind of Victoriana that's mostly referencing received ideas about pretty dresses and politeness, and maybe a few Austen novels and a few romantic poets and a few contemporary things, and it just feels really fake and shallow and it doesn't have anything to do with historical lived reality and I can't stand reading it. It's just boring

[(Anonymous)]

Could you list some of the basic differences fan authors should get right?

[(Anonymous)]

Not OP but here are a few that really throw me off:

Language: A 20 year old wouldn't use the same slang as their Great-Granny.

Etiquette and morals: Queen Victoria really shook up how things were done and how life was looked at during the Victorian age. She still influences us today like white wedding dresses.

Clothing: You don't dress the same way your Great-Granny did so why would a Victorian woman dress the same way a Regency woman?

Military and world view: During The Regency England and France were at war but French things were still valued in England but it was a fine line. Most men were in or retired military if they were upper middle or upper class. Victorian age brought on a huge revival of the ancients like Roman, Greek, Egyptian influences.

Those are just a few.

[(Anonymous)]

Not the OP either, but a few things...

* People didn't casually use paper money in the Regency era for everyday stuff. You wouldn't, for example, have a roll of bank notes in your pocket. You'd use coins for most small transactions and credit for the rest.

* Very tight corsets weren't worn in the Regency era like they were in the Victorian era. They were fitting, but didn't include heavy whalebone and were meant to be supportive, not constrictive in the sense of those "wasp waist" gowns.

* As a general rule, "high tea" doesn't mean tea, finger sandwiches and cakes. That's a modern term, and it's often used improperly because the meal described is simply "afternoon tea". People in the Regency era certainly drank tea, but there wasn't the same sense of ceremony, nor was it generally a light meal the way it was in the later 1800s.

* No underwear in the Regency era. Women's clothing in general was not as layered or burdensome as it gets later on.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, if I know about the subject, details that are wrong will bother me.

Sometimes the way the story is written lets me imagine it as a sort of AU, like it's set in a 'fantasy world'. But you really have to go full anachronistic soup or actually accurate. Somehow being in close but off just messes everything up for me.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, doing that intentionally sounds funny.

You know what fucking gets me angry?

[chardmonster]

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU CALLING EVERYTHING PRE-WWI VICTORIAN

"VICTORIAN" IS A SPECIFIC FUCKING PERIOD IT DOESN'T JUST MEAN "19TH CENTURY" AND IT SURE AS FUCK DOESN'T MEAN DOWNTON ABBEY YOU DUMBASS FUCKS AND IT ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY DOESN'T MEAN WWI OR POST WW-I

YOU AREN'T INTO "HISTORY" YOU'RE INTO OLD DRESSES

YOU PROBABLY SAY YOU LIKE STEAMPUNK BUT THINK JULES VERNE IS "PRETENTIOUS"

Re: You know what fucking gets me angry?

[ginainthekingsroad]

I HATE THIS TOO. I also hate people calling WWI Edwardian, raaaah! The Edwardian period is actually only 9 years long. There's even a distinct difference in the fashions, SO THERE'S NO EXCUSE. If the lady looks like the letter S, it's in the reign of Edward VII. If the lady looks like a very narrow column, it's the reign of Charles IV. Downton Abbey is SO not Victorian, but IT'S NOT EVEN EDWARDIAN.

[likeadeuce]

How are people keeping you from getting the fic you want?

[(Anonymous)]

The secret didn't say anyone was keeping the OP from finding the fic they enjoyed. It simply said it was harder, which it would be if there are more undiscriminating readers than discriminating ones. It's a supply vs. demand issue. It's why it's a challenge to find a decently written vampire YA novel in the wake of Twilight's popularity.

[alwaysbeenasmiler]

I am a big history buff and I can spout off various facts about all of the time periods in english history and I know the difference between Edwardian, Georgian, Regency, Victorian-- but I think that I always respect an author when they take liberties BUT THEY TAKE THE TIME TO TELL YOU WHAT THEY TWEEKED IN THE AFTERWORD. Sometimes it is hard for something to be perfect and spot on especially when you are dealing with dates of historical significance but it's always nice to know from the author why they chose to do what they did.

Being fiction it doesn't have to be 100 percent historical accurate but I do agree that it's nice to know that they know what they are doing when they are shifting dates around.