[ SECRET POST #4277 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4277 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 12 secrets from Secret Submission Post #612.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Respectfully, I don't agree. The problem is that people fetishize historical accuracy to an obscene degree, and also often have deeply misguided ideas about what historical accuracy means. And subject matter expertise on what history is, and why it matters, is actually relevant to both of those conversations.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sure this is the case for some, but I doubt it's that widespread of an issue, to that degree. And really... isn't it up to the reader/viewer to decide how much historical accuracy they'd prefer to see in media? Some people might object to media where people in the mid 1400s are wearing leather bondage pants because it's not historically accurate, but there are plenty of people who don't care about such details. Who decides what level is fetishisation?

Expertise is also very important, but IA with the OP... sometimes when people with actual expertise chime in, it has a very "I have a degree in X and I don't mind, so why should anyone else mind?" feel to it, which doesn't make any sense at all.

[(Anonymous)]

There are probably some people who are being dicks about it, and it somewhat depends on context as well - but I don't think it's generally bad or pretentious, I think it's usually fine. Its an interesting kind of expertise that I like hearing about.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I don't think they're trying to be dicks about it, though. The whole "I don't mind so nobody should mind" isn't explicit, just... lightly implied. It feels... I'm not sure pretentious is the word. Maybe a little presumptuous? In a well intentioned way. I enjoy hearing feedback from experts about how historically accurate or inaccurate something is, but regardless of whether or not that expert enjoyed the media, people can and should make up their own minds.

[(Anonymous)]

But they're not talking about their expertise? Or at least, that's not the scenario the secret described. Just showing up in a thread where people are taking issue with historical accuracy in The Tudors and saying they have a degree in medieval history and they love that show and don't care about the inaccuracies does feel a little bit like they think that their credentials means that their opinion holds more weight.

[(Anonymous)]

Tacking onto this, but I've never seen "but muh historical accuracy" used in any way that wasn't, "But women should be more oppressed/shouldn't be leads in this/gays shouldn't exist in this/but they need to be white/etc"

[(Anonymous)]

It really depends on what media is being discussed and where. I've seen plenty of criticism on, for example, Philippa Gregory's historical fiction and the TV adaptations of them that has everything to do with how the historical figures are depicted, bias, events left out, etc. and nothing at all to do with oppression of women and the presence of gays and other minorities.