fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4428 ]

[ SECRET POST #4428 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4428 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #634.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I agree with you on that.

100% nothing wrong with that kind of story.

I just don't think it's accurate, if that's what the story will be, to call it historical fiction.

I'm not sure what you'd call it, honestly. Fantasy doesn't work because to me fantasy includes some sort of supernatural or magical element.

I don't think there's one good catch-all term for it because it'd depend on the period you're AUing and how, imo. Something set in Victorian era would be different from something set in, idk, Native America pre-colonization would be different from something set in Ancient Rome

But there's just something about having, like, a black woman and a white woman get married in a Regency era period fantasy and everybody applauding then calling it "historical" that doesn't sit right with me at all. Like yeah, that would have been waaaay better than actual history. But...

there's just something about having, like, a black woman and a white woman get married in a Regency era period fantasy and everybody applauding then calling it "historical" that doesn't sit right with me at all. Like yeah, that would have been waaaay better than actual history. But...

YES. Exactly. I'm so glad it's not just me who feels this way. :)

I'd call it wish fulfillment and consider it like I would reader self insert - fun, but not necessarily grounded in reality.

So if it was a straight-relationship historical fiction, it wouldn't be considered wish fulfillment?

If it didn't alter any of the prevailing societal attitudes of the time (i.e. women being considered property/subservient to men, nobles being expected to marry someone of equivalent status and wealth, etc.), then no, it wouldn't be.

Now if the story was about a noblewoman falling in love with a penniless artist and no one around them having any sort of objections to that, then yes, that would be wish fulfillment.

I'd call it alternate history: no fantastical or science fictional elements, but also very different from our reality.

That's at least a more fair term than "fantasy", so thank you for that.

That would be the "fiction" part.

I have no issue with the "fiction" part!

Good, because "fiction" just means "this didn't actually happen". "Fantasy" implies magic, and gay people existing in history without it being an issue doesn't need to be magic.

DA - But "historical fiction" strongly implies a certain degree of realism, particularly as it pertains to the historical period in which the story takes place. That's why a work is deemed historical fiction in the first place. Without that historical realism, what you have is fiction, full stop.

But no historical fiction is truly accurate either, and I don't think there's really any clear answer as to where you should draw the line for how much unrealistic stuff is 'too much'.

nayrt

Just because no historical fiction is 100% accurate doesn't mean that there are no standards whatsoever. You can write historical fiction about Henry VIII having a secret (very brief) affair with the French King and that would still count so long as the timeline roughly fit the historical timeline. But if you write a story where Henry VIII has an affair with Queen Victoria, that's very clearly not historical fiction any more...it's fantasy. Likewise, if your story has Henry VIII jet skiing and scarfing down chicken wings at Hooters, that's very clearly not historical.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-02-19 07:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-02-19 11:06 (UTC) - Expand

I mean, I don't exactly expect period accuracy in published historical fiction either. Especially of the romantic sort. Most historical romance seems less about historical realism and more about people falling in love in period costume and in a setting of exaggerated courtesies and social obligations. It's not actually about history, it's an excuse to use tropes like arranged marriages, chaperones, marrying to secure the family fortune, marrying the dashing impoverished nobleman, marrying the dashing highwayman, marrying to secure your kingdom's safety, marrying to end a blood feud, etc, etc. All of which fanfic, gay, straight or otherwise, is usually gleefully on board for as well, and with about the same respect for actual history in the process.

So I don't see much need to hold fanfic to standards that published fic clearly isn't, you know?

+1 exactly!

So I don't see much need to hold fanfic to standards that published fic clearly isn't, you know?

I agree with this. But I think most of the people who don't enjoy historical fanfic AUs that exclude the period-typical values probably also don't enjoy published fiction that does the same.

This is very much true for me. My standards are the same, published or not. Without the period-typical values, neither are my cup of tea. (A certain amount of bending and defying those values can be really good, certainly, but the very act of bending and defying them serves to illustrate that they exist, and are formidable.)

Well, fair enough, I'm not saying you can't prefer one or the other. I'm just saying that, with published fiction, both would come under the header 'historical romance' and/or 'historical fiction', so I don't see why equally inaccurate fanfic shouldn't also get to do the same.

The thing is, in your examples, society in the fics don't pretend it's fine and okay.

Women don't run off with highwaymen in those fics with nobody caring. The social aspect is always there.

The story OP is describing would be like a noble lady running off with a highwayman and nobody in the time period thinks anything is wrong with that. In fact, that's fine! ... which doesn't really happen in historical fiction either.

Right, but you can keep the scandal of the highwayman--and just make it a highwaywoman.

This is a good point.

Yup, this.

Although in my main fandom, usually the author tags it with something to indicate there's no period-typical homophobia, or, conversely, tags it to conform there will be period-typical homophobia. So it doesn't really matter to me when people call it a Historical AU - the tags give me the deets.

Genre definitions are so weird and vague and hand-wave-y in general thay I think trying to be very strict and literal about drawing genre lines, especially with edge cases, is not really productive or meaningful. Genres are moving targets anyway.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only