[ SECRET POST #4890 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4890 ⌋

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, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #700.
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)]

Because when I open up a can of something labeled "corn", I don't want pork and beans. They're not the same thing, and if I wanted pork and beans, I would've purchased a can labeled "pork and beans".

[(Anonymous)]

How do you want them to "make it obvious that it's the case" that something isn't trying to be historically accurate even though it's set in historical times? To me, from my point of view, it just seems like one kind of stylistic choice among many, like expecting a comedy to label itself for what kind of jokes it's going to tell.

And I just don't understand where the passion comes from.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT, but it’s pretty obvious a lot of the time if a comedy is meant to be cringey, or dark, or slapstick, or whatever. I personally am kind of weirded out when people say they love period dramas and history and all the stuff they like is “current social mores and vocab with sort-of period (but redesigned to be sexier) clothes.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, I should've clarified - I'm not the anon who made that comment. I was just responding to offer one reason why it's a good idea for people to try and make it clearer that something has taken liberties with historical accuracy. For example, I wish they'd made it much clearer that Sanditon, while touted as a completion of Jane Austen's unfinished novel, wasn't really in keeping with her style or the setting.

You don't have to understand where the "passion" (?) coems from, it's fine. But you surely understand that other people have different preferences, and different things matter to them, yes?

[(Anonymous)]

But you surely understand that other people have different preferences, and different things matter to them, yes?

I absolutely agree! What bothers me is people who enjoy historical realism acting like non-realism is intrinsically bad, or at best, can be accepted on sufferance if it's sufficiently self-aware and "makes it obvious" that they know it's not historically accurate. The fact that someone prefers historical accuracy does not mean that historical non-realism is bad, any more than the reverse is true.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's that anyone here is strictly FOR historical realism or else. It's just that if you're passing something off as historical it should be as accurate as possible and I'd love to say that people don't think they can learn everything from fiction but there are people who may get the wrong ideas unless in one way or another it's made clear that the story in question isn't an accurate depiction. This is easiest when the story is a comedy and a bit absurd. But, say, a historical fiction that's a romance...well, the author could at least include an introduction of sorts warning people she's not trying to pass off anything contained as accurate. It just seems the responsible thing, to me, knowing that some people will see something is "historical" and take it as meaning "just like a history lesson but more fun".

[(Anonymous)]

I'd love to say that people don't think they can learn everything from fiction but there are people who may get the wrong ideas unless in one way or another it's made clear that the story in question isn't an accurate depiction.

I guess what I'd say is that anyone who thinks that historical fiction is the same as history is a damn fool, and nothing you can do is going to stop a fool from being a fool

That's my opinion of course

[(Anonymous)]

DA // On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, people have a way of soaking up ideas without clearly keeping track of them, and most people aren't huge nerds who are going to research the finer points of a historical setting, so they just kinda picture a time period being however they've seen it in random movies.

The downside to that, aside from Historical Accuracy for Historical Accuracy's sake, is that our understanding of history does inform our understanding of the present, and there's a sociological aspect to this. Stereotypes get reinforced. Think of how many people seem to believe that even in a major European city in medieval times, no one would have seen any non-white people. Or that women could wear their hair down and go running through cities and the moors, swinging swords and asserting a 21st century feminist independence while still have a good standing in society -- eh, so what's modern feminism really for? Or conversely, making people more downtrodden than they were, building up the modern perception that NO non-white men ever had adventures or made a splash in society or were otherwise interesting, intelligent, and capable.