[ 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)]

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.