[ SECRET POST #6756 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6756 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #965.
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]

02. https://i.imgur.com/z9e7eck.png

[(Anonymous)]

You’re not going to believe this but people are allowed to enjoy anachronistic historical fiction. For many, that’s a feature, not a bug. And regency snobs wonder why no one likes you all. At least you’re supporting the authors, I guess? Weird flex to come on here though bragging about being a stuck up asshole. Even for a secret comm, some things are better kept to oneself.

[philstar22]

Yes, this secret comes across really arrogant. Like, if you don't like anachronistic stuff, cool. If that stuff annoys you, cool. But that is personal taste. Some people like anachronistic stuff, and that is okay too. There is nothing inherently wrong with writing fiction that is anachronistic.

I do get annoyed with certain authors who act like their anachronisms/bad takes are actual reality (can't stand Philippa Gregory).

[(Anonymous)]

OP: Anachronistic historical fiction isn't my cup of tea
Philstar: ThIs sEcReT cOmEs AcRoSs rEaLlY aRrOgAnT
Also Philstar: (can't stand Philippa Gregory)

Come on, this is a little funny. You both have preferences about historical fiction, but yours are legit and OP is arrogant? Nah.

[iff_and_xor]

I’m not seeing what you’re seeing here.

To me, this seems like a perfectly appropriate secret. I read it as a personal preference that is usually kept private because it could come off as snobby or condescending, occasionally let loose through a private activity of enumerating historical errors in a work. If anything, that seems like a pretty polite and healthy option.

But as with any of these limited and self-reported glimpses into someone’s life, we may both be filling in the gaps with our own differing assumptions.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 IMO, this is a perfectly legit and harmless way for OP to deal with their preferences. They're not bothering other fans by arguing that Bridgerton sucks or by giving tedious lectures on historical accuracy. They're airing their petty grievances in private, in a way that harms no one. Legit fodder for an FS secret.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I read it how you read it-- it's a secret bc OP is aware that it would be a dick thing to talk about doing, but it's not harming anyone, in fact it's directly SUPPORTING the authors of the books.

Hell, if someone thinks 'making a private word doc to work out frustrations' is too horrible for fandom secrets, what must they think of people who vent to their friends in private chats when they find things they don't like in fiction? SO many people hatewatch/read things because nitpicking those things is enjoyable to them, it's not that big a deal?

If OP is treating other people with kindness, then I don't think they're a snob, no matter what their personal standards are! There are published authors who DON'T know better, that's a statement of fact and not a moral judgment. If other people have fun reading those stories for non-critique purposes, great for them!

[(Anonymous)]

But as with any of these limited and self-reported glimpses into someone’s life, we may both be filling in the gaps with our own differing assumptions.

I wonder about that. I certainly came away with the same thing as you, not AYRT.

[(Anonymous)]

Is OP saying people aren't allowed to enjoy anachronistic historical fiction? Or are they saying they don't like to consume it themselves? Seems like a significant difference to me.

I'm giggling a little that out of all the stuff that comes out on FS, this is the kind thing you deem too shameful to admit to. Nobody's hurt in this scenario, OP isn't yucking anyone's yum. The worst thing that happens is... *checks notes* a random author gets a book sale? Oh noeeeeeeesssssss!!!

[philstar22]

Honestly, the first half of the secret does read like OP just doesn't like it themselves, but the second half feels more judgmental. At least to me.

[(Anonymous)]

I’d agree if secret OP had just left it at “I prefer this and sometimes I do this.” They didn’t.

[(Anonymous)]

They didn’t say their preference was better, they said the other stuff was bad because it didn’t cater to their tastes. And they claim it is the result of not knowing real history, which isn’t true.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think they look down on anyone. It's not like they send the authors their critiques.

People are allowed to not care about anachronisms in historical fiction. They're also allowed to care very much.

[(Anonymous)]

I get why this is a secret. I'm always torn between "they don't know any better" and "they know and it's wish fulfilment / fantasy". The result is the same, sure, but the starting point is waaaay different. I can't help but wonder... I try not to judge the authors that badly, tho. I think the vast majority of them simply want to play with a fun setting unburdened by the societal bias of that era.

[(Anonymous)]

It depends on execution for me. If something is clearly historical fantasy but 100% rolls with it I can fully accept the setting as it is and have fun with it, like Birdgerton that is not even hiding that it's a romance series set in an AU version of regency England.

But if something is acting like This Is How Things Were I'm going to hate it and I'm not even much of a history nerd, the flagrant misinformation just irks me.

[(Anonymous)]

yeah, same
Dome shows are just pure fantasy take on a period, but if we are doing serious "historical" stuff I expect it to be as close as possible to actual history

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly I wish people who wrote stuff like that would just be honest about what it is: it's not historical fiction, it's historical fantasy/AU.

[meadowphoenix]

one thing about historical accuracy about period mores is that exceptions are always made and can and often were made for very ephemeral reasons like charm. i can excuse a lot of heroines as being singular and exceptional fairly easily (they have political or economic backing, the location is singular/fictional, they are supposed to be charming, etc.) because these are reasons why people were allowed to break general mores.

Social mores aren't actually applied evenly, consistently, or equally; we glean what we can from etiquette books, novels, legal decisions, and writings, but those things don't usually tell us who got away with breaking them unless it was of particular interest to the author and so we simply can't know what any singular person would be subject to socially for violations.

There are a lot of fictional heroines (and heroes!) who are doing straight up ridiculous things, but determining what an author "got wrong" about social attitudes is more nebulous than I think we want to admit.

[(Anonymous)]

That thought crossed my mind too. I've read contemporary pieces where characters routinely break "rules", like talking to men they're not related to without their husband or father around.

[(Anonymous)]

OP, I once read a book where the publishers included, in the back, a teaser chapter from an upcoming regency setting novel. The tone was modern in a way I didn't vibe with, but that would have been FINE, if it was not for the fact that the heroine, a woman from regency era England, mentioned BOYSENBERRIES, a fruit that was not DEVELOPED before the late 1910s at the earliest, and certainly didn't have any kind of a reach.

Leaving aside the fact that they're nigh impossible to transport and keep fresh rather than as a jam or a syrup, and that they are from Southern California, they just... had not been invented yet!

And because I knew this, I couldn't take a single word after 'boysenberry' seriously, and have put the author on the list of people whose books I will never read.

[(Anonymous)]

I once read a book where the heroine walked from her country estate to the hero's country estate with a basket of baked goods, to call upon him in the morning. It ignored the fact that:

1) Big country estates are large and far apart, that might be a hell of a long walk.
2) Your baked goods are going to be stone cold when you get there.
3) Young unmarried women aren't supposed to call upon young unmarried men like that.
4) Calling around with a basket of food would seem pretty eccentric by the standards of the time unless you were visiting the poor.

But I can see why that would appeal to a modern audience because who doesn't enjoy fresh baked scones delivered to your doorstep?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, research exists. Even in pre-Internet days, libraries existed.

My perennial example is Outlander, where they all go off and pick apricots in the Highlands in the middle of the Little Ice Age. I couldn't with the book after that.

And in other examples, the many, many potatoes in mediaeval Europe.

[(Anonymous)]

See, that's just weird to me because... why boysenberries? Assuming this is set in England, there are plenty of native berries the characters could pick. Just use strawberries, for pete's sake.

[(Anonymous)]

I once read a Regency novel where the heroine was an heiress with a fortune of £200,000 and just giggled because the author clearly just chose a big number and didn't try to do any kind of currency conversion. Otherwise they'd know that's an insane amount of money. Or maybe their editor missed the extra zero, who knows?