Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
They allow contemporary fiction to be as silly, fluffy, and inaccurate as it wants (with nary a critical word), but sticking the word "historical" in front of "fiction" suddenly means (for many) that the work needs to be as painstakingly researched and geographically/historically/socially accurate as a college history textbook. It somehow NEEDS to be a vehicle that one can use to gain academic knowledge about the period in which it is set.
If you're not one of those people, that's great.  |
There are errors in all writing, fiction or non fiction, no matter how well the author knows the subject.
An occasional accidental anachronism is OK, if not too egregious. A deliberate anachronism can be a bit of fun between author and reader, if noticed.
But since contemporary authors are part of contemporary culture, it would be hard for contemporary fiction to be as bad as some historical fiction.
If an author writes about a contemporary place they don't know well, they need to do their research just as much as authors of historical fiction need to research the time they are writing about.
No-one expects historical fiction to be a history book, nor contemporary fiction to be a travel guide.
But some historical fiction is the equivalent of setting a story in Manchester (UK) in January, and having a key scene set at an outdoor BBQ party, where attendees are in shorts/sandals and the host is reminding people to 'slip, slop, slap!' because the sun's a bit bright.