![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
*facepalm*
Jan. 22nd, 2011 07:05 pmYou know you've gone too far when on reading the first paragraph of Captain Blood [Peter Blood, bachelor of medicine and several other things besides, smoked a pipe and tended the geraniums boxed on the sill of his window above Water Lane in the town of Bridgewater] instead of a feeling of pleasant anticipation you make a mental note to look up if they had geraniums in the late 17th century.
After a discussion yesterday about historical accuracy necessarily giving way to general appeal in the movies, I'm wondering now what the writers of historicals feel about that with books? I've seen opinions at both ends of the scale - ie, that it's the story that's important on one hand or, otoh, if you are going to write historicals get it right or don't bother.
As a reader I'm normally very tolerant of inaccuracies and anachronisms if the story and characters are good enough. I think it's a pity if my anxiety to get it right as a hobby writer is colouring my attitude to fantastic classic works of fiction.
Any one else found that?
After a discussion yesterday about historical accuracy necessarily giving way to general appeal in the movies, I'm wondering now what the writers of historicals feel about that with books? I've seen opinions at both ends of the scale - ie, that it's the story that's important on one hand or, otoh, if you are going to write historicals get it right or don't bother.
As a reader I'm normally very tolerant of inaccuracies and anachronisms if the story and characters are good enough. I think it's a pity if my anxiety to get it right as a hobby writer is colouring my attitude to fantastic classic works of fiction.
Any one else found that?