The Nexus discussion

Was reading an interesting article about Anachronisms:
Zippers, Kohl, and Woman-Beating: Anachronisms in Historical Fiction
the link

"An anachronism is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. Often the item misplaced in time is an object, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a custom, or anything else associated with a particular period in time so that it is incorrect to place it outside its proper temporal domain."

A few examples "When oranges appear on the table in Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting The Last Supper, that’s an anachronism. When, during Titanic, Rose discourses with cheeky authority on the theories of Sigmund Freud, that’s also an anachronism—Freud wouldn’t publish those theories for nearly a decade."

So, would it not bother you if Alexander the Great whipped out a pocket watch or are you a nitpicker, when it comes to this issue?

Depends on the film. If I'm watching Jackie Chan in Shanghai Knights, set in London in 1850-something, I don't care that there's someone driving a car from 1910 and Charlie Chaplin is in it - even though he won't be born for another 15-something years.

If I'm watching a film where historical accuracy is important, then I'd say so. Having Rose on the Titanic dial for help on her cell phone wouldn't really work, would it!

I remember that some people take this to extreme limits though - such as (Titanic again) that the wrong era rivets are around one of the pressure gauges in the engine room.

If in doubt, remember the MST3K mantra: Repeat to yourself, "It's just a movie, I should really just relax."

I agree. For the most part it's just a movie. And I understand that small things might slip through. If it pulls me out of the story and I dwell on it I usually wonder why there wasn't more research. I'm more frustrated with aviation mistakes, but that's because to me they're glaring. I can imagine historical inconsistancies bothering people who study history or the particular time period or location.

Depends on the nature of the anachronism.

Minor things here and there I don't care about. In general, I tend to care a lot more about something if it forms a pretty major part of the plot axis.

For example, the word "hello" was not used as a greeting until the tail end of the 19th-century. I wouldn't jump down someone's throat for using it in a book set in 1812 England.

A book set in 1812 that's heavily dependent on the ruler being Queen Victoria would make me squint a lot more.

Technology is a tricky one. I mean, again, it's plot axis stuff, but you can have surprising things popping up before you'd think they would. Consider things like the Antikythera mechanism and ancient temple wonder machines. You had individuals putting together some pretty impressive stuff a rather long time ago, but often that knowledge dying with them or just not spreading decently. So a story that employs certain "apparent" advanced technologies in a period might not be anachronistic.

There's a related issue here though: apparent anachronisms that aren't actually wrong, the person just doesn't know what they're talking about.

Sometimes history isn't what people -think- it is. This is something I actually see a lot with Regency stuff and people acting like the Regency (and Georgian England) was the same thing customs-wise as the Victorian era.

I once saw a person complain when I was discussing the Chinese novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms (which semi-fictionally covers an actual civil war in the 2nd and 3rd century). The person violently objected to an oath some characters swear under a peach tree. The person insisted that peaches wouldn't have been around in the 2nd century in China

Peaches are -native- to China and have been actively cultivated for something like 4000 years at least.

Ideas and philosophies are one where I see this a lot. There were a lot of ideas and variations of ideas that were circulating around a lot sooner than a lot of people realize in some form or another.

A rather interesting case study is Ariana Franklin's
Mistress of the Art of Death.

The book involves a Salerno female doctor summoned to 12th-century England to investigate some murders (unusual circumstances and politics involved). So, this is the 12th century, so the thing you might suspect would be anachronistic is a female doctor, but in fact the medical school at Salerno did train female doctors.

Many of the cultural and social elements including sexism, virulent anti-semitism (the whole plot rests on that), and xenophobia were well represented.

The book (which I liked overall) though has a number of other elements that just made me stop and squint. The character's knowledge of psychology, forensics, and various related disciplines is often A) not reflective of the scientific paradigm of the time B) many centuries ahead of her time. At one point, she basically demonstrated she understood germ theory even.

This may be, as people noted above, a matter of relative expertise and reader interface. Biology and microbiology is my primary area of expertise.

Some of this you can just hand-waive and say she's special and what not, but it did strain credulity more than a few times.

There's also the really tricky issue of character psychology. This is something I see raised a lot, in particularly in regards to the relative desires, thoughts, and what not of women in many historical settings.

If I'm reading a book or watching a movie and the characters doesn't "think" like most people in their time about social issues or customs, is that anachronistic or is just them being unusual?

History is filled with examples of people who strove against the status quo and we only mostly know about the ones who were a big deal, not, say, the maid who ran off into the woods because she thought women should be free or something.

Yikes. Sorry about it being so epic. Historical fiction, historical research, and anachronisms are just things I tend to be very interested in. :p

J.A., excellent analysis. I loved that.

are they? I had no idea! :-p

Tony wrote: "Depends on the film. If I'm watching Jackie Chan in Shanghai Knights, set in London in 1850-something, I don't care that there's someone driving a car from 1910 and Charlie Chaplin is in it - even ..."

Tony - you pretty much said it all. :)

I remember reading a review of Soulless where the person was complaining about anachronisms and inaccuracies.

For those of you who haven't read it, the book is set in a mildly steampunk Victorian England where vampires, ghosts, and werewolves exist openly and are integrate into society.

It just kind of seems the moment Queen Victoria has vampire and werewolf advisors, you'd kind of accept they'll be some other deviations. :p

Granted, I get there's a fine balance in trying to ensure a period feel even in spec-fic.

How can you be historically accurate while writing steampunk? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Midu wrote: "How can you be historically accurate while writing steampunk? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?"

In general yes, but I can vaguely see where the person was coming from (even though I don't agree with their complaint).

Well, there's the difference, I suppose between technological history technological fidelity and historical cultural fidelity.

I can introduce a technology sooner, for instance, but still have the culture.

Now that gets tricky because technology often drives culture and vice versa. I've echoed (and somewhat buy) in the past the argument that the ubiquity of slavery in many societies discouraged interest in the creation of labor-saving devices and technologies.

One could easily imagine, though, say more advanced steampunk tanks or something showing up in 1880 or something, yet Victorian society being otherwise culturally the same.

The more tech you introduce, though, the more it's going to be hard to maintain a society that matches actual history and maintains any sort of verisimilitude.

JA, your comments on Hello / Hullo reminded of a flipside...

I set one of my YA novels in World War Two for a contemporary teen audience.

At one point, I had a character listening to long-playing vinyl record...and as I was writing it, I realised there would be teens today who would have NO idea what I was talking about.

It was a case of writing half a page explaining it, or just mention it and move on. Since it wasn't vital to the plot, I went for the second option :-)

Yeah, I remember reading a historical romance once (late Georgian) where the characters went on this lengthy explanation of a economic reform act. Now, the things they discussed were importantly historically but had like zero impact on the plot, so I didn't quite get why the author had it in there other than to show off her research.

In my experience, to avoid misplaced terms, events, ideas and locations requires effort. It's called research. The plain truth is, if you're writing fiction, get your facts straight. In producing the necessary effort to do just that, many times additional material comes to light that can benefit the storyline or the believability of the characters. I almost always get back more than I put in.
Do the work.

If I notice--and that doesn't always happen--little mistakes annoy me. If it seems like a bigger mistake, a lot of times, when I get home, I'll look it up to see if the author got it right. But for me, it's a frustration and not much else unless it knocks me out of my suspension of disbelief and throws me out of the story. Realistic details make me follow the characters and storyline. If a glaring mistake ruins that, then the author didn't do his/her work.

I say no.

I am always most concerned with the emotional movement, the imagery and the dialogue.

I don't mind mixed metaphors either. I think they can be incredibly evocative and effective.

It is difficult for me to analyze a story enough to pick out anachronisms as well as many other linguistic faux pas that may come up. I'm typically far too enveloped in the storyline, the plot, and connecting to the characters for it. On the other hand, I have noticed that I generally prefer my historical novels to be correct to the era the author is paying tribute to unless there is a reason built in to the plot for a deviation.

One of my most favorite genre's to read are "historical fiction" novels where modern day settings and such will mix with historical facts and made up fixtures. I tend to appreciate anachronisms in books like that. Case in point would be the recent novel A Discovery of Witches by Deborah Harkness that I'm currently reading. I enjoy that the main characters are built to throw questions into recorded history as we know it; effectively using blatant anachronisms to move the plot forward.

Anyway, that is just my two cents worth. :-)

What great responses and analysis. (I kept looking for the 'like' button) lol
In general, if an error doesn't pull me out of the story, I find I can relax and go with it. The rivets (in Titanic) weren't even on my radar, but if she had pulled out a cell phone that would have ruined it for me.

I've also noticed that some modern cuss words can also be jarring when I'm reading.

If I catch the Anachroonisms (FYI I did need the definition) it sometimes makes me feel very clever and at times dissapoints if it is just too blatant. I know people who make it a point to look for them. I do not, I watch movies to enjoy and be entertained, sometimes to research what I am writing it is faster than a book! The movies I chose are by the year they were made.
I needed to research the Lockheed Electra 10A and I was very excited when the movie with Hillary Swank Amelia came out, I even used it as a reference point for the readers, but because I consulted with airplane experts I was aware that the movie used a DC3 which to people like me would pretty much look like the same plane.
I was not aware of the mistake in Titanic. Very fun subject! Love The Nexus.
Catalina Egan

It's very difficult to overlook anachronisms. They're a distraction in books and movies that can ruin the suspension of reality.

Midu, you make an excellent point. Modern vocabulary in an historical is one thing that will always jerk me out of the story when it feels out of place/time.

My personal favourite anachronistic classic is Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart' where a 5'6 Aussie plays a legendary 6'8ft Scot who falls in love with Isabella of France whom Edward II did not marry until 1308, half a year after the death of his father and three years after the death of William Wallace. He was also a Lowlander and thus would never have donned the tartan. I could go on but you get the picture.

Movies don't care for accuracy, but books should as there are no visual aids to reinforce the images that the writer sets in the readers mind. In my humble opinion.

I don't like braveheart, my husband loves it, I have never sat through the whole thing. I also did not know that Mel Gibson was that short....I agree that books should be more accurate. I also agree with the vocabulary. that gets to me , words that are out of place in an era...throws me off...again if I notice...

Do inaccurate accents bounce you out of a movie?

I was thinking specifically of Sean Connery in The Hunt for Red October and Kevin Costner in Robin Hood.

What about them, Tony?

@Midu - I was wondering in a related way to anachronisms, whether misplaced accents bounce you out of a film or not.

Nope,I don't let these things bother me if the movie's story/actors can hold my attention. How about you?

Connery in Red October and Costner in Robin Hood didn't bother me. Keanu Reeves in Dracula made my teeth hurt--and I'm usually okay with Keanu.

Tony wrote: "@Midu - I was wondering in a related way to anachronisms, whether misplaced accents bounce you out of a film or not."

Just had to comment because I lived in Scotland for a while, and after that, hearing a Irish or English accent for someone who was supposed to be from Scotland just drove me up the wall!!!

Sometimes, for me, ignorance is bliss. I don't have a clue on most accents.

Midu wrote: "How can you be historically accurate while writing steampunk? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?"

Exactly. It depends on what the story is and whether it is plausable to the story. Steampunk will be one of those areas that can get away with more, becasue the entire idea of steampunk is hypothetical in nature. If I see someone whipping out an object out of era, I expect a time traveling explanation to clear it up. Right!?

But, let's not be too picky in our fiction unless it's something that changes the story.

Speaking of Robin Hood, what about the part where Christian Slater drops the "F" bomb when he sees that his catapult works? I thought it added a bit of charm to the movie but you know that it wasn't correct for the period.

No, but it was fun. And it was Christian Slater. I've loved him since the movie Heathers.

Yeah, I like him too. One of my favorite movies with him is Pump Up The Volume. Good one.

He has an edgy quality that makes him perfect for movies about offbeat characters--can't exactly call him a hero in Heathers. I liked Pump Up The Volume, too--he still breaking the rules.

Mostly I watch a film for other reasons and hardly notice something like that unless it's something I'm very close to.. I didn't see titanic but I probably wouldn't have noticed the reference to Freud being out of wack...