#but fucking stirrups didn't exist yet

[baejax-the-great]

One of the reasons the ancient Greeks relied on chariots for warfare is that saddles and especially stirrups had not been invented yet and sitting bareback (and bare-assed lbr) on a horse while trying to throw a spear at someone would have been exceedingly difficult.

[queer-ragnelle]

could you please elaborate on how anachronisms are a feature not a bug? It's probably an issue of "kill the cop in your head" but despite knowing others have done it I find it difficult to accept *I* can mix elements from 1200s france and 600s england (for example).

The Arthurian literary tradition has never been Historical Fiction. Ever. And for many, it's not a detriment, but part of the appeal!

Sure, there are some Arthurian books that set out to be Historical Fiction, that is, pinpoint the era during which their story takes place and sticking to it. They may include historical figures to help immerse the story in that era. That's all well and good. But those stories contain anachronisms. Arthurian Legend has always "mixed elements" of the author's current era with their limited understanding of the past, it has always contained magic, it has always contained characters firmly cemented in mythos that were never considered to have really existed. It's a literary tradition built upon the stories which came before, not a transcription of factual events because we frankly don't even know squat about who Arthur "really was," if he existed at all.

I understand your perspective, I really do. I briefly had an editor who suggested female knights weren't Historically accurate so I should write them out. Gromer and Merlin both perform magic in the prologue, the events pertaining to the Green Knight are mentioned, but gender-neutral language when referring to knights (who this editor insisted should all be cis men) was a step too far. Around the same time, I had a sensitivity reader suggest that Gawain wasn't racist enough to Ragnelle (a Persian woman) and he should call her, his future wife, in my queer romance book, "a savage." Hand to my heart Anon that's a quote I had to read on my manuscript with my own two eyes. And I say to these people, "Are you lost?" Because even though I disclosed the nature of my books before letting these people read it, clearly it wasn't a good match. Literally kill the cop in your head and protect yourself from anyone who makes it more difficult by insinuating the Historical accuracies should be upheld, especially as it pertains to misogyny or racism. Excuse my French, fuck them and fuck that.

This hesitation to write "mixed elements" can come from the false idea a "true" or "objective" way to write within a Historical Era exists. There simply isn't. Unless you have a time machine, you will inevitably rely on anachronisms to bridge gaps both narratively and because the information simply doesn't exist.

Let's use your example to talk about narrative anachronisms first. Say you're writing in 600s Britain (since England didn't exist yet) but you want your character to stand in the stirrups. Ah nuts, they didn't have stirrups yet! That's okay. We're gonna borrow the stirrups from 1200s French version of the stories so your character can do what they need to do. Persia Woolley did this exact thing in her first book Child of the Northern Spring; she wrote Palomides into the story as a means for the Round Table to receive stirrups from the East and this upgrade is something which gave Arthur's knights an edge over others. Another instance could be women riding sidesaddle. Generally speaking, it was meant to keep women's knees together for the sake of modesty, but it also made sense from a practical standpoint as riding astride with ankle-length skirts was cumbersome and simply never done... or was it?

My good friend Alisoun from The Wife of Bath rides astride! Geoffrey Chaucer you madlad!! So while the general Historical fact, that women rode sidesaddle, still stands, they did so except when they didn't! Is this used to mark Alisoun, a fictional woman, as unconventional? Yeah, duh. So it would still be Historically accurate to have the majority of women riding sidesaddle. Alisoun can do things real women of this era weren't allowed to. But the point is this illumination casts doubt on the idea such a thing was unheard of. A woman riding astride wasn't automatically descended upon by a mob that stoned her to death. You can write her riding astride and no misogyny happens. The same could be said for female or transmasc knights, as I explained here. So you can write in a reason why this specific anachronism is present in your story, (Palomides brought the stirrups, Alisoun is a bad bitch who does what she wants, Marine and Silence are proof of GNC knights, etc). It might put you at ease about including it.

But you simply cannot do it for everything. You would spend more time reassuring the reader you're aware of the inaccuracies than you would be telling your story. Every Historical Fiction author in the world can corroborate this.

Even the most serious and intensely research heavy Historical Fiction will contain anachronisms. It's literally impossible to be 100% accurate. Let's say you scour contemporary sources like letters or writings, you're still forced to interpret those either through the inevitably biased author and/or whoever translated it (their word choice, what passages they omitted, etc). (I had to navigate this myself while researching Iranian Zoroastrians through Arabic-written sources, ie, the conquerors' interpretation of the people they sought to eradicate. On top of that, the text is then translated into English for me to read it. The document I end up researching from becomes many steps removed from authenticity, and yet it's all there is; the Avestan or Persian language texts with first hand accounts are scant to none, and also translated into English.)

Best case scenario: you have an artifact, in hand. You can still only glean so much from something that's degraded over many years, something that may be an outlier in and of itself, the authenticity of which could only be corroborated through the help of an expert, someone who is, just like you, living in the present and must make educated guesses with the resources available (carbon dating, context clues, chemical testing of materials, etc).

So sure, you could read in the documentation that this Historical figure had a mustache. A comb alleged to be used for facial grooming was found, which may lend weight to the supposed accuracy of the writings. But unless the documentation also says what color the mustache was, and the length, and the style, and during what point in this person's life they wore the mustache, and whether they also had side burns and beard, your interpretation is based on an inference and likely anachronistic. Even if you have a really detailed text, that's one source. That Medieval author could be a big liar! Maybe they got carried away embellishing their favorite king! Or they cut out the parts which made their favorite king look bad! Or they slanderously depicted their enemy king as depraved to make their favorite look even better by comparison! Every writer has their own agendas. We have no way of knowing the extent of it!

Now I want to circle back to anachronisms that aren't tied to a story element but perhaps something as simple as bridging cultural gaps or practical means in the story itself. By that I mean you cannot know every detail of their lives. What exactly did their Church services look like? How exactly did the nobles' spirituality differ from the lower class? We cannot know for certain and will inevitably fill in the blanks with what we understand of Christianity today. You will more than likely include foods they didn't eat out of necessity because the resources are so scarce or limited or for your own sanity. In book 2, I wrote Agravaine describing something to Ragnelle as "the color of a carrot." Well. They didn't have carrots back in 6th century Britain. They were imported through trade with the East which was a long time coming yet when Agravaine said this. Early Medieval people had other root vegetables, but what were they called? What color were they? Certainly not neon orange carrots thick as the hilt of a sword like we have today. But I left this in anyway because it's a single line. It's so brief as to be insignificant, it's meant to quickly call to mind a color the reader can identify easily. It works on a subtextual level as well since Ragnelle, a Persian woman, would know what a carrot is in the 6th century. So it's only half anachronistic. To me.

On the other hand, in book 1, Gawain and co are in Persia. There Owain and Gaheris eat peaches for the first time. They call them "stone fruit," as they've encountered other fruits with pits, but not these. Gromer, a native, explains they're called "peaches" and they come from China (a place he has personally visited, so he knows). None of these words would've been in Medieval dialogue, but the History of that fruit, which we now call a "peach," is sound. Because it's a moment of cultural connection, and Owain is shown carving peach pits for the rest of the book, and still doing so in book 2, grounding this in as close to Historically sound facts as I could was important.

Now if Owain wanted to bring that peach pit back to Britain and grow a peach tree for his wife Laudine, could that happen? Well, Britain's weather conditions are not at all appropriate for it and the soil probably isn't right and he's not exactly known to have a green thumb. But anachronisms are a feature, not a bug. It's not an "inaccuracy" to write this successful endeavor because I did it on purpose! It is "accurate" to my story! Not an oversight, but a creative choice made with intention. Now I've extended the use of the "prop" and maintained that cultural connection I went out of my way to include. Perhaps later, once Ragnelle has settled at Camelot, she would enjoy a piece of fruit from her homeland as a gift from Laudine. Now the whole thing has come full circle and become enmeshed with the story in such a way the readers won't say "Hey! How does Laudine have a functioning green house in 6th century Britain? That's absurd!" Yeah, well, not any more absurd than Owain's pet lion or his battle with a dragon.

I think this is perfectly okay to do even if you don't have the magical elements. Nothing in the exchange about carrots relies on fantasy. The peaches don't either, not until there's suddenly a functioning greenhouse made of perfect panes of glass. People did travel great distances even in that era. You're not obligated to point to a specific instance of this thing happening Historically for it to be valid in your story. Arthurian authors have literally never been concerned with that. More importantly, neither have the readers! But there are exceptions to many of the "rules" or preconceived notions Historically which can help support your narrative choices if you desire to seek them some of the time. You have a few Modern Arthurian authors writing Historical Fiction, but Bernard Cornwell also included magic and a ton of characters from the Mabinogion, Edward Frankland did the same with Gwalchmai and Olwen, and Henry Treece wrote Cuneglas so strong he could T-pose with two grown men standing on each arm as a display of his strength. Push those boundaries, everyone is! It's fun!

Reading more will help. You'll be able to see what your boundary of anachronisms are. What irks you while reading? What did you notice as inaccurate and not care about? What anachronisms did you enjoy best? Researching a lot will also help. Get a very thorough understanding of the era and location you intend to write in. Then you'll better understand where the gaps in knowledge lies and what you'll have to add anachronistically to fill them. I assure you no one is going to be angry if you write Gringolet as a big beautiful stallion instead of a more Historically accurate little fluffy pony. You'll drive yourself crazy if you get hung up on every detail.

That's all I got. Arthurian Legend frees you from this "Historically accurate" headache. If you're still having trouble, perhaps ask yourself if you what you actually want to be writing is Historical Fiction instead. That's totally cool too! But nobody who enjoys Arthurian Legend is concerned whatsoever with Historical accuracy and you shouldn't be either. So write whatever pleases you! Take care, I hope that helps clear things up a little. :^)

[augment-techs]

👀wanna try?? Billy/Skull??

Wow this looks ugly, I am sorry. But for the sake of clarity:

Skull:

Alternates between being the big spoon and little spoon, but is slightly bigger, so it works out better if he's the big one.

Oddly, of the two of them, he's slightly more responsible with his clothes and therefore always has extra on hand for Billy to borrow when Billy... gets "oil" on his shirts or tears his jeans "working on an engine" by the week.

Being that he is a quiet little king of music, he has a way with words and calls Billy all manner of cute things. Things like, "Rain Dance" or "Sugar Star" or "Ocean Heart" or, his favorite "Bones"~

Amongst people he knows and trusts he is exceptionally extroverted. If he is not used to a group of people, he tends to fade back until he's sure he can be tolerated.

Acts of Service is his main love language, but he speaks all love languages, so if Billy needs more than one or the other, Skull can supply.

There is exactly a one in fifty chance he would ever confess first. But, the multiverse exists; there's gotta be one somewhere that didn't chicken out.

He could break a window screaming over seeing a cockroach skitter by or duck for cover if a moth or grasshopper or wasp gets into the house. Yet, oddly, he won't let anyone kill them, preferring to carefully relocate them, even while freaking out under his breath.

He has a license, he can go from point A to point B. He is not allowed to drive cross country due to the nausea that comes from prolonged coasting.

He basically started cooking for himself when he could reach the stove with a stool. When he is lacking in funds, he can still make a good meal. When he gets older, this is how he truly shows devotion.

Grab him, kiss him, hold his hand, carry him bridal style out in the open. He cannot be embarrassed by affection.

In a relationship, he is very much aware that Billy can handle himself, can watch his own back and is not a fragile flower. So he is generally chill with Billy doing what he will, Skull just requests that he send texts if he knows he might be late or needs something. Unless there's some homophobic douchebag bothering Billy. Then WATCH OUT.

His having more relationship experience is kind of a sad, horrible kind of joke amongst their friends. Sure, he's got a body count higher than two, but holy fucking shit, they all were a horror show. When he wasn't being used for convenience, he was being used to prevent loneliness and lied to the entire time. Not to mention when a mind control or love potion is added to the mix. So...yeah.

Billy:

He tries to be the big spoon at least three times a week, but he is fully aware that he has more muscle and softness than Skull, so he might usually be the little spoon, but that's mostly because he's basically a lovey for his boney-ass boyfriend.

Half of his closet and drawers are filled with clothes he's snatched from Skull; which is very amusing to Kim and Trini when they visit and want to go out and often end up dressing him in his boyfriend's wardrobe. He once wore stirrup leggings with Cinderella flats and a black linen blouse that hung off his shoulders with only the top two buttons latched so he could show off a deep blue sequined crop top that complimented the elk skull and Death Head moth necklaces around his neck--all from Skull; the entire ensemble making him look like a model. (And Skull is fully aware that he's never getting those clothes back.)

Doesn't use nearly as many pet names as Skull, but he does call him easy things like sweetspark, honey heart, marigold, darling, etc.

He's not as shy and background oriented as he was in middle school, but he's not as out there as literally all of his friends. Which is fine and hasn't given him a complex at all.

Service, touch, gift giving, making things--these are his ways of showing affection. He will use words when needed, but he's so often in his own head that sometimes the words just...stay there.

He would have to be the one to say he loves and wants to love and wants a relationship when it becomes very obvious that all the signs for romance are there...but history kind of prevents Skull from acting on things. And he gets it. Of the two of them, Billy has people in his back corner to provide support, Eugene just has Bulk (and maybe his brother when he's...around).

He will not kill pollinators or spiders, but he will tear apart a work area just to get a mosquito.

Billy literally remodeled a car from the early '90s into a flying future miracle. He has risen above the "gays can't drive" thing, thank you.

He can make pasta and microwave dinners and popcorn. He can sort of bake cookies. One should not ask him to do more than that, because he will forget something and go work on an experiment and blow up the house.

So-so when it comes to PDA. Largely because he feels like he's somehow being impolite to other people, but if Skull is feeling low, Billy will actively make sure their hands are attached and that his boyfriend's face is flushed from Billy kissing him all along his face and shoulders.

There is a one in three chance that Bulk and Skull will be in the area of a monster fight at any given time. Rita and Zedd and their minions know them BY NAME. Of COURSE Billy gets protective of Skull to the point of ridiculous a lot of the time.

He's basically always known he's gay. He's had a lot of crushes on his guy friends and allies, but never actually tried to ask for a date. He has had sex with other boys, but not a real relationship--most of the time it was coming off of a stressful battle because of Power overload. So...not much experience. Thankfully, Skull is much more patient than others would believe.