(no subject)

[heidi]

This probably isn't the best day to start up a discussion, so I am going to cross-post this on FictionAlley; if you can't comment here, you can post there if you want to.

So, now, a few thoughts on

There's been some discussion on LJs and on FA recently - as well as a long, long time ago - about what makes an anachronism.

Merriam-Webster defines it as an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other, or a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place.

People have called JKR's mention of Dudley having a playstation an anachronism; it might be, but then, it might not, as they were introduced on a limited scale in the Spring of 1994 in Japan, and were technically available, although at very exorbitant prices. A year later, they were easily available in the UK, though, so she's not really off by too much.

It would be, under that definition, an anachronism for Lily Evans to listen to Britney Spears sing "Hit Me Baby One More Time" - but Britney did not write that song, and the wizarding world is not exactly like our own. If you want to incorporate that song into a story, then why not toss in an offhand explanation that it had been written as a folk song by some random wizard back in 1968 to protest capitalist hegemony? If you're creative, you can explain anything that's outside of place and time - or just incorporate it creatively, like they did in Ella Enchanted (no, Freddie Mercury did not exist in Ella's world, but his song certainly did!). It depends, of course, on the mood of your story - but if you treat something anachronistic like it's natural and an organic element of your universe, like Mutton, Lettuce & Tomato sandwich that Miracle Max seeks in The Princess Bride, it's going to work, at least for those who are willing to get caught up in magic.

I like realistic and well researched fics as much as anyone, though, and when I'm looking to make something realistic, I personally look to see whether it is possible that someone had, did or saw something. Hermione might've been listening to CDs when her letter from Hogwarts arrived; she might've been watching laser discs, although it's not likely as they weren't especially popular except among cinema geeks (I dated one in 1993, which is how I know this timeframe). She was not watching a DVD, and she certainly wasn't watching Titanic. Or Star Wars. But it *is* possible for Harry, two or three years after finishing Hogwarts, to watch Star Wars on a DVD, even though they haven't been released yet; people have illegally burned the films onto DVDs, so it is *technically* possible to watch them now. Bad, illegal, and possible.

When I saw the pics of Hermione in her pink hoodie and rainbow belt, I thought that it showed her lack on interest in current fashions - my gosh, I remember when those *were* fashionable.

In 1981.

So it's, again, not anachronistic, because pink hoodies did exist in 1994, but it might not send the exact message you want to make. Or you may just be Alfonso Cuaron, and setting your story, because of some insane decision by Chris Columbus, in 2003 instead of 1994. And then we'll all just say "whatever*.

Now, what do you think? What makes something anachronistic to you? Is it implausibility in the Muggle world? Is it impossibility in the Muggle world, combined with an absence of an explanation as to how it is possible in the Wizarding world?

What is it? And what do you do about it?

Comments

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Um, Hermione couldn't have been watching a DVD of Star Wars, but she certainly could have been watching a VHS. Star Wars came out in 1977, and for all we know the Grangers went to see it on a date. The second set of Star Wars films hadn't come out in 1991, but the first three were certainly available.

One thing that always bugs me is when people forget that the Marauders, Lily, and Snape were all born in or around 1959-1960. James, Sirius, and Snape may not have had much contact with the Muggle world (and Peter is an unknown quantity), but Remus is a halfblood and Lily is Muggleborn, and they certainly would have known about things like Carnaby Street, the punk movement, disco, and Margaret Thatcher.

I also get upset when people base Snape's appearance on Alan Rickman, even though Rickman is about 25 years older than the character - Snape is no more than 31 or 32 in the first book, and there is no way on God's green earth he'd look as old as Rickman, even given the vagaries of life as a Death Eater. And where precisely in the books does it say that Snape wears a frock coat or has buttons all over his clothing? He's in robes like everyone else, never precisely described, but I've yet to read a fic where he *isn't* wearing the movie costume. For all we know he's in a tunic of some sort (which is certainly what the OWLS scene in OotP implies about the student uniforms), not a coat and trousers.

*sigh* Sorry about that...just a couple of pet peeves coming to the fore....

[cleverthylacine]

Actually, a lot of writers use movie costume references because frankly, it doesn't make sense for people to be wearing robes and skivvies in the British weather, or for fashion not to advance, albeitly in different ways, beyond the simple t-tunic and gathered robe. Rowling has approved the movie costumes, so we use them.

But hell yeah, Rickman is way too old, and that garment is a cassock, not a frock coat.