Category Archives: editing

How Historically Accurate Should Fantasy Be?

1 Reply

In the spring, I joined Threads, and what a vibrant literary community that app has! Shortly after joining Threads, I encountered a lively debate there regarding the use of “fuck” in fantasy and whether it was anachronistic. Some replies argued that in fantasy, you can do what you want, which sparked counterarguments about respecting genre rules. It’s been a few months since this debate, but I have thoughts on this that I couldn’t fit into a Threads post, and I wanted to weigh in!

As is often the case, my stance is somewhere in the middle. One of my favourite aspects of the fantasy genre is the freedom to be creative with your decisions. In many ways, your imagination is the limit in fantasy, but I also feel that you owe readers believability within the world you build. This may mean avoiding anachronisms…but it may not.

I think of the lamppost in Narnia, for example. Perhaps that’s anachronistic, but it works within the world. If it’s conscious, deliberate, and justifiable within the world’s logic, perhaps there isn’t a problem.

To me, other elements are more important than whether you include or avoid certain cursewords or lampposts. I think readers can forgive certain quirks, especially if you, the author, have a reason for them. Less forgivable are flat characters, unbelievable plot lines, or clunky dialogue. 

And in terms of the original debate over “fuck,” that word actually dates back to the fourteenth century, according to Merriam-Webster, so sometimes readers perceive certain elements as anachronistic even if they aren’t. You can’t please everyone, so I think it’s better to make strong world choices and commit. 

Personally, I have no problem with “fuck” in fantasy (and if you’ve read Into Shadow, you’ll know I have used it myself). I feel that language my audience connects with is the best language for me to use.

I also feel that fantasy can be inspired by a particular era without being ruled by it. If you write historical fantasy, this may not be the case, but in epic fantasy, I think it’s very fair to pick and choose from different eras. The goal is not to accurately reflect an era, but rather to build a believable world from a variety of influences to make your point and serve your story. If that includes some anachronisms, historical accuracy was never the point, really.

So, I’m not totally against anachronisms in fantasy. If an anachronism is logical within the story and serves the story, I think it’s fine! However, in fantasy, rules matter within the context the author builds, so while you make the rules, you also need to follow them. This may be something difficult to judge by yourself, and if you consciously include anachronisms, it’s important to listen to beta reader and editor feedback. I think all authors want to create a good reader experience, so if it stands out to your readers as not working, then maybe you should rethink the anachronism. But if your anachronism serves your world and it works for your early readers, I think it can be okay.

What are your thoughts on historical accuracy in fantasy? Comment below!

Who Needs “Whom,” Anyway?

Leave a reply

As I was scrolling through social media, I came across a comment by another editor saying that “whom” should never be used because it’s obsolete. This came days after a conversation I had with a friend about something in grammar called a predicate complement. Not to get too technical, but when you use a verb form of “to be” followed by a pronoun, that pronoun should be in the subjective case. In case I’ve lost you, I’ll give you a quick example: if you’ve ever heard someone answer the phone with “This is she,” that’s technically grammatically correct.

This came up because I was talking about Taylor Swift’s song “Anti-Hero” and predicate complements. This subject makes me laugh, because “It’s me” should technically be “It’s I,” which sounds ridiculous in that song. My friend commented that if no one uses that form, is it really correct? 

I loved this comment so much that I decided to write a blog post about it. Whether to use “who” or “whom” and whether to use predicate complements boils down to what school of editorial thought you’re part of, and these two conversations really had me considering my own stance.

In editing, there are basically two ways of thinking:

1. You should edit according to the rules.

2. You should edit according to how people actually use English.

I think many editors, including myself, fall somewhere in between. I love knowing the rules, but it’s limiting as a language professional to stick to the rules in all instances because no piece of writing is the same. Authors have different voices, and texts have different audiences. If you were writing a children’s book, you wouldn’t use the same style as you would to write a dissertation, so editing, like many things, requires some nuance and flexibility based on the purpose of the text.

In all cases, it’s important to consider audience expectations. When you’re writing in a more formal register, your audience will expect you to follow certain rules, even if they’re rules without a real grammatical basis. Many people incorrectly assume that you can’t start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction (like “and” or “but”), that you can’t split an infinitive, or that you can’t end a sentence with a preposition. While these rules aren’t actually rules, if your audience considers them to be rules, you may be better off following them. However, if you choose not to follow them, the good news is that there are plenty of resources to prove that you’re right. 

So, should you use “whom”? My answer is that it depends. If you’re writing in a formal register, I would say yes. If you’re writing fiction, I would also say it depends. Are you writing in the voice of a character who loves grammar? Are you writing a historical fiction novel in the style of the time? In that case, maybe. Otherwise, maybe not. 

My general philosophy is to know your rules and to not be afraid to break them if the context calls for it. Language is beautifully fluid, and it evolves over time. The most important thing is to reach your audience with language that they will be able to understand and connect with. After all, grammar is just a tool to help you effectively communicate.