I've been SO too long without researchsquee.

[themeletor]

Fomg.

Whoever said period PotC was messy / dull / dreadful to do? LIED.

Just set it in 1692, is all.

.::falls over::.

You'll have to excuse me; I'm in the throes of research adrenaline.

[ETA: YES! WorldBookOnline's research libraries are back!]

Comments

[xzombiexkittenx.livejournal.com]

That's around the period of common concencus, but why that date in particular?

[gryphons-lair.livejournal.com]

IIRC, that's the year Port Royal slid into the ocean.

[meletor-et-al.livejournal.com]

Actually, yes and no. Going from the_dala's term paper (because ok I'm just too lazy to find it myself), the quake was indeed 1692 (June 7, lesse how I work that in!), but after that Port Royal was revived. Fort Charles was rebuilt, etc., and still remained frequented by many loyal merchants and sailors. In 1703 a fire stopped any further growth, and by 1722 it really *was* le squashed. However, it remained a strategic base for the Navy, and in fact Nelson was stationed there in 1779 (squeee!).

[gryphons-lair.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I read her paper, too.

But the 'sliding into the ocean' part gives you lots and lots of data for that specific year, which is why I assumed you picked it. :)

[meletor-et-al.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I actually stuck Psalms to the Taffrail in 1692 because that's when the Battle of Barfleur happened. They're more concerned, at the moment, with the scads of French, British, and Dutch ships in the Channel than they are with Port Royal.

But the much and much data and the 'sliding into the ocean' bit on P. R.'s side of things does mean there's lots of historical colour points, and excuses to get certain pre-canon people to certain islands in the West Indies.

[meletor-et-al.livejournal.com]

Grand Pooh-Bahs of the film set it in 1730s, the tail end of piracy's golden age.

Psalms to the Taffrail is set in 1692, specifically May.

[justwatchmetry.livejournal.com]

Pooh-bah? Mikado pooh-bah? or am i missing something?

[meletor-et-al.livejournal.com]

You're missing something, babe.

By the Grand Pooh-Bahs of the film I mean Jerry Bruckheimer and Gore Verbinski, the producer and director of PotC.

I like the term pooh-bah. I use it often. It actually does apply outside of Mikado. But G+S points to you, woot etc. etc.

[gryphons-lair.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, once you nail down a date and decide to ignore all the things that don't fit for that date (for example, the British Navy didn't require its officers to wear uniforms until the mid-1700s, which is one reason commodorified and I set the "Men Must Work" series in 1760) it becomes much easier.

It's trying to make all the anachronistic bits fit into -one- historical period that'll drive you 'round the twist.

Which is why I don't try. :-)

[meletor-et-al.livejournal.com]

One can still find examples, though, from say 1740s, and work those in. Oooh! That reminds me--

Another reason why Norrington must be a very good captain who got, for some I like to imagine intriguing reason, sent off to Port Royal, is that his men *are* all in uniform, generally. And well so. Therefore, the man runs a taut ship. Since we see the same even when he's Lieutenant, I'd imagine the captain he served under did the same, and passed that manner of leadership on to him.

It takes some stretching, but it can work in. You just need to be open to recognizing what each offish thing means, taking it as fact rather than anachronism.

[gryphons-lair.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, you can retcon anything, if you try hard enough.

The Dauntless, for example. She's a 100-gun, 3-gundeck ship of a type that didn't exist in -any- country's navy until the late 1700s. So, obviously, in your 1692, she's a bleeding-edge experimental prototype sent to the Caribbean for try-outs, because the Spaniards and French are less likely to find out about her there and copy her.

Right? *G*

[meletor-et-al.livejournal.com]

She's a 100-gun, 3-gundeck ship of a type that didn't exist in -any- country's navy until the late 1700s.

Ah-ah-ah! That's not correct! Well, valiantly close, but, sneakily, no cigar. HMS Sovereign of the Seas (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_086000_hmssovereign.htm), for example. The revival of the three-decker was in 1795, true, and that's where we find the three-decker as we know her "now" -- read: the Victory -- but there was an entire period of them before that. They were just crap at sailing, really -- too poorly proportioned & weighted -- and vanished as a build, thus, for a good few decades before their valliant return.

The Dauntless has other issues, like, why's she in the West Indies? Finding pirates? When there are, like, less than a hanful left? Hmmmm? *eyebrow waggle*

[gryphons-lair.livejournal.com]

Hmm... full points for that one. I'd never heard of that ship before.

My take on the POTC universe is that it's a fun place that's obviously not our timeline (undead pirate monkeys, and all that) and in that timeline the earthquake hasn't happened yet, and go on happily cherrypicking the bits of our-world history I want to use and ignoring the ones I don't. 'Cause if I wanted to do excruciatingly historically accurate British Navy fic? I'd be writing Hornblower.

But I'm looking forward to watching you Explain It All. :)

[meletor-et-al.livejournal.com]

Ok, actually, I think I lied. It was 1775, the revival of the three-decker. Oooops.

And yeah, PotC 'verse is fun for that freedom from detail-madness, and that's a great, fun thing. Lovely to take advantage of. It's beautiful, because a writer has that option, to completely, as you said, cherrypick, and there's no stigma for it because DUDE, there are zombies.

As for myself, there are times I just want to reconcile PotC, historically, for my own obsessive intentions. So I decided to do that.

But I'm looking forward to watching you Explain It All. :)

Ohhh, I shall.
(though if PotC2&3 somehow break it, I'll practice Studious Non-Attention)

[the-dala.livejournal.com]

The good thing about that year is that you get a REALLY good picture of exactly what the town looked like, what was going on, etc. After June, well, not so much :)

[meletor-et-al.livejournal.com]

Eeee!

I hope it's alright that I took stuff from your paper just there...
If not I shall delete the comment immediately.

[the-dala.livejournal.com]

Not at all! Historical info, after all, is pretty much public domain.

[the-dala.livejournal.com]

BTW, if you can get your hands on a copy of Pawson and Buisseret's Port Royal, Jamaica from the '70s, it's well worth it. I have a bunch of pages I scanned and will be posting for research purposes soon.

[meletor-et-al.livejournal.com]

Well, PtT is really hanging out around the Channel, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth a search and two squees at the library. Thanks for the tip!

[drbillbongo.livejournal.com]

I have to do more research, too. But the "Rum, Sodomy and the Lash" book will arrive this weekend and I think that's the first step. :)

Nothing wrong with being excited about PotC research, I share your excitement! :)