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

[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)