I think you're right - there does seem to be a level of acceptance, either among readers or among perceptions of 'what people want', that accuracy isn't so much of an issue. For me, it's mental anachronism that gets me; failure not just to accurately describe historical fact, but to get behind the mindset of the time period... much like your point about the Celtic thing. There's a distinct difference between saying 'it could have happened like this' and saying 'it was like this, and they felt like this about it, because that's modern and relatable'... if that makes sense.
Really, I'd agree - it's a matter of, whatever the genre, the fiction working within believable rules. The only change is how far readers are required to - or are willing to - suspend their disbelief, as with historical fiction vs. fantasy. Interesting.
no subject
I think you're right - there does seem to be a level of acceptance, either among readers or among perceptions of 'what people want', that accuracy isn't so much of an issue. For me, it's mental anachronism that gets me; failure not just to accurately describe historical fact, but to get behind the mindset of the time period... much like your point about the Celtic thing. There's a distinct difference between saying 'it could have happened like this' and saying 'it was like this, and they felt like this about it, because that's modern and relatable'... if that makes sense.
Really, I'd agree - it's a matter of, whatever the genre, the fiction working within believable rules. The only change is how far readers are required to - or are willing to - suspend their disbelief, as with historical fiction vs. fantasy. Interesting.