Artistic license: thoughts?

[analect]

All righty... in the interests of leaving some discussion open for those who want it, I have a question. How far do you take artistic license when dealing with something in a fictional context, and how much knowledge - either of the thing itself, or in terms of acknowledgement of the license you're taking - do you expect your audience to have?

I'm sure we all have different approaches here, so I'm curious.

As a kick-off point, I recently posted a story of mine that's been kicking around for a while to my journal. The Red Man is a horror short that involves references to Celtic druidism [click to read]. Though I researched a bit for the story, I don't know a lot about either historical or modern practice - however, I do have a few druid friends.

Their religious/philosophical slant is very different to the angle the story explores (notions of Awen and bardic tradition, while awesome, are not terribly horrific). So I guess you could say, here, I've taken the same kind of artistic license that The Wicker Man (the proper film; let's pretend the 2006 remake never happened) took with ideas of preserved pagan practice; i.e., it could have happened that way.

Is this something you do with different ideas? Or are you a stickler for realism and research? Does artistic license always (or ever) mean pandering to stereotypes, or is it a useful tool for playing 'what-if' with?

Comments

[niniane]

I agree so much on the midnset thing. WE really don't know what people were thinking (aside from the hints you can get from primary documents), and it is pretty obvious that they weren't space aliens - men loved their wives, women their husbands, both loved their children, and animals were often treasured companions as well as food. (In fact, the Iliad had some interesting lines on this..."every man loves his husband", etc. You do find a lot of stories of marital devotion in the Iliad and Odyssey and oh, the love Odysseus has for that dog...)

But definitely there were differences in all of those relationships from the modern world.

I think, sometimes, that it helps to extrapolate from autobiographies that are more recent, but still written from worlds that might be more similar to those lived by our ancestors. (i.e. Laura Ingles Wilder wrote some lovely novels that state exactly what she was thinking as she butchered beloved farm animals, smoked deer, etc. Admittedly, she was not a medieval peasant. And her life had a LOT of differences from that of a peasant. But she still lived a lifestyle that was probably closer to that way of thinking than is that of a modern urbanite, like me. So while it's not a perfect comparison, it can be used along with documents from earlier eras to go "oh, I can kind of see how that works..." The same would probably be true for reading the Iliad for an idea as to how a Celtic warrior might behave. There will be differences, but those two worlds are probably a lot more similar than our world is to that of a Celtic (or any tribal) world.)