On this example… why not? If they chose to focus on scientific advancement ahead of military advancement, I don’t see why this is unreasonable? If you want swords and electricity, I say go for it.
Yeah, there are definitely reasons why that could happen, but if you’re going into a story with the expectation of it being medieval-esque and then suddenly a character turns on the electric lights, it feels very internally inconsistent, especially if things like metalworking are explicitly stated to still be in their medieval stages.
It could work, but then I’d like just a passing line about why they haven’t had any need to develop guns. (The technology for a flintlock pistol is way less advanced than for electricity and plumbing.)
I get that not everyone likes worldbuilding, but then it might work better to just pick a (loose) era and stick to it.
Personally, it pulls me out of a story, but I’m a proud history nerd 🙂
Actually no, I didn’t, so that’s helpful to know. XD
It was an absolute impossiblity until the advent of machine lace! Bobbin lace takes literal years, and something like a lace dress wasn’t even considered until that, even during the 1700s (pre-French Revolution) Which was one of the most opulent and wasteful periods in dress history!
I’ll stop there, but dress history is one of my passions and that peeved me to no end XD Especially when she ended up tearing the dress and doing all kinds of action stuff in it 😭
I’d also like to note that these things don’t necessarily have to be explained in the story to have an explanation. So as long as there’s not a glaringly-obvious-to-anyone-with-a-brain inconsistency, I can usually have grace for these things and assume there’s a behind-the-scenes explanation. Now, if a culture has, say, electricity and hasn’t applied that to its most important areas of development, I’m gonna have questions. The explanations ought to involve consistency.
Sure! If something sounds mildly wrong to me but while I’m reading but I can’t think of an instant reason why it wouldn’t work, I’ll go with it happily. But if I think about it for five seconds and it makes even less sense, then I might want an explanation.
I do generally get annoyed when romance is too large a percentage of a book that is supposed to be about, say, saving the world. If the MC would be too distracted to pursue a relationship in the proposed situation, don’t put the plot on hold to shoehorn in a romance plotline. Attraction, fine. Little romantic interactions as they actually have time, sure. Maybe even show them putting in extra effort, if this is really important to them, and show it as effort. But please make the romance-to-plot ratio realistic somehow?
Exactly! There’s nothing worse than calling the entire plot to a halt because they characters need to kiss again XD It’s okay if the romance fills up the little breaks between action, then it can actually be good to take some kind of break from all the strain as a reader.
Definitely. We need more varied and stronger relationships, both romantic and platonic. I mean, what about that couple that’s been married 40 years? Or the young couple still planning their wedding? Or the best friends, or the sibling-like friends, or the actual siblings, or the friends that haven’t figured out yet if they could be something more, or… So many options. *cough*I may may not have all of the above in my upcoming novel*cough*
Exactly! That’s what I think too!
Without darkness, there is no light. If there was no nighttime, would the stars be as bright?