Predictions on how Reign will end?

[Anonymous]

Um, I think you need to google fiction. As defined above, historical fiction tells a story set in a certain period using some historical figures and/or events and embellishes by making up dramatic storylines that aren't based on historical fact or evidence. That's Reign. And your examples underscore precisely why it's historical FICTION.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um, I think you need to google fiction. As defined above, historical fiction tells a story set in a certain period using some historical figures and/or events and embellishes by making up dramatic storylines that aren't based on historical fact or evidence. That's Reign. And your examples underscore precisely why it's historical FICTION.

My examples are quotes from the cast and reviewers saying it's not historical fiction. I'm not quibbling whether or not it's fiction. Of course it is, but it's not considered historical fiction, e.g.,:

"Historical" fiction should present believable and plausible representations of the past...Egregious anachronisms are unacceptable violations of genre expectations for Historical Fiction...Historical fiction should be good fiction and good history...
http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/eng339/seminar1.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, I think you need to google fiction. As defined above, historical fiction tells a story set in a certain period using some historical figures and/or events and embellishes by making up dramatic storylines that aren't based on historical fact or evidence. That's Reign. And your examples underscore precisely why it's historical FICTION.

My examples are quotes from the cast and reviewers saying it's not historical fiction. I'm not quibbling whether or not it's fiction. Of course it is, but it's not considered historical fiction, e.g.,:

"Historical" fiction should present believable and plausible representations of the past...Egregious anachronisms are unacceptable violations of genre expectations for Historical Fiction...Historical fiction should be good fiction and good history...
http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/eng339/seminar1.htm

It is historical fiction.

The main characters are based on historical figures, and the show chronicles historical events. They've played around with some names, added characters, and tweaked facts for dramatic storytelling purposes...which is precisely what happens in all historical fiction.

The Tudors is historical fiction. Literally every period piece that uses a historical figure or time period is historical fiction...by definition. Google it.

The young (uneducated/didn't go to college/never took a 400 level lit class) actors from the show are merely acknowledging that the show employs dramatic license when it comes to storytelling...and that everything isn't based in fact...rather, it is historical fiction.

FYSA: an egregious anachronism would be if Mary became queen of England instead of being beheaded---because that flies in the face of actual historical fact. Changing the names of her ladies to more current names isn't an egregious anachronism. Adding characters to move sublplots along isn't egregious either: that's the purpose of historical fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, I think you need to google fiction. As defined above, historical fiction tells a story set in a certain period using some historical figures and/or events and embellishes by making up dramatic storylines that aren't based on historical fact or evidence. That's Reign. And your examples underscore precisely why it's historical FICTION.

My examples are quotes from the cast and reviewers saying it's not historical fiction. I'm not quibbling whether or not it's fiction. Of course it is, but it's not considered historical fiction, e.g.,:

"Historical" fiction should present believable and plausible representations of the past...Egregious anachronisms are unacceptable violations of genre expectations for Historical Fiction...Historical fiction should be good fiction and good history...
http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/eng339/seminar1.htm

It is historical fiction.

Literally every period piece that uses a historical figure or time period is historical fiction...by definition. Google it.
****I did this is from a course endorsed by the historical writing association. It doesn't qualify as historic fiction.

The young (uneducated/didn't go to college/never took a 400 level lit class) actors from the show are merely acknowledging that the show employs dramatic license when it comes to storytelling...and that everything isn't based in fact...rather, it is historical fiction.

FYSA: an egregious anachronism would be if Mary became queen of England instead of being beheaded---because that flies in the face of actual historical fact. Changing the names of her ladies to more current names isn't an egregious anachronism. Adding characters to move sublplots along isn't egregious either: that's the purpose of historical fiction.

There are plenty of egregious anachronisms already--for example, the clothes...

And where are the ladies in waiting going--Coachella?

Anna Popplewell went to North London Collegiate School and Oxford, Regbo attended Latymer Upper School, and Kane St Hilda’s Anglican School for Girls. Who knows where Megan Follows went, but she's certainly not young. The cast is saying over and over that it's not historical fiction.

US Today: "describing the show as anachronistic and "dumbing down" history for the sake of entertainment"
EW, "16th century-based castle drama..."

How the show producers describe the show, "The CBS TV Studios-produced drama tells the previously unknown story of Mary Queen of Scots’ rise to power when she arrives in France as a 15-year-old, betrothed to Prince Francis, and with her three best friends as ladies-in-waiting. The secret history of survival at French Court amidst fierce foes, dark forces, and a world of sexual intrigue..."

If anything it's more historical fantasy.
http://h-france.net/fffh/maybe-missed/myth-history-and-teen-age-romance-a-sixteenth-century-historian-watches-reign/
http://io9.gizmodo.com/is-the-cws-reign-secretly-a-fantasy-show-1577439434

Google the fantasy genre.

[Anonymous]

For every link you post critiquing the show as not historically accurate, I can post a link saying it is clearly historical fiction...again, noting that historical fiction isn't a historically accurate documentary.

Saying the show isn't historically accurate doesn't mean it isn't historical fiction. Historical fiction isn't meant to be 100% accurate.

The modern twist on clothing and the contemporary soundtrack (which is amazing BTW) don't negate the genre.

The subplots with characters created for dramatic storytelling don't negate the genre.

It's interesting to me that all the critiques of the show online focus on the fact that it isn't 100% accurate. Well, duh! Historical fiction isn't 100% accurate, nor does it portend to be. If they were striving for factual accuracy, they would have made a documentary.

This show is a more modern take on historical fiction as compared with The Tudors---which had little appeal to young audiences. Despite the cool clothes (which have actually won awards and critical acclaim) and soundtrack, the show is no different than The Tudors: they are both historical fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For every link you post critiquing the show as not historically accurate, I can post a link saying it is clearly historical fiction...again, noting that historical fiction isn't a historically accurate documentary.

Saying the show isn't historically accurate doesn't mean it isn't historical fiction. Historical fiction isn't meant to be 100% accurate.

The modern twist on clothing and the contemporary soundtrack (which is amazing BTW) don't negate the genre.

The subplots with characters created for dramatic storytelling don't negate the genre.

It's interesting to me that all the critiques of the show online focus on the fact that it isn't 100% accurate. Well, duh! Historical fiction isn't 100% accurate, nor does it portend to be. If they were striving for factual accuracy, they would have made a documentary.

This show is a more modern take on historical fiction as compared with The Tudors---which had little appeal to young audiences. Despite the cool clothes (which have actually won awards and critical acclaim) and soundtrack, the show is no different than The Tudors: they are both historical fiction.

Go ahead and link review sites that say it's historical fiction--you'll find one wikipedia site saying it's historical fiction and another saying it's historical fantasy.

It's nothing like the Tudors. The Tudors was a historical drama. Yes, they created characters or left out actual people. For example, the series starts with a mythical cousin of Henry being assassinated. Why? b/c this was a plot device to dramatize and spark Henry's ire toward the French. In Reign, the show's creator, Laurie McCarthy, says, "“In each episode we'll educate people on what element of history helps our story." Meaning the historical backdrop is the inspiration.

King Henry didn't go mad (most likely the show writers had seen The Madness of King George) and although he did die in a joust just not with his son on the other end of the pointy stick. Catherine de Medici did not have an affair--she would have been executed for treason if so, and certainly didn't have a child as a result. She also didn't murder Henry's mistress.

Mary grew up in French court with Francis. She didn't live in a convent then meet him for the first time right b/f their marriage. That's for theatrical flavor or the big reveal. They created the Bash character to make a love triangle. Francis II, a weak and sickly child didn't have an illegitimate child either----in fact he had undescended testicles. It's not much of a triangle if one guy doesn't have balls.

No one expects these shows to be documentaries or 100% historically accurate, but making up BIG historical facts to drive story takes it out of the realm of historical fiction and puts it in the realm of fantasy. You can't have Ann Boleyn live and call it historical fiction.

[Anonymous]

Just as I suspected, they mentioned Bash last night.

Any chance they end the series with a happy ending that includes Mary ending up with Bash?

Or, is Bash reintroduced later in the season, witnesses her imprisonment or beheading, and they launch a spinoff focusing on Bash and the mystical Druids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just as I suspected, they mentioned Bash last night.

Any chance they end the series with a happy ending that includes Mary ending up with Bash?

Or, is Bash reintroduced later in the season, witnesses her imprisonment or beheading, and they launch a spinoff focusing on Bash and the mystical Druids?

I think this. He'll have that cliched one tear running down his face and end scene. No spin off. The druids were a dopey storyline.