Part of the art of writing is creating mental images. When you use the term longship you create an image in most people's minds of the ships the Vikings used. The people in your story don't necessary have to be Vikings, but the ships should look more or less the same. If it doesn't look like a longship, call it something else. You're not serving your readers by creating conflicting images.
^That. It's not tricky at all. Call the thing a ship, or a boat, depending on size, etc. Those are generic terms that have a semantic prototype, but don't really raise any specific cultural or architectural associations like "longship" or "galley" do. Call it a ship and describe it as much as you feel is necessary. You'd be doing the same thing if you called it a longship, except then you are creating an expectation only to tear it down. whereas with a generic "ship" you aren't.
Roxxsmom said:
Seriously, though, I'm willing to forgive some fairly large things in fantasy. I've even come to expect fairly large deviations from historic reality in novels that are set in "other worlds" that have a quasi historic setting. I tend to assume that a fantasy world will be different from "real" history and not track our social development exactly.
I think you're missing the point that is being made. You also may not care about the point, of course, but from your comment it seems like the former is true. It's not about tracking development. It's about using analogies to real-world cultures and technology correctly and in a way that enhances the reader's understanding and enjoyment of the story rather than detracting from it. An ignorant reader is not going to complain because you were too accurate, as long as you don't rub it in their face, but an informed reader is very likely to be upset about whatever error or misconception the author has, especially if it relates to the reader's pet hobby or area of interest. It doesn't take that much effort to get things right, so why not do it? You lose nothing and could gain vocal proponents of your work. As much as people on AW bitch about inaccuracy, I see many of them singing an author' praises far and wide when they get things right. Why not take advantage of that? Or just do the best work you can, because you enjoy it?
Actually, I prefer fantasy worlds that are not simply "copies" of the "real" middle ages in Europe. I really don't relate that much to worlds or settings where girls are married off by age 14, women are always treated as chattel, everyone just blindly accepts what their priests tell them, there is absolutely no chance of rising about your birth station, and no one takes a bath all winter (and people chew garlic to sweeten their breath--ick).
While I on occasion enjoy a book that is very historically accurate, partially because they are just so rare, I have no desire at all to require authors to stick to purely historical facts and conceptions. What I
do prefer is that they make these alterations out of reasonable consideration rather than just being pig-ignorant.
I cited Robert Jordan's handling of equine limitations earlier. He decided to change a small facet of reality, but he acknowledged that normally, even in his own created universe, that's not really the way horses work. He even made it a bit of a plot point, and as many issues as I have with him, I totally respect him for being aware of the realities.
My modern bias predisposes me to want a story with some of the stresses and limitations of a pre-industrial society (for instance, a message may take several days to get somewhere, and thus, plot-driving misunderstandings arise), but the protagonist doesn't die at the hands of a bumbling physician/chiurgeon the first time she incurs a significant injury and she doesn't get sidelined by a pregnancy or stoned as an adulteress if she embraces her sexuality.
I'm much more willing to forgive errors/alterations in terms of narrative or speculative elements, especially those that are conventions of the genre such as the ones you describe above. But strictly factual errors, or uses of poor or inaccurate description that could have easily been avoided irritate me.
