#i've made a similar post that was much shorter and much more sarcastic before but how bout we try again

[izzyspussy]

actually you know what. literally YES we are supposed to be ""handwaving"" away where the real stede bonnet's wealth came from. in the exact same way we're supposed to be ""handwaving"" the fact that the real blackbeard was white and a rapist, and that bonnet, blackbeard, and hands were all under 30 at the time our story is taking place.

when engaging with fiction the conventions of the genre are important and should directly inform your interpretation.

historical fiction is fictional. the conventions of the genre are that creators cherry pick aspects of their chosen time setting to create an environment and and aesthetic to be the delivery method of something else.

when you start reading or watching or listening to a piece of historical fiction, the set up and exposition will tell you where to expect inaccuracies. it is your job as an audience to either accept them or if they're unacceptable to you to find something else to enjoy. write a scathing review if you must, tell your friends you don't recommend it, make something yourself set in the same time period that has different inaccuracies instead (because it won't have none), etc. but pointing at an inaccuracy in a piece of historical fiction that formally introduced itself in the beginning and asking what it's doing there is quite silly.

of course stede bonnet, fictional character, doesn't have slaves - or at the very least it would be tonally jarring and narratively ineffective to show him doing so in this particular work. he is here to be an insufferable silly little guy who is coming of age at 46 and romancing a pirate on the jaunty high seas with benny hill music metaphorically playing in the background. it would have to be a completely different story, and he a completely different character, to put that particular historical accuracy in.

romance is also fictional. the conventions of the genre are that conflicts and/or the relevant consequences thereof are primarily interpersonal, that it is fun and/or sentimental, and that there will be a relatively clear cut happy ending. there's almost certainly some aspect of wish fulfillment fantasy.

romance is one of the genres that is most adherent to its conventions. all romance is the same at its most basic level, and that is a feature of the genre for its fans not a bug. the leads are attractive and lovable. characteristics that in real life might be unattractive and loathsome - like, for example, extreme wealth - but that would be attractive if only they could magically exist without any of the real world things that make them suck... will be present as things that are attractive by necessarily removing the real world things that make them suck, because it's fiction and you can do magic there. the characters are created to be endgame love interests from inception. they simply won't have qualities that make them impossible for the other one to love. they are not real people who have to meet by chance and make a relationship work with effort, they were formulated in a lab to be in this relationship with this person forever. yes, even when the characters are based on people who were real. in some cases (like this one), especially then.

stede bonnet, fictional character, would not fall in love with a rapist. therefore blackbeard, fictional character made to be a love interest to him, cannot be a rapist. blackbeard, fictional character, would not fall in love with a slave owner. therefore stede bonnet, fictional character made to be a love interest to him, cannot own slaves. this has to be true for the story to remain a romance.

(or i suppose you could write a romance romantic narrative between bonnet, slaver, and blackbeard, rapist, if you really wanted to. it wouldn't qualify for the specific genre of RomanceTM though, and it would be niche as hell if it had any audience at all, and there certainly would be no benny hill music metaphorical or otherwise. see? this is something else now, practically unrecognizable from what we started with despite having the same historical setting and characters.)

comedy, unlike romance, is one of the genres most versatile and least beholden to convention. however, it still has to be funny. of course, dramatic relief in comedy is just as important as comedic relief in drama, but the primary goal of comedy is to make the audience laugh. and while there are not many conventions other than that, and a skillful enough comedian really can find a way to explore any topic in a way that's funny, a romantic comedy must necessarily also follow the rules of romance - or else it is not a romantic comedy. it can't have jokes in it that ruin the romance.

and tbf, recognizing as an audience that a detail or topic that would be true and relevant if this were all really happening isn't necessarily true or relevant or is just never going to come up in a work of fiction for reasons inherent to that particular work is not ""handwaving"" those things away. those things are not there, in this thing. and if you want to think about those things in the context of this one specific thing that doesn't have them, that's what fanfiction is for. but it's an added thing, not something that is missing from the source or that is being ignored by the creators or other audience members.

#jack facts #i've made a similar post that was much shorter and much more sarcastic before but how bout we try again #idk man part of critical media consumption is first knowing what kind of media you are consuming #reading process #to tag or not to tag lol #ofmd #like. ''this horror movie was so fucked up and scary. one star.'' #''lead was rich but didn't commit wage theft. and there wasn't an epilogue about how they broke up three months later. so unrealistic.'' #''why do they keep breaking into song that doesn't make any sense'' #etc etc etc