A number of people in the reading pet peeves thread mentioned that they dislike historical inaccuracies or when it seems like the author has not researched properly. This reminded me that I occasionally will think "Hmmm, is that accurate?" when reading a book. I thought others might do this too so perhaps we can use this thread to check whether other Ehellions can verify the accuracy of some books or parts of books.
The one that has been bugging me the most is The Bronze Horseman by Paullina Simons. Tatiana and her sister go to the club and end up having adult relations with soldiers. Tatiana goes on to sleep with Alexander a gazillion times before they get married. She never hesitates or indicates in any way that this is not the norm. The book is set in WWII Russia. How accurate is this? I would have thought that adult relations before marriage were frowned upon in that time yet no-one bats an eye.
I believe that after the Russian Revolution marriage was seen as slightly suspect as being linked both to the church and to bourgeoisie attitudes, so for a period there was a lot of discussion about free love, whether marriage was appropriate in Soviet state etc. I believe that the official line was a bit more restrictive again by the 40s and that public opinion didn't change much (although presumably, depending on your social circle, you might not have expressed your opinions much)
I would guess that this was probably more acceptable than it would have been in the UK or USA at the same time. I suspect that it is probably fairly accurate - that there would have been a significant minority of people for whom this was not usual.
The 'World Without End' - I watched the first half hour and it was so stuffed with anachronisms and just plain ridiculousness I thought it must be a spoof and was waiting for the punch line..
One of my pet annoyances is one of the 'Brother Cadfeal' books where there's a major inaccuracy which basically drives a coach and horses through the plot. (Deliberately vague to avoid spoiling it for others)
Patchy 'period' language is really annoying to me, too. I can live with using modern language (after all, peopel would have used what was , to them, normal, colloquial language so it gives you the immediate 'feel') or using more accurate period language, but a mixture of the two jolts me out of my suspension of disbelief. (Downton Abbey is a repeat offender so far as this sort of thing is concerned, and it does it with social attitudes, too.)
One of my pet hates is when books are reissued and 'updated'. I am very fond of a set of books written by Monica Edwards and set on Romney Marsh in Sussex. They were written and set in the 1950s and 60's. There are some reprints which were published in the 1980s which I find really irritating as they have been 'updated' - so mentions of money have been changed from pre-decimal to decimal money (placing the action after 1971) but you still have horse-drawn milk-floats, references to the War, no television, penicillan as a virtually unknown wonder drug etc.