I'm surprised to see you mentioning the word "Bolshevik" for a story set this early. As I understand it, it was come up with by the Leninists after the overthrow of the Tsar, as a propaganda move to make themselves look more impressive than the parliamentary forces; I'm not sure how that specific conjuncture would arise several years earlier.
I could look up what they actually called themselves or were called by their rivals prior to the February Revolution - but it's apt to be so obscure as to be completely opaque to a non-specialist. "Bolshevik" is apt to be recognized by the average reader and correctly connected with Lenin, et al, even if it is technically anachronistic in this setting.
One of these days I'll actually write the story about discovering a piece of media (book, video, whatever) that's actually slipped across timelines. The protagonist recognizes it as such because it doesn't have those little accommodations that are made by a writer of alternate history for an audience in the same world, but is instead written for an audience in the world in which it is set.
I don't think I myself would ever recognize such a thing. If I read (or viewed or listened to) such a work, I would think of it as a well written work, one whose author had done a thorough job of maintaining the illusion that it was indeed written for an audience in the world in which it was set. Details that I can spot as anachronistic disrupt that illusion, and I think of them as flaws, minor or major
( ... )
Comments 3
Reply
One of these days I'll actually write the story about discovering a piece of media (book, video, whatever) that's actually slipped across timelines. The protagonist recognizes it as such because it doesn't have those little accommodations that are made by a writer of alternate history for an audience in the same world, but is instead written for an audience in the world in which it is set.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment