How realistic does it have to be?

[ThisAdamGuy]

I'm planning to start writing a pirate fantasy story soon, and there's one detail in particular that I'm worried about: I don't know very much about sailing or ships from the early 1700s (which is the time period I'm modeling my world after). I'm going to do my research so that I can at least get the basic details down, but sailing is far more complicated than most people realize, and writing a realistic story about it would result in a nonstop word salad of nautical terms and outdated navigation processes that only historians that studied that area in specific could truly understand.

Realistically, I know that 99% of my audience isn't going to know much more than I do, and I'm admittedly going to be leaning heavily on that assumption as I write the book, but I'm worried that they'll be able to pick up on my lack of knowledge. If everything goes well, I'm hoping that it will be a generally well written story that clearly glosses over a lot of the technical points in sailing while still covering the basics. "The captain spun the wheel just as the sails caught the wind, and the ship turned to the right." If you are a historian or someone who does a lot of research about sailing in the 1700s as a hobby or something, it absolutely won't hold up ("*spits out drink* Did this blighter just imply that a single masted cog could outrun a clipper? *angry British noises* MOOOST UNORTHODOX!") but most people will hopefully just see "The boat did a boaty thing and outboated the other boat."

As a reader, how does that make you feel?

 

[Tatsuo]

I wont mind in the least, its a fantasy so i expect the world to work in a different way.

 

[ConansWitchBaby]

The only thing that ever stands out like a punch to the face reading nautical novels is referring to navigating as going "left and right" instead of starboard and port-side.

 

[TheBestofSome]

Even if I was a nautical expert, I feel I could forgive certain inaccuracies so long as they weren't too glaringly obvious. For instance, a ship casually sailing against the wind without tacking (or magic shenanigans, in which case all bets are off), or a frigate being crewed by only twenty people, and so forth.

With it being a fantasy, you get some wiggle room to begin with, and some more for wanting to tell a fun story rather than a 'how 2 sail 4 dummies' manual. Keep things more or less believable (not necessarily realistic, but believable), and I doubt you'll ruffle too many feathers.

 

[ThisAdamGuy]

The only thing that ever stands out like a punch to the face reading nautical novels is referring to navigating as going "left and right" instead of starboard and port-side.

That's something else I've been wondering about. Like, this world may have similarities to our world, but it's not our world, so is it really that immersion breaking that they would just say "left" and "right" instead of developing the exact same terminology with "port" and "starboard" that our world has?

 

[Zinless]

As long as you make a good and engaging story out of it, I don't see anything wrong. People who are pedantic about the details shouldn't really be the target market for a novel anyway. But do keep an eye out for their comments, since some of them might actually point out an actual flow in the story, like a plot hole or suchlike. Don't engage other than that though.

 

[John_Owl]

I'd recommend checking out The Brotherband Chronicles by John Flanagan. He walks a good mix between authentic sailing terms and keeping it laymen-friendly. He doesn't push it too far for most folks to understand but keeps it real enough to still be accurate.

 

[ConansWitchBaby]

That's something else I've been wondering about. Like, this world may have similarities to our world, but it's not our world, so is it really that immersion breaking that they would just say "left" and "right" instead of developing the exact same terminology with "port" and "starboard" that our world has?

Unless the world is primarily left-handed the starboard would still come about. Go wild for port.

 

[TheBestofSome]

That's something else I've been wondering about. Like, this world may have similarities to our world, but it's not our world, so is it really that immersion breaking that they would just say "left" and "right" instead of developing the exact same terminology with "port" and "starboard" that our world has?

Considering the terminology came about from portside being the side of the ship that faced the port when docked, and starboard came from steer board since it was the side on which the steering board was located, it is entirely feasible that different terminology would be used if the developmental origins are different.

That said, referring to left and right as port and starboard is baked pretty deeply into the bones of nautical fiction, so there'd definitely be readers that would miss it.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

William Hope Hodgeson's Sargasso Sea Stories (Which, I confess, I have only read a few examples from), Boats of the "Glen Carrig" and Ghost Pirates (both of the latter I have read) would all be good to reference for this - he goes a bit into the sailing (of ships from the late 19th Century, when he was a sailor, and earlier), without going overboard (pun not intended but left because it IS a pun) like some authors (e.g. Herman Melville) do.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

I'm planning to start writing a pirate fantasy story soon, and there's one detail in particular that I'm worried about: I don't know very much about sailing or ships from the early 1700s (which is the time period I'm modeling my world after). I'm going to do my research so that I can at least get the basic details down, but sailing is far more complicated than most people realize, and writing a realistic story about it would result in a nonstop word salad of nautical terms and outdated navigation processes that only historians that studied that area in specific could truly understand.

Realistically, I know that 99% of my audience isn't going to know much more than I do, and I'm admittedly going to be leaning heavily on that assumption as I write the book, but I'm worried that they'll be able to pick up on my lack of knowledge. If everything goes well, I'm hoping that it will be a generally well written story that clearly glosses over a lot of the technical points in sailing while still covering the basics. "The captain spun the wheel just as the sails caught the wind, and the ship turned to the right." If you are a historian or someone who does a lot of research about sailing in the 1700s as a hobby or something, it absolutely won't hold up ("*spits out drink* Did this blighter just imply that a single masted cog could outrun a clipper? *angry British noises* MOOOST UNORTHODOX!") but most people will hopefully just see "The boat did a boaty thing and outboated the other boat."

As a reader, how does that make you feel?

Your only problem will be the nitpickers who will say anything because they think they are superior to you. In any case, you may freely ignore them because they will always find reasons to shit on your work.

 

[Rezcore]

I've done some sailing, and I've sailed aboard the Constitution for its Biannual turn around, I also have sailed on a replica Schooner... done sweat the details, only mention them when necessary. Most of storytelling occurs in the reader's brain anyways.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

One thing I found during my very minimal research on the subject - there were a lot of stories about female pirates. Most of the ones I found either turned out to be fiction or read more like political hit-pieces than actual chronicles. But, if even half of the hit-pieces were based on fact, these women were the worst of the worst - by necessity. In order to get around the "a woman on a ship is bad luck" stigma, they had to be tougher and smarter than most of the men (and ally with the few who were tougher and smarter than they were, through any means possible), and frequently wound up in command of ships or even small fleets through sheer ruthlessness.

 

[Tempokai]

It's not about "being realistic" — it's about reader "feeling that it's realistic"

Sure, you can make the 1700s ship practices in the story, but if they don't illicit emotions in the reader, it's useless. You need to have emotion behind it, or else reader will not care.

The reader doesn’t want to be impressed by your research; they want to be swept away by your story. They want to feel the blistering sun on their backs, the fear of a storm tearing the ship apart, the gut-wrenching despair of losing a crewmate to the vast, unfeeling ocean. Without that emotional connection, your historically accurate ship becomes little more than a floating museum. Give a reason for a reader to care. Details matter, but they are a means to an end, not the end itself.

Stop "obsessing" over whether you’ve nailed every historical nuance and start focusing on making your reader feel. Realism in storytelling isn’t about rigid accuracy; it’s about emotional truth. Readers don’t care if your 1700s ship could actually float—they care about the people on it, and whether their struggles feel real enough to matter.

 

[Anonjohn20]

nitpickers who will say anything because they think they are superior

Nitpickers are just passionate about a subject, like a nitpicker who likes instruments, weapons, or vehicles.

It's not about "being realistic" — it's about reader "feeling that it's realistic"

Sure, you can make the 1700s ship practices in the story, but if they don't illicit emotions in the reader, it's useless. You need to have emotion behind it, or else reader will not care.

The reader doesn’t want to be impressed by your research; they want to be swept away by your story. They want to feel the blistering sun on their backs, the fear of a storm tearing the ship apart, the gut-wrenching despair of losing a crewmate to the vast, unfeeling ocean. Without that emotional connection, your historically accurate ship becomes little more than a floating museum. Give a reason for a reader to care. Details matter, but they are a means to an end, not the end itself.

Stop "obsessing" over whether you’ve nailed every historical nuance and start focusing on making your reader feel. Realism in storytelling isn’t about rigid accuracy; it’s about emotional truth. Readers don’t care if your 1700s ship could actually float—they care about the people on it, and whether their struggles feel real enough to matter.

Correct!

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

Nitpickers are just passionate about a subject, like a nitpicker who likes instruments, weapons, or vehicles.

So passionate they end up being stupid.

It's a work of fiction. Imagine applying Earth- 'reality' and 'logic' to a setting where magic, dragons and other fantasy creatures exist.

 

[Piisfun]

As someone else stated, it doesn't need to be realistic, but it does need to be reasonable.

Obvious issues, like not being able to sail directly upwind if they are using sails, not having nearly enough crew fro the size of vessel they are sailing, sailing through storms without preparing the ship yet not taking any damage, or using sails when there is no wind.... these should definitely be avoided.