|
| ▲ | mekoka 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I guess the word contemporary has been misused to the point of just meaning current or modern and I shouldn't nitpick it! According to at least a few references, it very clearly applies to the two meanings. I couldn't find a single dictionary that excludes or seems to favor one over the other. |
|
| ▲ | everdrive 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ah, thanks -- I was just trying to capture the weirdness that happens when a work is set in the past, and then that work itself becomes old. For instance, if you watch Braveheart right now you're getting two views of the past: you're getting a (not-very-realistic) view of medieval England, and then in addition you're getting a view into how people in the 90s felt about history and social issues. |
| |
| ▲ | forbiddenvoid 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In the long run, this makes for very interesting rhetorical analysis of the work. Your example of Braveheart, for instance, involves two views of the past through the lens of the _present_. So even in that context, both of those views are tinted by the experience and environment of the observer. |
|
|
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "contemporary fiction" is an industry/academic term for a genre of literature, but not widely used in the TV world. I think they meant "contemporary fiction" in the sense of the production of the fiction is contemporary. As in the TV show is contemporary in its creation, but the setting is historical. I don't think that redefines contemporary outside of... contemporary usage and definition. It makes the most sense in context, and the discussion is about a TV show and not literature. Different nitpick: Mad Men first aired in 2007. Is an 18 year old show that stopped production more than a decade ago contemporary? |
