We ran a little foul of strict historical accuracy in chapter 4 of the story, where we have Mister Heath using a Gatling gun against Aratun’s raiders. We only realised this as the pencil art started to come in and we looked for visual reference. That brought us up hard against the fact that the Gatling gun was designed in the 1860s, whereas our story is set in the 1830s. We kicked it back and forth a little, but were saved in the end by the fact that the Gatling gun is one example of a class of repeat-fire weapons collectively known as volley guns - and some of the earlier models would definitely have been available for British use in 1837.

It made me think, though, about the wider issue of period detail and how far you have to let it constrain the story. I would probably have gone ahead here, even without the get-out clause, because we’re positing a sort of nineteenth century MI6 - a precursor to the British secret service of the present day - so Heath having a Gatling gun before they officially exist would be like Bond having a car that converts into a submarine before there are any in reality. It’s just getting a jump on the technology that you know is coming soon.

But if you accumulate enough anachronisms, and if they keep pushing themselves on your notice, it can derail the story. I didn’t enjoy Open Range very much for exactly that reason - the way Kevin Costner and Annette Bening interacted with each other felt and sounded very modern. It was meant to be the emotional core of the story, but it kept bouncing me *out* of the story.

So anyway, the Gatling gun stays... :)

heh, one of the only reasons I liked Open Range was when Kevin Costner went batsh*t crazy at the end.

but yeah, the romance seemed forced to me.