I've run into this issue before when writing historical fiction as well. My gut instinct is to slip in little references to ground the story in a particular era, but that's not very helpful if you don't recognize them. I've started putting explanatory notes at the end of each story. It's not a perfect solution, but it does seem to help.
My first time commenting; this post brought me out of the shadows. :)
As someone in the West who writes fantasy using the mythology and folklore of her Eastern heritage, I run up against the same limitations mentioned here and have to figure out how to include enough information as worldbuilding for readers who didn't grow up with those stories. It's a challenge, but I think I do a good job.
I can't really speak for writers or fans from the speculative genres, but as a writer and reader of historical fiction, I care less about "research" and more about stories. Don't get me wrong, I am still taken out of a story when basic facts are blatantly ignored or subverted. And writing about more obscure historical periods or cultures has a world-building requirement built into it, as you know from your own novels. But if novels spend all their focus on attempting to accurately recreate those worlds to the letter (which is likely impossible and probably boring), they miss the first purpose of the exercise, which is to tell stories, not paint dioramas. Sure, scene-setting is important for immersing the reader in the nuances of an age or culture, but the researched specifics matter less than how the characters in the story interact with their setting--factual or fictional--to let the story unfold. And no fiction can ever truly be authentic; it's an author's interpretation. Ultimately we, as readers, decide which interpretations feel most "authentic" to us, whether they adhere faithfully to textbook fact or convey a more intangible sense of time and place.
I've run into this issue before when writing historical fiction as well. My gut instinct is to slip in little references to ground the story in a particular era, but that's not very helpful if you don't recognize them. I've started putting explanatory notes at the end of each story. It's not a perfect solution, but it does seem to help.
My first time commenting; this post brought me out of the shadows. :)
As someone in the West who writes fantasy using the mythology and folklore of her Eastern heritage, I run up against the same limitations mentioned here and have to figure out how to include enough information as worldbuilding for readers who didn't grow up with those stories. It's a challenge, but I think I do a good job.
I can't really speak for writers or fans from the speculative genres, but as a writer and reader of historical fiction, I care less about "research" and more about stories. Don't get me wrong, I am still taken out of a story when basic facts are blatantly ignored or subverted. And writing about more obscure historical periods or cultures has a world-building requirement built into it, as you know from your own novels. But if novels spend all their focus on attempting to accurately recreate those worlds to the letter (which is likely impossible and probably boring), they miss the first purpose of the exercise, which is to tell stories, not paint dioramas. Sure, scene-setting is important for immersing the reader in the nuances of an age or culture, but the researched specifics matter less than how the characters in the story interact with their setting--factual or fictional--to let the story unfold. And no fiction can ever truly be authentic; it's an author's interpretation. Ultimately we, as readers, decide which interpretations feel most "authentic" to us, whether they adhere faithfully to textbook fact or convey a more intangible sense of time and place.