Galen answers the posts about Reality (l

[dennis grace]

Hi there Galen. Aquilanne here again


>More from Galen of Bristol -- you've been warned.>
>You seem to be using this term "reality-challenged", to mean "someone
>who doesn't differentiate between SCA and non-SCA activities the way
>I do."  "Reality-challenged", it seems to me, better describes a person's   
>attempt to rigidly separate SCA activity from other activity, and claim
>that neither should influence the other.

To start off, I would like to apologize for the inadequacy of my grasp and
weilding of the English language.  Nabokov once said that the word "reality"
should always be written in quotes. Perhaps others would be willing to offer
some other term to describe what everyone knows we're talking about here:
the fuzzy grey line of distinction between the SCA and everything else.
SCA-mundane? Game/non-game? reality/"reality"? Galen, ideas? You did just
say you maintain some distinction of differentiation; how do you communicate
that concept?

Well, on to other stuff.

>>We once knew an individual who refused to swear fealty
>> because he perceived it as being in conflict with his duty of maintaining
>> military confidentiality.

>You've described someone with an inadequate understanding of fealty.  If
>you're in a position to swear fealty, but you're concerned about a potential
>conflict, you simply mention as part of the oath that there's an exception,
>and you state what that is.  It's a completely period practice, widely used
>in fealty oaths as early as  the 12th century.

That's all well and good, Galen; but tell me--how many 12th century Kings
would have knowlege of modern military bases or nuclear arsenals or jeeps?
Where is there a need for an "exception" to be inserted into an SCA fealty
oath? Brass hats cannot, within the limits of their role in the SCA, ask for
things outside the limits of the SCA and still be within the bounds of SCA
fealty. This really is a pretty simple, black & white sort of thing.


>Then, Tegan wrote:
<snip> one of our sargeants
>> attempted suicide.She confided to me that she had begun to feel that her
>>identity or persona in the SCA was the only one she had left and the only
one  >>she wanted anymore.

Galen:
<snip> When most of a person's life goes to hell, naturally
>they focus on the rewarding parts.  For some it's a church group, for   
>others it's AA or some other support group, for some it's their family, for
some it's a hobby, or a job, and for some it is their friends in the SCA.

True enough. But let me ask you something--how strong a grasp on "reality"
do you believe those church folks wearing Nikes and on their way to
rendevouz with the comet had? As real as their convictions obviously were to
them, do you not think that perhaps they were operating just slightly
outside the realm of, Oh, what shall we call it?! Same with sports or
hobbies. Many folk love sports, have sports paraphernalia in their homes and
offices, and spend good money on season tickets, etc. But what about the
individual who starts spending the lion's share of his time going to games,
betting on them, following the circuit, to the detriment of his family life?
(It's too easy to automatically reply that there's something wrong at
home--what if the problem lies with this individual's priority set?) And
what about the fellow who put a slug in Pres. Reagan? As real as his
obsession was to him, how closely do you believe it fits in with what the
collective considers "reality?" Maybe all we're talking about is appropriate
behaviour; but to the folks mentioned above, their behaviour *is*
appropriate to them based on their "reality."


In respnse to Kein's post Galen writes:
>Except when you go to Pennsic, where nearly 10,000 people will
>pretend you're a king.

Operative word here is "pretends."

<snip> when I was Prince of Drachenwald, <snip>  Not real?
>Yes, Virginia, there is an SCA


So tell me, Galen, exactly what is it about the "reality" issue that has you
so up in arms? Is it maybe just a need to justify your level of involvement?
You're among friends here, we all play or have played SCA, and *most* of us
know that we're not "really" Eleanor of Aquitaine's granddaughter and people
don't "really" die in SCA wars.

Yes, Galen, there is an SCA. It's more community than game for those of us
who've elected to hang around and invest interest for any substantial length
of time and therefore very important to us, as community is one of the most
important things in life. For some, however, it is or can become an
alternate "reality" that can overshadow the "reality" of mundane or everyday
or non-SCA life--sometimes to their or their loved-ones' detriment. Are we
out of agreement here yet?

My basic point remains: fealty in the SCA is fealty in the SCA. Period. Yes,
the ideals that surround and support the concepts of fealty exist within and
without the SCA, but SCA fealty is SCA fealty. If someone wearing a brass
hat asks a woman in a tudor dress where the nuclear arsenals are hidden, a
crossing of "realities" has potentially occurred. In period, the woman in
the tudor dress would probably curtsey and say something polite and try to
find somewhere else to be, and probably include this brass-hatted person
with curious and frightening ideas in her prayers. At an SCA event, the same
response might very well occur, and she will not have broken fealty. If
someone wearing a brass hat in period asked one of his subjects to steal
into his neighbor's home to spy on him, fine. If a someone wearing a brass
hat in the SCA asked one of his subjects to steal into his neighbor's home,
then we once again have a crossing of "realities," here we're talking
trespassing and breaking and entering. If anyone has broken fealty it would
be our fictitious SCA brass-hatted person. OK? Is the horse dead enough and
beaten enough? _If_ we agree here, I guess I'm just not understanding where
your point of contention lays. If we _don't_ agree here, then I'm not just
confused, but a little concerned. ;->

Just looking for a little clarity.

Aquilanne