The Peerages...

[Mjccmc01 at aol.com]

Just a couple of points.....

Not all Laurels believe that you should have Thistles before you have an
Iris.  Actually, I can't remember that the circle has ever been formally
consulted about these awards.  As to recommendations proferred by individual
members, I can't really speak to that.  I'm sure Sir Gunther did not intend
to do so, but I don't really think that the Laurelate as a unit has very many
common ideas on these subjects.

As to being a one-trick pony:

I personally feel that when you have a broad base of knowledge, you can be of
more use to the Kingdom in terms of being able to judge multiple categories
at A&S, etc.  I also think that the requirement in Corpora that all peers
have a familiarity with period board games and dance at least implies that
people should have a general knowledge about the Middle Ages before being
elevated to that station (although God knows I would hate to be the one to
define just what that "general knowledge" should encompass).  On the other
hand, who cares if Shakespeare could paint, build armor or costume.  

Also, I strongly disagree that there should be "no dispute about A&S
quality."  When you start to evaluate a work beyond the technical expertise
that went into the craftsmanship, you move into the realm of art.  When
people evaluate art, personal taste becomes a factor.  We all see beauty
differently, and I think disagreement about the quality of a work is useful
if it enables us to have broader perspective.  I mean, in a world where
people think Ernest Hemingway is worth reading and Faulkner is not, anything
can happen (grin).  That's not to say I don't gain something from reading
Hemingway.  While there can be agreement on the craftsmanship and level of
technical expertise a form requires, I doubt there can ever be agreement on
whether or not it is "art," or even whether it is pretty.  To date, Baron
Edwin Fitzlloyd and myself haven't even reached agreement on what exactly
constitutes a primary source (I'm right). :)

What I am finding lacking in this whole peerage discussion is mention of the
other qualities the ideal peer should have, regardless of the circle.  What
about someone who can recreate the Sistine Chapel at will but has no nobility
of spirit?  What about someone who can slay any opponent at will but has no
generosity of soul?  How is a circle of peers, most of whom are painfully
aware of how short of the standards they themselves fall, ever to evaluate
these intangible but all important attributes?  What percentage is ability,
and what percentage is character?

Not pretending to have answers but eager for imput, I am,

Faithfully,

Siobhan