Galen answers the posts about Reality (l

Galen of Bristol pmitchel at flash.net
Tue Jun 10 10:07:47 PDT 1997


dennis grace wrote:
> 
> Hi there Galen. Aquilanne here again

Hello 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.  

I apologize if I insulted; I had no such intent.

> Nabokov once said that the word "reality"
> should always be written in quotes. 

I'm not sure how you mean that.  To me, putting a non-quotation in
quotes indicates that the speaker intends something other than the
meaning of the word.  Such as if I were to assert that Adolf Hitler
was "compassionate".

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?

SCA or mundane?  SCA or non-SCA?  Either works for me.  My complaint is
with the suggestion that SCA activity isn't real.
 
> 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.

But we're talking about reality.  No 12th Century Kings here, we all live
in the 20th century and my 20th-Century SCA Moorish King is aware of the
existance of all sorts of mundane military stuff.  But as it would be
a violation of the U.S. federal law for me to divulge classified
information to him, and as the SCA is incorporated under state and
federal laws, and as his kingship springs from his meeting the
qualifications set forth in _Corpora_, which is promulgated by SCA,
Inc., he can't properly order me to do anything illegal, and I am
not bound to obey any such instruction.  If your friend is worried
that a King will try it, he can be prepared with the argument I just
made, or he can make it clear to the king, in the body of his oath,
that the king hasn't that authority.
 
> >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."

Certainly anything, including the SCA, can be taken to extremes; I think
you've taken your argument to extreme when I mention "church group" and
you argue "Heaven's Gate" cult.  I was thinking of Catholics or Presbyterians,
some of whom are SCA members as well.  My point in the above, which I
did not clearly make, is this:  

Tegan's sergeant felt the only worthwhile thing in her life was the SCA; 
that speaks _well_ of the SCA, not badly.
 
I can show you an SCA king.  The leaders of Heaven's Gate cannot show
me a spacecraft near a comet.  And in my experience the SCA helps 
bring together far more families than it breaks up.  That's 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.

I don't "really" die, true.  But I really "die".  ("When I make a word
do extra work like that, I always pay it extra."  -- Humpty Dumpty)

What is it with me?  It's the continuing insistance that the SCA, which I
love and have been at least chest deep in (or more) for 18 years, isn't
reality.  And that's nonsense.  I don't believe you really have this
problem, Aquillane, but I have to believe that people who think the
SCA isn't part of the real world either don't understand the nature of
the SCA, or they don't understand the nature of reality.

And for anyone who believes that the SCA is _not_ part of the real
world, please tell me what the "real world" consists of, as you see it.
Don't make of list of what's not real; tell me what _is_, and then
show me how you made that list, and why the SCA isn't on it.

> 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?

If you're saying that some people take the SCA to extremes, then yes, I 
agree.  But that doesn't mean the SCA isn't real; it means they're ignoring
important other things that are _also_ real.

> My basic point remains: fealty in the SCA is fealty in the SCA. Period. <snip>

When I got to this point, I thought "Oh!  She's still on fealty!  But
I changed that subject line 3 posts ago!"  I don't believe Bors was
talking about fealty when he suggested that some people who take fealty
seriously are confusing the SCA with real life.  The SCA as a non-real
thing is a favorite topic of Bors'.  He didn't mean to start all this,
he accidently posted what was intended to be a private note.  He and
I have traded private e-mails on this topic as well.  I've been speaking
much more generally.  Yes, fealty in the SCA carries _no_ mundane 
obligations, I agree.

Hrabia Jan once asked me, and I asked Kein at his vigil, which was more 
important, the belt, or the chain?  The answer, of course, is the belt
which signifies our honor; without that our fealty is worthless at best,
and potentially disasterous if it becomes unquestioning obediance.

> Just looking for a little clarity.
> 
> Aquilanne

Is this any better?

- Galen

-- 
Viscount Galen of Bristol, KSCA, CSM, etc.
Paul Mitchell, pmitchel at flash.net / "noblesse oblige"
http://www.flash.net/~pmitchel/galen.htm 
Visit the Central Region at:
http://www.uta.edu/student_orgs/sca/centregn.htm



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list