ANST - awards & peasants & peers, oh my

[Joel Schumacher]

> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 10:41:03 PDT
> =46rom: "Laury Torrence" <J-LTorrence at worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: ANST - awards & peasants & peers, oh my
> 
> Aquilanne wrote:
> <snip>
> > Also, if you have no aspirations to any awards or peerages, why the
> > passionate opinions? Seems a little ungenerous to want others to
> > not have things you supposedly don't care about.
> > I guess I'm with Cory, too. I wonder who you are and what your SCA
> > background is. Why do you play? Sounds to me like you've had some
> > negative experiences, either with people of rank in the SCA or else
> > perhaps with frustrated personal attempts at recognition either in
> > the SCA or mundanely.
> > Your post has a very "sour grapes" sound to it.
> 
> I suppose I'm with you and Cory on this too!  This sounds like
> someone who either didn't get something they thought they deserved,
> or has had a bad experience in the past.  Or the alternate
> possibility, all his *reasons* are a load of fabrications.  The "I
> think in the hypothetical" statement probably says a lot already.
> Sometimes we need to check to see what color the sky is in their happy
> little universe!    Even more interesting is the fact that we have
> heard nary a peep from him since his initial posting, in spite of
> Cory's repeated request for information.
> 
> Baroness Caterina


It seems some would love to stereotype me into some category so I can
be dealt with or dismissed accordingly as they see fit.  That is why
I'm somewhat reluctant to answer personal questions as well as not
identify those who formed my attitudes or turn-offs.  It would seem
(which is part of the point) that some need to know "who" I am, rather
than considering what has been said.  The post was signed with both
my name and my SCA name.

I also do not get every message, just a bundled lump of several e-mails
which arrive after a considerable delay.  I also did not have the chance
to go through the 1000+ lines of the bundles until now.  Genevieve de
Courtanvaux's message arrived much earlier than the Ansteorra
installment and was replied to.

To answer some questions...  I have never tried to seek any position
in the SCA.  Thus I have never been rejected for anything and have no
axes to grind due to something of that nature.

What I have seen in my life is a growing distaste for the SCA.  When I
began, it all seemed so innocent and polite on the surface.  As I've
gotten to know more of the people who "run the show" and who tend to
have more of these awards, titles, etc. I see how much less than ideal
things really are.  The politics turn me off.  I see favoritisms, I see
ass-kissing, I see secret hatreds, talking about people behind their
backs, I see attempts to prevent other people from doing things, I see
the little cliques form.  I've heard bad things from those close to
me about people I respect, which (sorry to say) always leaves questions
about that person in my mind.  I'd rather not have heard the negative.
I see more of the "inside" trash.  And sorry, but leaving the company
of these people is not so easy for reasons I won't address publicly.

This is a far cry from when everything was new and everybody I knew
seemed to just enjoy playing.  Yes, to an extent, I focus on those at
the top because the closer I get to some of those the stronger the
politics are and the more disgusting it gets.  Just look at some of
the remarks about me from a baronness for the mere suggestion that
ranks should be minimized.  Perhaps I'm just a victim of hearing from
people guilty of the things some accuse me of.  I'm getting fed up
with it.

It seems those that don't aspire and just play the game are the most
free from this problems.  I don't hear their opinions of everyone else
or perhaps their jealousies of those people.  I don't hear how crappy
so-and-so's work is, or about how much so-and-so thinks of themself, or
why so-and-so didn't deserve that or why so-and-so should have gotten
it instead.

Many who do aspire, to me, seem to be of the sort that crave power.
The SCA is a place for exploring fantasies of nobility.  Once they get
there, they get this air about themselves.  Of all the "brass-hats"
I've met, I've not known many without some sort of air of superiority.
I know this is not always the case, but to me it's more often than
not.  How many "brass-hats" go from camp to camp, meeting people without
some dignified act or entourage?  How many brass hats shout to passers
by to "come join us"?  "Here, sit here in my chair, I can stand".
"Want something to eat?"  "Who are you, where are you from?"

This past weekend I went to such a wonderful event.  It was started by
an SCA household but was/is officially "not-ready-for-SCA".  It is my
favorite event.  There are various things to praise about this event,
but one subtle thing you realize really contributes to it, is the fact
that there are no titles, no stuffy protocol to remember.  All the SCA
folks put their SCA personas behind them and everyone is equal.  There
were past contest winners, but past accomplishments were only held in
the minds of those who were at past events.  I found myself thinking
how much I love this then thinking of the SCA, thinking things used to
be kind of like this for me, before I saw the politics and the cliques,
wishing the SCA were more this way.

*******

And at the risk of repeating myself, some of this seems a double-
standard.  We claim to be historical and we chastise modernism when
it suits us, yet look the other way in other cases.

This entire society is very modern.  I don't really know why people
argue the "historically accurate" viewpoint.  It seems only used when
to win arguments or put people down, not to make the society more
realistic.

The point that struck me most about this past weekend was the autocrat
talking about meeting a member of that original May Day party from
which the Society sprang.  He asked him what he thought about what
the SCA has become and he said "we take it way too seriously.  It was
just a party".  Reminds me of the SNL skit where Shatner addresses
Trekkies "It was just a TV show, get a life".

I'd like to see many things taken less seriously.  (Me about to make
some wild crazy suggestions cover your eyes if you're going to take
me too seriously)  If we're not accurate anyway, why not make everyone
knights if they so desire? Why not let everyone pick their title and
personna and act it out? To me, it would make things a lot more fun.
Not because I could pick a title, but titles would mean nothing.
People wouldn't decide they were better than another.

*******

As far as knight-hood issues are concerned...

First off, my term-limits on knights was primarly a suggestion to bring
the brass-hat to regular guy ratio more in line.  My thoughts are not
exclusive to the knighthood, but I can't really think of anything as
glaringly ironic as a knight who can't fight.

Alternatives could be to have a setup more like champions which exist
for various events or contests, like Warlord or Guardian or the Tor, or
Queens Champion.  Something where you hold this or that title, then
somebody comes along after some period and the title is passed on to
the next person.  Likewise for artistic endeavors.

My point of view was obviously a bit different than the officially
defined requirements "to be knighted", as Timo pointed out.  But my
view of a knight is that of an elite fighter who should be able to
fight, not just at one time in their life.  My opinion (which is, by
the way all we're talking about) would be that this requirement be
on-going or else we might as well grant "honorary knighthoods" as was
the case with, say, Paul McCartney or Elton John.  So, in the last
note, the enthusiastic old guy who joined the Society too late, and
who may have "learned his stuff", but just couldn't "do his stuff"
could still become a knight and at least equal to the old knight.

Are terms or requalifications really that far-fetched?  You have to take
an eye exam every few years to renew your driver's license.  Mario
Andretti doesn't automatically get to race in the Indy 500 every year.
He has to qualify like all the rest.  Inman doesn't stay king forever
and doesn't just get to come up and say he wants to be king next.  He
has to re-earn it (no matter how easy he makes it look).  To kind of
answer the question about would I dare question Inman's right to be
a knight.  I wouldn't expect him to fail a test, would you?

-Karl von Augsburg
 Ansteorra
__________________________________________________________________________
Joel Schumacher                        JCPenney Co. - UNIX Network Systems
jschumac at uns-dv1.jcpenney.com          12700 Park Central Pl
(972) 591-7543                         Dallas TX  75251
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.