[Ansteorra] Love and recognition

[Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace]

Salut cozyns,

"Love is a many splendored thing.
Love lifts us up where we belong.
All you need is love."

Okay, aside from quoting a trio of pop songs and one seriously weird movie, 
this little tercet does make a point.

Love is mythic, iconic, archetypal, and all-conquering. Love is a Platonic 
form. Even when it appears in it's conventional lowercase presentation, Love 
is capitalized. Can't you just hear the capital L?

Identifying the two sides of this debate (as if there were only two) with 
Love on one side and cookies on the other begs the question. If your side is 
for Love, it has to be right. Any dissenting opinions are obvious 
misanthropy. And cookies? Really. How perfectly insigniicant. Tristan and 
Isolde versus the Keebler Elves. For anything but a bake-off, I'll give you 
the elves and ten-to-one.

That said, Her Excellency's point is still valid. Even if I change the word 
from Love to the less frequently capitalized "like" or the much blander 
"interest" or even the jejeune "fun"--the point works:

Experience generally shows that, if you take part in an activity because you 
like it, because it interests you, because you think it's fun, you're more 
likely to stick with it when difficulties arise with finances or 
personalities or family. The knight who fights because she's having a good 
time is more likely to have time to teach you than Sir Narcissus, who 
learned to fight and pushed his way up through the ranks because he thought 
he'd look cool in a gold chain.

Of course, that's not the final word on this argument. There is no final 
word. Numerous polls in the past two decades have related that young 
Americans are more likely to stay with a job that provides a challenge or 
gives employees a sense of accomplishment. Still, you don't find too many 
who are willing to give up salary to stay in a challenging, meaningful job. 
You find even less who are willing to work for free.

In the specific case of the SCA, as a society we've always been somewhat 
schizophrenic about the matter of awards and recognition. Even most of the 
folks who complain about "cookies" rarely seem willing to apply that term to 
the peerages. A peerage isn't an award, we're told, it's a recognition. A 
peer, says the ideology, is already a peer when the crown (having consulted 
the appropriate circle) recognizes said peer's qualities. In my experience 
this is occasionally true.

There also seems to be a cultural between attitudes in the different 
peerages. When I was living in Artemisia, back when it was a principality, I 
sat in a half dozen joint peer circles. (I've never seen one in Ansteorra, 
and the suggestion tends to be met with a greenish pallor and clamminess not 
unlike the sudden onset of mal de mer.) In those Atenveldtan peers' circles, 
what I generally heard regarding expectations for squires, apprentices, and 
protégés went something like this:

Laurels:  "They have to work for it, strive for it, want it, and be it. They 
should never admit, however, that they want it."

Chivalry:  "I take a squire with the explicit understanding that the 
squire's ultimate goal is membership in the Chivalry. A squire who doesn't 
'want it' is a waste of my time."

Pelicans: "Recognition should come as a complete surprise. Pelicans should 
be so service-oriented that they just can't *not* want to serve. If you're 
thinking about awards and recognition, you'll  make far-reaching decisions 
that serve only to cover your own derrier."

No surprise, these circles frequently ended in a deadlock over several 
candidates. Hmm. I think there's a good sirventes somewhere in this topic.

lo vostre per vos servir
Meser Lyonel
_________________________________
Micel yfel deth se unwritere.
		--AElfric of York





>From: Lori Campbell <countesskat at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." 
><ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
>To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
>Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] What's happening here?
>Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > Why?  Why is "playing for love" superior?
> > JP
>
>Isn’t it pretty commonly felt that doing something for love is nobler
>than engaging in self-promotion?  That’s probably why so many people
>make the statement that you should do what you love because you love to
>do it, not just to pursue awards.
>
>The SCA is based on ideals.  Most of us are here because we perceive
>honor and chivalry as lacking in the real world and we want to make a
>place where they are the driving forces behind… well… anything.
>
>It’s the difference between saying “I only do work that is highly
>visible because awards are given for what you are *seen* doing” instead
>of “I love knowing that because I did this job, other people got to
>come to this event and have a good time.”
>
>Yeah, both schools of thought are present (and taught) in the SCA, but
>one is decidedly less self-serving than the other.  We each probably
>have to decide for ourselves which is superior.
>
>Kat M.
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Ansteorra mailing list
>Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org