[Ansteorra] Use of Titles (was Re: hiding mundane)

[mikea]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:27:34AM -0500, Jay Rudin wrote:

[snip]

> In the Middle Ages, ruling was the most important thing, and was
> honored above all else. Therefore, people who ruled lands (baronies,
> counties, duchies, etc.) are the highest ranked class. To be true to
> the exact structure, current landed barons would be the only peers.
> But to be true to the ideal, the highest ranked people should be
> the people doing the most honored things. In any organization, that
> means the workers, so Pelicans should be peers. In any re-enactment
> society, that should include the best re-enactment, so clearly
> Laurels should be peers. Based on its pre-eminence from the first
> tourney, and the fact that our kings come from it, knights are also
> in the class of peers. This structure is not true to the form of the
> Middle Ages structure, but it is true (more-or-less) to its purposes
> and spirit.

> Similarly, as an Elizabethan noble, I should be caught up in the
> Cult of Gloriana, treating my Queen as the ultimate font of honor
> and the most important person in the world. And so I do. But her
> name isn't Elizabeth; it's Deanna. I can either pretend to be in
> fealty and serve Queen Elizabeth, whom I never see and who cannot
> accept my oaths, or I can swear to, and serve, my actual Queen.
> Which one is actual re-creation?

> The structure of awards, titles and rank, both English and SCA,
> grew out of experience, not logic. Since our experience doesn't
> match theirs, our structure won't either. Further, changing titles
> after they are in use is a major upheaval, which will cause much
> heart-ache, much confusion, and will end up with a system that is
> not appreciably more authentic (unless we intend to treat the top
> artists like merely talented peasants).

> Consider the following three statements, which I presume any new
> award system would want to apply:

> 1. The correct term for the highest ranked artists, chosen to be
> equal to the best artists around, is "Master".*

> 2. We wish to give the people who do the most impressive
> re-enactment the highest possible rank.

> 3. The highest, most honored group will be called peers.

>From these three statements, I deduce that "Master" / "Mistress" will
>be peerage titles in any new system

> *Yes, I'm usually punctilious about using both forms of a title for
> the SCA. But I'm talking about medieval usage. I know no example of
> a guild mistress for a trade guild. Even if one exists, it's rare.

> The attempt to explain why our titles aren't like theirs is akin to
> an actor playing Hamlet, trying to explain why a Danish Prince is
> speaking modern English pentameters, why he talks out loud when he's
> alone, why he can see an audience of hundreds of people when he's in
> his mother's bed-chamber, or why he can see a lightboard off-stage.
> The correct answer: ignore it and play the role.

> Some people try to explain why they are now in Ansteorra, or
> Atlantia, and why all these weird people are around. I've heard
> "persona stories" about sailing across the sea to Trimaris, or about
> (yes, I'm serious) time travel. There are two problems to all of
> these explanations:

> 1. They fail to explain. Why does an nobleman sweep the floor? How
> can an Elizabethan accept an Irish king? Where are my servants?
> Why aren't we trying to get back to England? The list of questions
> to be answered is infinite. Any answer given opens new questions,
> until the only solution is to have the persona of a 21st century SCA
> member.

> 2. All such explanations take us further from our personae, and
> further from the periods we study. Even if I found an explanation
> about how I could speak to a Moor, how does that explanation help me
> study, or focus on, or learn about, Elizabethan England? Answer: it
> doesn't.

> The only solution to the unanswerable questions is not to ask
> them in the first place. This is the literary skill of "willing
> suspension of disbelief", and is necessary for any serious persona
> in the SCA.

> A movie that many people think is the best one ever made begins with
> a rich man dying alone, and saying one last word. The rest of the
> movie is about a reporter trying to track down the meaning of that
> word. BUT HE WAS ALONE WHEN HE SAID IT. How did the reporter know
> what he said? Answer: don't ask. Suspend your belief and enjoy the
> movie.

> Similarly, I don't want to be Jay asking how an Elizabethan ought to
> respond to a Moor -- I want to be Robin talking to Mahdi. My persona
> doesn't have to include either other people, or Ansteorra.

> At some point you will have to stop asking the unanswerable (and
> uninteresting) questions and just take on your persona. The earlier
> you do this, the more authentic your persona can be. (and the less
> frustration you'll feel.)

I am deeply obliged to Master Robin for the above, which hits dead
center in the target. I believe it to be the best explanation of 
persona -- and the best advice on persona development -- that I have
seen in my 30 years in the Society, and I wish it had been available
to me when I started playing. 

I believe that it certainly belongs in the Florilegium.

-- 
Mike Andrews        /   Michael Fenwick    Barony of Namron, Ansteorra
mikea at mikea.ath.cx  /   Amateur Extra radio operator W5EGO
Tired old music Laurel; Chirurgeon; SCAdian since AS XI