SC - All members

[Terry Nutter]

Hi, Katerine Rountre here.  I'm feeling depressed today; please take
what follows as a somewhat depressed expression of concern.  I mean it
to raise thoughts, not to attack anyone.

Right off the mark: while I would like to believe that the SCA is a place
where one can trust that what one meets has something to do with the middle
ages, I would also like to believe that truth and justice always prevail,
and that everyone in the world wants nothing more than they want to get
along happily with everybody else.

The obligation that I believe clearly exists in more stringent historical
recreation groups not to present ahistorical exemplars without warnings
must, I think, be tempered here by the patent fact that anyone who's gone
to as many as half a dozen SCA events and still thinks that everything they
encountered is historical stands in *deep* need of a reality check.

That being the case, the most I think we are *obliged* to do, as event
cooks, is provide enough tasty, wholesome food that nobody without
extraordinary needs is forced either to go hungry or to eat things
that revolt the stomach, either through contamination or through
dire flavor -- and to report honestly the antecedents of what we've
produced when asked.

That said: while Genevieve's remarks don't offend me in the slightest,
they do dishearten me deeply.  Let me try to give a few indications why.

>As a list member who has learned to keep her mouth shut due to her
>rebellious views on creativity and the variously "rabid" responses she
>has received over the last few months when she expresses her views, I can
>attest to the "ferocity" with which of some of this list's subscribers
>defend their period preference.  

Genevieve, are you claiming that a concern with history bars creativity?
It often seems so.  And it is disheartening, over and over, to be called
uncreative, on no stronger grounds than a concern to create *in a 
particular style*.

Further, I have seen no rabid responses.  Indeed, the nastiest posts I've
seen tend to be those that accuse many people of being everything from
anal retentive to fascist because they care about history.  I haven't
been particularly *injured* by these; God knows, after close to 15 years,
I expect them the way I expect heat and thunder storms in summer.  But just 
as that leads me to choose, many summer days, to stay indoors, the
hostility I encounter in the SCA toward concerns with culinary history 
- -- frequently not even thinkly veiled -- lead me, more and more often, to
turn outside the SCA for people to share what I've learned with.  I think
that's sad; but I'm only willing to fight against the current just so
hard.

>Without new people and their ideas, we cannot
>continue to exist.  "Stagnant ponds never flourish with anything except
>bacteria."
>
>Now, before anyone gets their garters in a twist over my statements,
>please understand that I have honored all those who do not like the
>reformist attitude and send my honest regards.  

In my experience, the *reform* in SCA cookery -- by no means complete --
is the movement toward the study of culinary history.  Fifteen years
ago, a feast even half of whose dishes were based on primary sources
from period was very nearly rare as hen's teeth.  And the cry that
anyone who looked at a period recipe was stifling creativity was even
louder.

>Sir Gunthar is quite correct to admonish all of us (me included) to be
>more open to EVERY member of this list and not be so overly concerned
>with accuracy that we overlook the true meaning of this list --
>fellowship and sharing of ideas.  

Honest to God, I've only seen three kinds of concern with history here:
(1) statements by some of personal preferences for their own
work; (2) simple requests for sharing of ideas, centered on sharing 
information on historical antecedents of dishes *if that information 
is available*; and (3) the very recent concern about not misleading
people into believing things are historical that are not.

Frankly, I don't think that any of these is excessive, or unwelcoming.
I think that the third has been poorly aimed: our concern should, I 
think, be less focused on what's served, and more on what's *said* 
about it.  The harm comes from the claim of historical antecedents.
Truth in advertizing would fix it.  But I see no reason why anyone should
be driven away by any of these -- and saying that expressing these
concerns in some way interferes with fellowship and sharing of ideas
certainly leaves me in a quandary, since most of the ideas I have to
share have to do with history, and I feel far more fellowship from
a group in which my sharing them is viewed as a positive contribution
than from one in which it's viewed as oppressive.  I don't want to
oppress people.  If my contributions constitute oppression in an
environment, I will tend to withdraw.

>We should be as gracious with our members whose ideas do not
>jive exactly with ours as we would a stranger seeing our organization for
>the first time.  We should strive to do this every time.  And while we
>may not mean any harm, much is done through what may appear to be
>"inquests" based on one's desire to be perfectly period.  I chose to be
>modernly period, thank you.  You are certainly entitled to make the SCA
>whatever best suits your personality and tastes.  Please grant me, and
>this young lady,  the same.

I'm delighted to grant you that -- but less happy to grant that asking 
"Oh -- do you have a period recipe for that?" constitutes an inquisition.  
>From my standpoint, "No; it's something not blatantly modern that people 
like" is a perfectly good answer.  I ask, because the answer may be 
"Yes, and here it is."  That's not so much a better answer as one that 
happens to be interesting to me.  Am I never to ask, because I may not 
always get it?

>Try to think of those
>asking for documentation as curious, not demeaning.  

What I'd like to know is why this is such a *strain*.  It's usually true.

>If nothing else,
>tell them the truth -- "Although I appreciate your enthusiasm for
>authenticity, I chose to spend my time with the Society relaxed.  My work
>is stressful enough without adding gray hairs over documentation.  If you
>has some you would like to share, however, I would certainly be
>interested."  This pony line has never failed me (except once and that
>person doesn't count in my book.  She was a laurel who had the
>personality of a dead fish -- not very appealing to say the least.) 
><BWG&G -- Big Wide Grin & a Giggle>

Sorry, it fails with me.  Had you said "Although I appreciate your 
enthusiasm for authenticity, my interests lie elsewhere," that would
work.  But I too choose to spend my time with the Society relaxed,
and have no desire to speed the acquisition of gray hairs.  The
reason you give for not studying the history is, frankly, an insult
to every amateur who does.  We're not in this for the stress.  We
do it because we find it fun.  That you don't is fine.  But why give
a reason that implies that none of those who disagree with you know
how to relax?  It's as nasty as implying that they study recipes
because they don't know how to be creative cooks.  And sorry, when
you contrast an authentic approach to a "creative" approach that
you describe as a "reform", it *does* imply that what those you are
viewing (wrongly, I think) as the established group do is *not*
creative (and needs reform).  Likewise, when you contrast an 
enthusiasm with authenticity specifically to spending time relaxed,
it *does* imply, at the very least, that a concern with authenticity
somehow detracts from relaxation.

>If I have offended anyone, I truly apologize.  I have meant no offense to
>anyone.  To each his or her own is my SCA motto.  "C'est la vie and pass
>the ketchup . . . the haggis needs some flavor." (: ^ b   (Except for
>Lord Ras's . . . or was it Lord Adamantius [ Adam*Ant* E* Us -- a punk
>rocker, perhaps?  : )] . . . I am sure it was perfect!!!!!!!)

I'm not offended, but I'm sad.  I've never seen anyone leave the SCA
because it was too historical an atmosphere for them.  Over the years,
I've seen many quietly depart, because the few who shared their interests
in various aspects of the middle ages were overwhelmed by the many who 
deplored them, and who judged the people overbearing and oppressive for
having them.  I've seen others stay, but slowly become embittered by
constantly paying the price for what they see as others' insecurity
over the chasm between what we do and what we *say* we do, and the
threat others feel because they happen, perhaps only in one dimension of
many, to stand closer to the side of what we say we do than the people
who feel threatened do.  I don't know the laurel Genevieve referred to
above from Adam's cat.  But not everyone who today presents in the SCA
with the personality of a dead fish started that way; and how they got
there is not always a pretty picture of acceptance, toleration, and
freedom from oppression.

Fifteen years or so ago, I was an enthusiastic newcomer whose knowledge
of medieval practices of virtually any sort would comfortably fit in a
shot glass, with ample room left over for the shot.  Now, not all *that*
much later, I feel tired, not least tired of fighting the perception that
I'm trying to put others down, or make them do something they don't want
to, when all I really want is a place to do what I like in peace, and
ideally with the companionship of at least a few others who like it too.
It's a hell of a note on a hobby.

I normally sign "cheers", but today, it feels wrong....

- -- Katerine/Terry