SC - Plaintive whine about sourcing....

[Stephen Bloch]

Katerine speaks:
>>> You know, it would have been easy if the dratted modern author had been
>>> a touch more specific.  Is it just me, or do others really really REALLY
>>> wish that when people published original versions of recipes, they would
>>> (1) publish the *original* original version, and not their new-and-
>>> improved original; and (2) tell you not only what collection its from
>>> but *where* in the collection you can find it?  

Adamantius responds:
>> This is an interesting question. Some people maintain, for instance,
>> that a photocopy or a transliteration is a secondary source, and that a
>> proper primary source is the original work only, in the author's own
>> hand, or a first edition printing. 

Katerine speaks:
> I've heard that line, but only in the SCA, and it seems to me plain
> silly for written works.  By the original, I mean, a reasonable copy
> of the words of the original, as written, except for reproduction of the
> palaeography.  Mistakes happen, no problem.  It's deliberate changes that
> irk me -- when the text is presented as the original, and not as an
> altered version.

If a humble editor may speak?  I have volunteered to be the editor of
"It Came From Hael's Kitchen!", the cookbook of the Rhydderich Hael's Cooks'
Guild. (Buffalo NY group)  I have not yet made any attempt at organization.
At this point, I'm simply data entering the recipes into computer files
where I can play with them.  My raw text varies from computer files written
in three different fonts (one for original text, one for translation, one for
redaction) to literally penned on the back of a stained napkin.  Scholarship
varies from documented to within an inch of its life (to within a teaspoon
of its herbs? ;-) to ... um, .. er.. ah,... "highly original"

How would SCAdian cooks WANT to see this organized?  I don't really want to
include photocopies of original manuscripts, I'd rather re-type everything
as to standardize margins and fonts.

>> It seems evident that the original
>> recipe as quoted is not the actual original recipe, based on the idiom
>> used. That may or may not mean there is a substantial change in the
>> content, however, and how far, if at all, off of the original it may be
>> has yet to be determined.

> Too true -- and it's hard to see how to determine it, and *that's* what
> I find irksome.

I was thinking of something like the arrangement in "To the King's Taste"
An original: "Take sawge, parsel, ysope and savray...
A translation: Take sage, parsley, hyssop and savory...
A redaction: 1 tsp dried sage, 1 c chopped parsley, ...  
With the redactor given full blam////credit.
Obviously, I can't do this in every case, but I'd like to stay as close
to this as possible.

> I'm not in the slightest inclined to blame the lady who posted.  What gets
> me is the general practice of saying "This is from x" (in published works)
> with absolutely zero (zilch, nada) indication of *where* in x.  At the
> least, one could say, "This is from page n of x, which is m pages long."
> At which point, those of us up to third grade arithmetic could tell 
> whether it's from the end, the beginning, two thirds of the way through,
> or whatever.

Got it!  Include page and recipe numbers wherever possible.

>> My big pet peeve is the gratuitous omission of an index. I realize that
>> this is an unreasonable prejudice, but to me, iunder normal
>> circumstances, if it has no index or other table of contents to help you
>> find something, it is by definition excluded from the category of
>> reference books. Some day, in the afterlife, The Goodman of Paris is
>> going to answer to me! It won't be pretty.

> Well, this bothers me far far less in primaries.  Those things were being
> written by hand, and often being collated as they were written.  Yes, it's
> a nuisance.  My response has been to construct my own indices of recipes.
> Work, yes, but it fits into several ongoing projects, so....

Got it!  Table of Contents AND back of the book index.  (And don't get
Adamantius mad at me whatever I do! ;-)  I was thinking of having the book
ordered into sections, Appetizers, Main Dishes, Sides, Desserts, etc.
The Table of Contents would list by meal name and the index would list by
main ingredient ie, Chicken Dishes... p.16, 23, 34 etc.  Acceptable?

One last note; Several (not all) submitters included one line as to where
the dish had been served recently, e.g King Soandso's Coronation, etc.
A few are somewhat vague, "Served at Pennsic XX".  Is this information
actually useful?

>>> -- Katerine/Terry
>> Adamantius
> -- Katerine/Terry
Moi
							-- Dagonell
               ______
              /      |   INTERNET   : salley at cs.canisius.edu
             /       |   USNAILNET  : David P. Salley, 136 Shepard Street,
    ________/        |                Buffalo, New York 14212-2029 U.S.A.
   |*                |   WEB-NET    : http://www-cs.canisius.edu/~salley
  /  Rhydderich Hael |   ICBMNET    : 42 55 32 N / 78 51 10 W / Alt 600 
 |______________     |   PERSONA    : Lord Dagonell Collingwood of Emerald Lake
 AEthelmearc,   `_   |                AKA Dagonell the Juggler
    East Kingdom  `__|   DISCLAIMER :"Canisius never agrees with me."