SC - Greetings and Chicken

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Wendy wrote:
> 
> Does recreation have to be so strict?

No, it doesn't. Still, it is, for most people, a process of learning as
much as possible (whatever that may be) about a given
task/object/whatever to make recreating it more effective. I don't think
anyone was really criticizing you for pursuing a reconstructed chicken
dish by starting out with a modern recipe. Even if the act was
criticized, which I didn't think it was, that's not the same as
criticizing you. What I think was being said was more along the lines
(at least originally) of: if you're interested in doing a better job, or
as good a job as possible, there are better ways to do it than by
starting out with a modern recipe, for the reasons given. What they
boiled down to was that by starting out with a modern recipe and
eliminating or substituting for, one by one, the clearly non-period
stuff, you end up with a dish that can't be proven non-period. By the
time you do all that, you end up with a dish that may not be as tasty as
what you started with (although this is a matter of opinion), and still
may not even resemble a period dish, provable or not. Whereas, if you
start out with a period dish and try to make it, you can at least come
pretty close, and prove that you did, too. While the second approach may
be conservative and limiting, and strict, if you will, it still is more
or less guaranteed to be a more effective piece of period
reconstruction/recreation/living
history/insert-quasi-archaeological-term-here than the first method.
Still, none of that means you have to do it that way.

When I learned how to fight (and there are those who argue I never did)
I had a Duke on one side of me, and a well-known knight and viscount on
the other side of me, looking at my moves and trying to decide whether
they thought I could play this game safely. They agreed I could, and
both of them said to me things like, "That was good, but you might want
to try this thing X instead, next time..." Both of these men are
gentlemen, and it never occurred to me that their comments were intended
in any critical way, but in the purest spirit of encouragement. As a
result, I felt no urge to say, "So you're saying I s**k, eh?"
  
If I can be forgiven for sounding slightly patronizing, in the literal
sense, and I hope I can be since I honestly mean well for you, I think
you ought to take a deep breath, let it out slooooowly, and relax.
Smile. We're all friends here; even the ones who are unreasonable about
chili, or, dare I say it, cuskynoles ;  ) 

> One of the
> things I like(d) about the SCA was the fact that people could do things however they
> felt was appropriate for them.

Still true, last time I checked.

> I don't like being told that adapting a modern recipe
> to a medievil style is not "recreation".

I think this was a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. If anyone
actually said that, I suspect they didn't mean exactly that. I think
what was being said, as I explained above, was more like, there are ways
to do what you're doing that might be more effective, as easy, and
surprisingly fun. Still, your call, though. I don't think anyone
disputes that.  

> The basic fundamentals are there.  Roasting
> chicken with herbs is, as far as I know, period.  If not, please tell me that.

Umm, now that you mention it, the acid marinade with garlic and spices
is somewhat similar to cormarye, but not that close, and I can't think
offhand of a period recipe for roasting chicken with herbs. Probably
this is because roasting in the larger households would be done by a
roast cook, and there are relatively few sets of instructions for a job
as basic as roasting a bird, with herbs or otherwise. Instructions seem
more likely to include what sauce to serve with roast chicken.   

> But
> don't tell me that what I am doing is not recreation.  It may not be your way, but it
> is not wrong.

No, it's not wrong per se, but because it is designed to disguise
non-period aspects (literally, anachronisms, in this case) of a modern
recipe, it's still, when you get down to it, a modern recipe. If I take
my modern leather sneakers, for example, and cover them with brown
gaffer's tape or paint to disguise the fact that they're Air Jordans or
some such, some people may not be able to tell the difference. Maybe if
no one at all can tell that they're not, in fact, made from a period
boot pattern, I would still know, and I'd be a little embarrassed if
someone came up to me and said, "Wow, your boots are so totally buff and
kewl, how'd you make them?", and I'd be bound to say, well, you take
some sneakers, and etc. On the other hand, having been in this game a
while, and having made not a few SCAdian lifestyle choices in the
taped-sneakers department over the years, and having also made shoes, I
can honestly say there are few pleasures in the SCA, for me, greater
than having someone come up and say, "Will you teach me how to do
that?", and being able to say, "Yeah, sure, it comes from a
sixteenth-century English dairy manual..." All right, a shoemaker's
manual. You get the idea, I'm sure.
 
> Now, what I really wanted to know was if any of the fundamentals were wrong - the
> ingredients, the style, etc.  If anyone cares to advise me on that, please do.  Just
> don't tell me I'm not playing the right way.

You may be asking a bit more than is reasonable, then, I'm afraid. I
have no problem at all with answering such a question, usually exactly
as asked (which I did, as I recall), but there come times when I feel it
necessary, in good conscience, to add, "there's something else you ought
to know..." If you're trying to learn something, a responsible student
tries to capture the complete picture, if possible, and a responsible
teacher-type tries to provide that. My experience has been that very
little useful knowledge is exchanged when someone says, essentially,
"Cut the lecture and answer the question, please." As far as I can tell,
what you received in addition to the answers to your questions was some
advice, albeit unsolicited, on some ways to play this game a bit better,
_in the opinion of the lady_, but also in the opinion of many others on
this list. You're in no way bound to follow the advice, of course, and I
doubt anyone would think or speak less of you for your choice. Like most
true evangelicals, they may be disappointed that you don't see things
their way, but are consoled in the knowledge that there are always new
souls to save ;  ) . 

I hope you'll reconsider any idea you may have had that anyone intended
to criticize you personally, or that becoming upset will help the
siutation. As far as I can tell, everyone who has addressed anything to
you at all, on this list, has spoken out of a desire for your well-being.

Adamantius, stopping for breath
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================