Redaction (was: SC - Sources and documentation)

[cclark at vicon.net]

Ras wrote:
><Sigh> Let me explain more clearly. If Ms. Renfrow, for instance, quotes a 
>period recipe in a work, I will use the period recipe and IF it is her 
>translation, credit it to her. If not, I credit it to the original place it 
>appeared. If I use a recipe from Cariadoc's Collections, I sight the 
>manuscript it was taken from and the volume of the Collection where it can be 
>found. BUT I do not use previously REDACTED recipes by either ...

<Wince> Here's an example of what's wrong with the way many SCA cooks misuse
the word redaction. The real redactions, in this case, are the books in
which period recipes are collected. The very books that you *do* use. The
ones that you don't use are the collections of recipe *interpretations* from
period sources.

You see, if we'd just go back to using real English rather than making up
our own overly specialized, useless, and *modern* jargon, we could avoid
some of these strange and unintended distortions of meaning.

Once more, to redact is to collect or organize writings, or to give some
form to writings, sometimes by *initially* putting them into writing, but
more usually by reformatting them. To change the *substance* (as opposed to
the form) of a writing by adding, removing, or altering is to rewrite,
revise or interpret, not to redact. Redaction means the act of redacting, or
the written work that results therefrom. So, to the extent that a modern
interpretation of a period recipe is any kind of redaction, it is a
*re-redaction*.

Alex Clark/Henry of Maldon

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

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".

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