SC - icelandic sour Dough?

[david friedman]

At 7:43 AM -0400 9/2/99, Tollhase1 at AOL.COM wrote:

>Sorry, the poisoning was meant to be a joke.  I have known feastacrates whom
>believed they were very period and the food was not edible to the masses.

The implication of the joke was that the cook thought the food was not
edible because it was period. If so, that is probably evidence of the
cook's ignorance. If he was really working from a period primary source
recipe, all or almost all of the quantities were probably provided by him,
not by the source--and by sufficiently varying quantities you can convert
almost anything from edible to inedible or vice versa.

> Bur remember
>tastes are different.  I like powder Forte.  My lady hides it when I cook.
>Vinegar's are oft used.  Some do not like vinegar.  Some do not like parsnips.
>Some do not like salads.  Especially one with all these strange herbs in them
>and the cooks are not letting us put globs of modern salad dressings on them.
>Some just don't like anything but meat and potatoes with Catsup on them.

Certainly tastes are different, with the result that you may cook something
you like and your lady doesn't. But that has little to do with how period
the recipe is--after all, the recipe doesn't say how much powder Fort to
use.

>For example, the Icelandic dough, While the version I made the dough was not
>edible.  I accept yours was.  Even following the same recipe.  We may have
>done something different.  I know in our area, people paying for feast would
>not be happy with what I produced in my first attempt.

Are you using "first attempt" literally--are you saying that the feast was
the first time you had ever made that recipe? If so, I suggest that that,
not periodicity or non-periodicity, was the problem. If I am going to serve
something at a feast, I first make it, on a smaller scale, for myself--or
for a dinner party of the people doing the feast (a miniature of the feast,
done to see how the combination of dishes works and what problems arise).
There are lots of ways a dish, period or modern, can go wrong if you have
never cooked it before.

>I would probably
>change the dough and announce it as period like.  After reading the portion
>about breaking the dough as part of the period feast stick.  I may leave it
>the as it was.  Perhaps even take a loaf try to break it over my head and
>explain why in period coffins oft had a hard shell to act as a baking
>utensil.

But note that if you are telling the people "this dough was not intended to
be eaten," you are making a historical statement, and one that may well be
false.

> I admit that I am puzzled by the connection between National Socialism and
> historical authenticity--my impression was that the Nazis were in favor of
> making up their history to suit their needs, ideological and
> propagandistic, which would put them on the other side of that particular
> argument.

>I have no idea How the Term first came to be used within the Scadian context.

Neither do I, but there is an obvious conjecture. It was invented by
someone who didn't want either to do something in a period manner or to
admit that he wasn't doing it in a period manner, and needed some way of
putting down anyone who either did things in a period manner, thus making
him look bad by comparison, or pointed out that his claim that something
was period was false.

> It is my understanding that it refers to someone whom enjoys tearing down a
>person attempt at historical accuracy and insist that they are the only ones
>correct.  Essentially, if you do not do everything exactly period as they
>know it to be, they will make you feel bad.

That was not how you seemed to be using it in the passage in question. You
wrote:

>  Like Really, OK, from that person I will
>usually get NAZI periodness, and that person is like really very practical
>and would serve franks and beans

So the contrast appears to be between someone who is very careful to do
things in a period manner, described as a Nazi, and someone who is
"practical" and thus willing to serve things when there is only very
tenuous evidence that they are period. That doesn't sound as though you are
contrasting rude people with polite people,  which is what the definition
of "Nazi" you offer above would imply.

By your definition (Nazi equals someone who tries to put down other
people), would it be correct to describe anyone who uses the term "period
Nazi" as an "OOP Nazi." In most circles I am familiar with, describing
someone as a Nazi is regarded as a put down.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/


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

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".

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