SC - WAS Re: saffron/NOW: Authenticity?

[Siegfried Heydrich]

>Oh, I am tolerant!
>One should help poor recreation in those who know no better, and in
>beginners. But those who are able to do better, and know how to do
>better, but choose not to do better? shoudl I say "wahtever floats your
>boat, dude"? or should I say " you can do better, why dont you?" ?


I don't believe you should say either.  The first response is rather
um...for lack of a better word...laid back.  The second IMHO is simply rude.
I approach things a bit differently.  I ask the participant if they are in
the SCA for "fun" or for research.  I play it by ear based on their answer.

>We can, and this has been proven time and time again, be "fun" and _still_
>have good recreation, and that we can be as accurate as possible and still
not >be dissuadingly stuffy.


Forgive me, but I feel that your view a bit stuffy.  There is room for those
who are interested in being period 'snarks', and room for those who want to
be in the medievalish organization and have fun - not be forced to :::gasp
of horror::: do research.

>Back then the SCA had precious little to work with.
>I'll put it to you to ask your Mistress this question.
>If she had had the resources, in terms of widely available research,
>artisans, smiths and other crafts people, Sites, patterns, improved
>campsites, Pavillians, and the World wide web and the Internet for
>disseminating and gathering information, would the SCA have
>_STILL_ been what it was then?


I get my attitudes from her.  She told me on my first meeting with her that
this should be *FUN*.  If at any time it ceased to be fun, then I should get
out ASAP.

I tend to agree with her.

>The resources for better recreation certainly exist. NOT to use them
because
>they didnt have them in the past is like choosing to walk around naked,
>because people started out wearing nothing.
>
>Come on now, which of you joined the SCA because it had an "atmosphere"
> that evoked the romance of the Middle ages?  I did.


Please note what you have just written the the next to last line.
"ATMOSPHERE"
That is what I come for.  The ambience and the comraderie.  I love the
honor, chilvalry and intellectual conversations.  I don't like
garb/food/periodocity snobs/snarks.  There *is* room for those who don't
want to do heavy research.

>Does does a 14th century Saracen dish on the table add to that atmosphere?
>I think so. Does  a 20th century American dish on the table add to that
>atmosphere? I think not.
>Even if it _is_ "creative".
>There are a lot of people who do not try to achieve any authenticity
>at all, and excuse their intrepretation of the SCA as a private fantasy
>realme with this old and hackneyed plaint: "but it is the Society for
>_Creative_ Anachronism, not the Society for Cumpulsive Authenticity!!"


I don't completely agree with you.  Perhaps in part, but that part is small.
Creative is important.  Since we did not live in that time, did not have
anyone SHOW us how to do any of the things we do, and are simply following
our best assumptions on how things were done - I say we are being creative
at our best.  We are making assumptions and best guesses at worst.

I believe that one who makes an *attempt* at period whatever has made the
attempt to play at our game.  This is not a cheap game.  You are trying to
put it on the level of schoolwork  -  and most people balk at that.  Not
everyone, mind you, but most.

>Some of them say that if you cannot grow your own sheep, spin your
>own wool, weave your own cloth, etc, you might as well wear that
>electric pink camoflage houpellande.


Here again - um, is electric pink camoflage an attempt? I know you can get
some amazingly bright colours when you try, but electric pink is an acid set
colour.

>At some point you have to decide:
>Is the SCA going to move forward toward better recreation, as it has
>done steadily for 34 years, or go backwards because authenticity is
>a little more work?

Again, why does everyone have to play the game according to your rules?
People have to have their own version of the "Dream" because after you get
two people together, you can no longer have a generic "Dream".

>Is the "dream" the "Dream" because every body "paharrties" or because
>we try to carve out a little magic from time, using that 'suspension of
disbelief',
>here at the dawn of the 21st century.
>Without the struggle for better and more authenticity, the SCA would have
>been just another F&SF con. Whether you like it or not.
>And it could well have gone that way.
>Consider the number of "Tolkein tourneys" and "Elves vs Dwarves" events
>the SCA had in the first ten years.
>the reason that the SCA is not a F&SF con is that at some point the
>collective wisdom of the SCA decided that it was important to emphasize
things
>not as "they might have been if" but things as "they were were, or would
have
>been" ( would have been if they had to deal with 20th century hygeine, tort
and
>insurance laws, criminal laws, etc.etc.etc. )


But, GEE!!!  It would have been if there were acid set colours and better
methods of distribution....

Here you are trying to use the flip side of the same coin.  We change the
way things were to fit how we would like them to have been.  Reread those
last 8 words.  They are the key here : "how we would like them to have
been".  I am not saying that you are wrong - but your vision is wrong for
*me*.

>Brandu
>
Diana d'Avignon