SC - How do I get started?

[Deborah Schumacher]

CBlackwill at aol.com wrote:
> 
> I don't think anyone on this list is suggesting it is "period" to serve
> Kentucky Fried Chicken at a medieval feast.  The point I have been trying
> (unsuccessfully) to make is that simple substitutions to documentable recipes
> should be "allowed", without the threat of the Gendarme de Cuisine rushing
> you off to the "O.O.P. Gulag".  Of course, if you claim that your dish is
> prepared verbatim from the "Official Manual of Age Old Recipes" or some such,
> and it is obviously a Fish and More platter from Long John Silvers, then
> yeah, maybe someone could have reason to be skeptical.
> 
> I think that there are many people in our beloved Society who would be more
> than willing to sit at table and feast on "period style" dishes, without
> raising a stink about documentable sources and whatnot.

And most probably do. At no time in my admittedly cursory examination of
this thread have I seen anybody say they would be unwilling to
participate in a feast of dishes not perfectly documented, nor say, "You
can't substitute." Except for one lady who came on a little strong and
then retracted part of what she'd said, with handsome apologies which I
hope I can emulate when my time comes.  

> It's those who
> cannot abide even the slightest deviation who tend to spoil it for the rest
> of us, and hurt feelings in the process.

Y'know... we really don't have to have a villain in this piece. I don't
believe there are many people who can't abide the slightest deviation
from a period recipe (and if there are any here, I invite them to show
this list just how perfect their recreations are, but I ain't at the
head of the line). As for hurt feelings, well, anybody's feelings can be
hurt at any time, but we try not to do that, and my own experience is
that there's been considerably more bashing on the part of people
somehow opposed to authenticity than on the part of its supporters.
Accusing the saffron-lovers ;  ) of going around hurting feelings is an
unnecessarily generalized suppositons, and a pretty unfair one.

My take on this thread was that nobody seemed to really say
substitutions aren't "period" or acceptable. What they _did_ say, or a
least what I saw, was that substitutions can be a hit-or-miss
proposition, since while it's reasonable to assume substitutions were
made, we don't know what they would have been, and knowing what
ingredients the cooks would have had access to doesn't really help.

Suppose the cooks of Richard II, say, had to travel forward in time to
the turn of the 21st century, and cook a dish of, say, tagliatelle with
ragu bolognese. Surprise! No plum tomatoes in the house! What to do? How
about using Heinz ketchup instead? Whattaya think? It's a
turn-of-the-21st-century food, isn't it, and it's even made from
tomatoes. Whassamatta, you have a problem with that? What's that? No
pork, veal, or beef? How about this nice can of Spam? Now, it's arguable
whether these cooks have left the realm of edible food, but can one
honestly say they're responsibly learning, teaching or properly
representing anything about turn-of-the-21st-century food? Well, they
might be, but is the experience as good as if they faithfully reproduced
something like the real thing? Mightn't it be better for them to
reproduce something for which they _have_ the ingredients, like, say,
doing the pasta with garlic and oil? Pignoles and raisins? Sardines and fennel?

As far as I can tell, all people said was that it's _better_ to try to
reproduce the dish as faithfully and accurately as possible, not that no
other course would be tolerated. And, people said, if you do make a
substitution for some reason, you should say your recreation of the dish
is based on a speculative substitution, and not necessarily an accurate
period reconstruction. Is truth in advertising too much to ask? 
 
> So, does a 14th century Saracen dish which contains safflower rather than
> saffron detract from our much adored atmosphere?  Nope.

In itself, I agree, it probably doesn't, for most people. Of course
peoples' capacity for the wilful suspension of disbelief varies. I once
had a huge argument with somebody, mighta been on this list, to the
effect that you have to choose your areas of deviation. My example was
that a friend had recently served boneless, canned hams at a feast,
after we discussed practical realities like carving and waste. Which is
worse, more jarring back into the late-20th-century, the presentation of
those funny-shaped hams, or a bunch of people in houppelandes sitting
there saying, "What the bloody h**l do I _do_ with this thing?", with
half the wasted meat going into the trash and the other half going home
with those smart enough to know a good soup-making opportunity when they
see one? Take your pick. You could argue either way. He went with the
canned hams.

Of course, as Rayne points out, a good deal of this discussion hinges on
how you interpret the word "period". I don't agree with her definition
of what constitutes a period dish, but it does make a difference what
context the discussion is in. (I feel that saying if a dish is prepared
from period ingredients, it is period, is kind of like saying a name
made up from period letters of the alphabet is a period name... far
better, IMO, to lose this whole "period" question and say, this dish is
prepared in imitation of 14th-century English court cookery (or
whatever), either as the result of speculation _or_ documentation. The
problem with "period" is that it tends to lead to Vikings carrying
handguns and eating mole poblano. Well, Vikings, guns, chilies and
chocolate are all period, aren't they?

If you do what you do responsibly with the understanding that some
people do see the SCA as a research project, it's pretty easy to
accomodate them without inconveniencing yourself or compromising a more
laid-back approach.

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com