SC - How do I get started?

[CBlackwill@aol.com]

- --- CBlackwill at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/4/00 1:24:05 AM Pacific
> Daylight Time, LrdRas at aol.com 
> writes:
> 
> > Many of us on this list spend a considerable
> amount of time and money at 
> our 
> >  craft and, frankly, I find your attitude a not
> little offensive. It seems 
> to 
> > 
> >  denigrate years of research and hard work on the
> part of all the fine 
> >  historical cooks both on and off this list.
> 
> How could my post possibly denigrate the years of
> research and hard work of 
> others on this list?  

Read it again.  It does just that.

> My venomous response was
> directed toward your arrogant 
> and demanding post.  I think you forget one very
> important thing about this 
> Society, and that is the "Creative" portion of the
> name.  

The "Creative" part was a mistake on the part of
Marian Zimmer Bradley, who needed to come up with a
name for the SCA when she tried to get permission to
use a park for a tournament and the parks people
wanted to know what our organizational name was. 
Well, we didn't have one and she came up with the name
off the top of her head.  It was NOT something that
people got together and decided before hand.  The name
stuck because no one else could think of a better one.
This doesn't mean that it really is an appropriate
definition of our group.  MZB later expressed regret
in coming up with that combination of words.

Your argument is one I have heard a thousand times in
the 25 years I have been in the SCA by people who
can't be bothered to do any kind of research at all. 
Who would rather put in a zipper, when they know that
buttons or lacing would have been the period way to
close a garment, but sewing on buttons or buttonholes
are too much work and "Anne Boleyn would have used a
zipper if it had been invented then".  Or who would
rather dance "Hole in the Wall" when it has been
proven time and time again that "Hole" was an 18th
century dance and not even remotely close to period,
but they can't be bothered to learn truly period
dances because it would be too much work to do so. 
And because of this, we will continue to be a
schizophrenic organization.  It is no wonder that we
are treated as if we are weirdos and mental cases
living in a fantasy world.  

> We are to re-create 
> how the middle ages "should" have been.  

That means eliminating prejudice, slavery, class
distinctions, hatred, dirt, fleas, etc.  This does not
mean that we should totally ignore period and do
whatever we feel like.  If we re-create it as it
"should have been", then at my next banquet I will
serve KFC fried chicken, Taco Bell tacos, Coca-cola,
and twinkies.  I don't need to do all that research to

feed the unappreciative masses like you.

If you,
> personally, wish to 
> dogmatically stick within the confines of an ages
> old recipe, then good for 
> you.  Even more so if you have spent considerable
> hours in research and 
> fact-finding.  This is a worthwhile endeavor for
> some people.  But, to 
> emphatically say that "I" cannot substitute an
> ingredient in a medieval dish 
> borders on the absured. 

This is America and you can do whatever you please as
long as it isn't against the law.  However, if you
wish to be recognized for your cooking skills within
the SCA and you continue with this attitude, I can
guarantee you will be disappointed.  I have several
friends who are very good cooks, but can't be bothered
in cooking period food.  They have several times
expressed wonder at not getting awards for their
cooking.  I have pointed out to them several times
that when they serve chimichongas and potato salad as
part of their menu, who would take them seriously? 
Changing a recipe to accomodate your personal taste is
no different than serving chimichongas or potato
salad.  If a recipe says that it is good for haddock
or pike, but does not mention salmon and yet there are
other recipes for salmon in the collection, then don't
you think that the cook would have mentioned that it
was good for salmon too, if he thought so?  So rather
than change the haddock recipe to salmon, you should
instead use another recipe that actually calls for
salmon. But if the cook says that it was good for
haddock or pike or another freshwater fish, then you
have an opportunity to substitute, because there is an
indication that substitutions were thought okay in
that instance.

> It was done on a daily
> basis in our era of study, 
> and I defy anyone who says otherwise to come up with
> proof.  I have the sword 
> of culinary history and evolution to back me up on
> this arguement, sir. 

But you don't know culinary history very well, if you
think that changes were constantly happening during
period.  Most people were not taught to read.  They
learned in an apprenticeship or from their families.
They learned by copying exactly what their betters
did. If they deviated from their masters instructions,
they could be punished or dismissed.  Sometimes when
they were allowed to go out in the world on their own,
then they might make their own changes, but not
everyone did.  

> As I 
> have said, cuisine is a living and fluid art, which
> means it is, was, and 
> always will be changing.  I know there are others on
> this very list who will 
> agree with me.  There are many people on this list
> and in this Society who, 
> it would appear, base their ideas of the medieval
> era solely on precedent, 
> and are incapable or unwilling to look past this,
> and into the "creative" 
> possibility that, yes, indeed, turmeric may have
> been used as a substitute 
> for saffron.  This is a re-creation society...NOT a
> re-enactment society. 

And you, sir, need to look up the definition of
re-creation.  You also need to look up the word
"arrogant".  You will find your name next to the
definition.  Which makes you hypocritical in calling
Lord Ras arrogant.

>       I'll stop now before anyone gets mad.

Too late.

Huette

 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com