SC - questions

[LrdRas@aol.com]

LrdRas at aol.com wrote:
> 
> AM wrote something that sounded like the following then said many wonderful
> things then said something that sounded; like the same thing again:
> 
> << Some groups tend towards "nothing blatantly out of period" menus, with a
> running theme only as far as what folks dress in, etc. Some groups tends
> towards every recipe coming out of a specific body of work and
> everything...food, service, entertainment's, etc., all matching. Some groups
> couldn't care less and just provide tasty modern food to feed the masses so
> they can go do other things. Nothing is wrong with ANY of these, you need to
> decide what YOU want and what would make your branch happy.>>
> 
> I must take exception to this. The service of blatantly non-period food at
> any event by any group is objectionable and does nothing to further the
> medieval atmosphere that is so important to having a good experience at an
> event. Just because others have done something (e.g., served spaghetti and
> pizza) at a feast does not mean that such activity is acceptable.

Acceptable to whom? Perhaps there's something in the Constitution on
this. There are no rules, as far as I know, regarding the extent to
which a kitchener pursues authenticity in a feast. I have high standards
of authenticity, so do you, so does AM, so do many of us. These
standards are rule systems designed by and for us, that we choose to
live by. They have no bearing as rules for anybody who doesn't
voluntarily adopt them, least of all in connection with a new cook
trying to grasp what it is we do. 
> 
> I would suggest that all the advice concerning serving such non-period and
> blatantly modern foods be taken with a very large grain of thought. I have
> never served any blatantly non-period foods at any feast I have done in the
> past 18 years and, it is my personal opinion that any new cook should never
> be encouraged to do so under any circumstances.

I don't think that's what AM did. I think she was trying to make the
lady comfortable with the idea of pursuing something fun in her own way,
rather than going into conniption fits worrying about what the SCA
permits (I think that was the word she used) her to do. If the lady
decides to make a real effort to do an accurate period recreation within
the theme of her event, that will be wonderful and we'll all be proud of
her, I'm sure. But she should do it because most people's experience has
shown that doing it that way is more enjoyable than simply slinging any
old hash, not out of fear that people will disapprove.
> 
> It is both unnecessary and well outside the scope of the SCA in general.
> There is no difference of expectation of 'pre-17th century' in feast service
> than there is in garb or any other aspect of the SCA. To encourage such a
> route is appalling, IMO. I and many others do not attend any events that
> serve a feast that is not at the very least an attempt at pre-17th century
> food no matter what the other pluses are for the event.

Neither do I, as a rule. But, again, not everyone in the SCA is like you
or me, and on the off chance that the lady's group would rather have a
simple meal of familiar foods requiring no research, that might be what
is best _for them_. I don't think that it is, but it's their decision.
 
> If you need suggestions on simple periodlike menu suggestions or need help in
> finding, redacting or interpreting period style food for your feasts don't
> hesitate to contact me.

I recommend this as well; Lord Ras has been a wonderful resource for so
many, as have a lot of others on the cooks' list. If that's what the
lady wants to do, I can't recommend it more highly.

> Good habits put in place in the beginning are far
> better than trying to break old habits once they are instilled.

Ordinarily, that's true. But lessons one learns from experience tend to
teach better than having other people's work habits pressured onto us. 

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com