SC - Current Pennsic Cookery Classes

[david friedman]

- --============_-1250946189==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

At 12:25 PM -0400 6/16/00, KallipygosRed at aol.com wrote:

>What I was trying to point out is that some "period cooks" in our
>locality do not equate "period foods" with "tasty foods that people will
>eat". They seem--at least in mine and several other people's opinons (and
>this is based on our experiences, not on having had them say so) to want to
>serve feasts that are designed to outexpert the experts. I hope you
>understand that what I'm trying to say is they are the ones who serve unusual
>and avant garde type period foods that are great for impressing other period
>cooks; but whose taste combinations might want to be tested on a smaller
>audience--say the individual's household members--for reaction to the receipe
>**before** being used at a feast where people are paying to be fed.

Two points:

1. I suspect you are giving the cooks in question too much credit. 
What evidence do you have that they are actually doing things that 
would impress period cooks--rather than trying to impress other 
people, and excusing their bad cooking by claiming it is period?

2.  We (Elizabeth and I) always work out recipes in advance before 
doing them for a feast. Experimenting on your guests is not only rude 
and likely to waste food, it is also a bad way of working out a 
recipe, since you are in too much of a hurry to do it carefully. Our 
normal procedure is to keep redoing a recipe until we are happy with 
it, then adding it to our collection to be used in feasts (and 
elsewhere).

If possible, we do the whole feast for one table worth of people in 
advance, both to see how things go together, to check whether we have 
serious problems with quantities, and to see if there are any kitchen 
bottlenecks we have missed.

>The point I was trying to stress about all this was that because
>of the inability in my research to locate receipes that I could pull from,
>two of the courses were **my** receipes made up from period ingredients which
>was my only fallback at the time.

That's fine. There is nothing wrong with making compromises dictated 
by the limitations in what you know and what you can get hold of at 
the moment. What I was arguing against was the idea that such 
situations are unavoidable, given what is available to be known.

In other words, the conclusion of your story is not "you shouldn't 
have done it" but "you should now learn the things necessary not to 
have to do it again."

>  >  So far as I know, not a single person on this list has argued for
>  >  having a perfectly period feast in all respects. Here and elsewhere,
>  >  that is not doable. Many people on this list argue for having feasts
>  >  be more period than they usually are, and some argue that there is a
>  >  lower limit--roughly defined by corn on the cob and roast
>  >  potatoes--which no SCA feasts ought to fall to.
>
>So, if we're both trying to make the same point, what are we debating? :)

What I am debating (against) is the tendency of people, on this list 
and more often elsewhere, to attribute to people who are in favor of 
authenticity wholly unreasonable views, which makes it easier to 
dismiss them.

>  >  Period people cooked. I doubt that they did it in eight layers of court
>garb.
>
>No, but they did it in layers. I go for the look, and that is a personal
>choice. If my chemise is not real, but just sleeves. If my head wrap is
>actually a constructed hat that slides over messy hair in the kitchen; it is
>done for my convenience while I cook because dressing otherwise gets in the
>way.

It is a choice you are entitled to make--but let me try to persuade 
you to make the opposite choice. People in period had to worry about 
most of the same practical constraints we do. Wouldn't it be more 
interesting to try to do it the way they did, and then figure out how 
they solved the practical problems? That, like working out recipes 
from period sources, is an opportunity for experimental 
archaology--figuring out how things were done by actually trying to 
do them.

One advantage of layers is that you can strip down to adjust to 
temperature; if your chemise is only sleeves, there is a serious 
problem with talking off the overdress in order to get cool. At 
Pennsic I wear period Islamic drawers (more precisely, the best 
reconstruction I can manage given limits of information)--and the 
fact becomes obvious when I am setting up the encampment on a hot 
day, because at that point that's all I'm wearing.

>Again, this is my personal choice. Each person will make their own
>choice as to what and "how period" they will get with their way of dress, or
>cooking--was what I was trying to point out. I've had individuals rag me
>about my clothes in the kitchen; and then watched them catch fire because
>they were inappropriately--although right for period persona and kitchen
>help--dressed.

The fact that they caught fire is evidence that they were doing 
something wrong--period people had even better reasons than we do to 
avoid getting burned.

>And that is why I'm talking about education and
>approachable attitude. If someone is told, "I'm trying my first feast" and
>has a time period they have not a cursory look to the idea of a feast. But if
>we don't ask, "Is it an outside feast, or indoor? Do you have dietary
>restrictions that need to be considered? What is your monetary range? Were
>you thinking of a particular meat or fowl or fish for a main course? Did you
>want to emulate a culture of the world? What did you read about, hear about
>that sparked your idea for this feast? Do you plan to emmulate that feast or
>do you have a certain receipe you want present? Do you have methods of
>keeping the ingredients cold/hot/reheated if necessary." Those kinds of
>planning questions don't usually come out until farther along in the
>discussion regarding the feast menu when I feel that they should come first
>so as to help define a workable menu. That was one of the points I was trying
>to make, as well.

The following is the first paragraph of the article "To Make a Feast" 
from the Miscellany:

The first step in planning a feast, even before choosing recipes, is 
to make a rough estimate of the available resources. How many people 
are willing to spend most of the event helping you cook? How many 
more are willing to spend a few hours chopping onions or rolling 
meatballs? How many ovens and burners does the kitchen have? Is your 
group-or the kitchen you are using-well provided with ten gallon pots 
and twelve inch frying pans? How much money will be available to 
spend on the feast, and how many people should you expect to feed? 
The answers to questions like these will determine what sort of a 
feast it is practical to put on. If you are feeding a hundred people 
by yourself using one stove, you had better plan on something 
simple-perhaps a thick stew, bread, cheese, and fruit. With eight 
assistant cooks and a fair number of helpers, you can plan something 
a good deal more elaborate.

>What I was trying to make a point about regarding ingredients is that if I
>know something was used in period, I'm all for using the modern shortcut of
>it and not considering my rendition of it any less valid. I suspect that most
>on this list and in the area of cooking period believe the same way.
>Otherwise there wouldn't have been the comment about using unhydrated
>concentrated grape juice for must. Unfortunately, I know a great many cooks
>that believe otherwise; that believe that shortcuts shouldn't be taken, and
>if they are, it reduces you in stature somehow of "periodness" of the attempt
>being made. I believe that we all work to the best of our authenticity to
>accomplish at the time, it is a learning experience, and it can only get
>better. So, I guess we are in agreement there, as well.

I think you are confusing two different questions: "Does one have to 
be perfectly authentic" (answer--no) and "Is more authentic better" 
(answer--yes). If someone goes to the trouble of building a quern and 
grinding their own flour in order to get more nearly authentic bread, 
the rest of us ought to recognize that they are doing a better job 
than we are in that particular dimension, and praise them for it.

By doing so, we are conceding that our version is inferior to theirs 
in that respect, so why do you object to saying that our rendition 
was "less valid?" It was. That doesn't mean we are wicked 
people--nobody has the time and knowledge to do everything perfectly. 
It merely means that someone else did better in this particular 
respect than we did, and deserves the credit for doing so.

>What I've heard from newbies is that sometimes they are
>led to believe that to have "fun" in the SCA they must disregard the
>authenticity of it, because the authenticty takes the "fun" out of it. That
>belief is reinforced to them, I believe, when they are approached by those
>with more knowledge who denegrate their efforts without offering positive
>critique/alternatives to how it was done for "next time"; or just flat out
>tell someone, "well, I wouldn't have done it that way, it wasn't period"
>without further explanation/suggestion.

Could be. Most of what I have observed in recent years has been 
online conversation, since aside from Pennsic we don't go to many 
events, the events we go to are geographically concentrated,and not 
much of our time is spent listening to other people's conversation.

Judged by the online discussions, the attitude that fun is 
inconsisent with authenticity is about 98% due to people who are 
arguing against authenticity, and perhaps 2% to people who are 
arguing for it in a tactless fashion.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
- --============_-1250946189==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:25 PM -0400 6/16/00, KallipygosRed at aol.com wrote:


<excerpt>What I was trying to point out is that some "period cooks" in
our 

locality do not equate "period foods" with "tasty foods that people
will 

eat". They seem--at least in mine and several other people's opinons
(and 

this is based on our experiences, not on having had them say so) to
want to 

serve feasts that are designed to outexpert the experts. I hope you 

understand that what I'm trying to say is they are the ones who serve
unusual 

and avant garde type period foods that are great for impressing other
period 

cooks; but whose taste combinations might want to be tested on a
smaller 

audience--say the individual's household members--for reaction to the
receipe 

**before** being used at a feast where people are paying to be fed. 

</excerpt>

Two points:


1. I suspect you are giving the cooks in question too much credit. What
evidence do you have that they are actually doing things that would
impress period cooks--rather than trying to impress other people, and
excusing their bad cooking by claiming it is period?


2.  We (Elizabeth and I) always work out recipes in advance before
doing them for a feast. Experimenting on your guests is not only rude
and likely to waste food, it is also a bad way of working out a recipe,
since you are in too much of a hurry to do it carefully. Our normal
procedure is to keep redoing a recipe until we are happy with it, then
adding it to our collection to be used in feasts (and elsewhere).


If possible, we do the whole feast for one table worth of people in
advance, both to see how things go together, to check whether we have
serious problems with quantities, and to see if there are any kitchen
bottlenecks we have missed.


<excerpt>The point I was trying to stress about all this was that
because 

of the inability in my research to locate receipes that I could pull
from, 

two of the courses were **my** receipes made up from period ingredients
which 

was my only fallback at the time. 

</excerpt>

That's fine. There is nothing wrong with making compromises dictated by
the limitations in what you know and what you can get hold of at the
moment. What I was arguing against was the idea that such situations
are unavoidable, given what is available to be known.


In other words, the conclusion of your story is not "you shouldn't have
done it" but "you should now learn the things necessary not to have to
do it again."


<excerpt>>  So far as I know, not a single person on this list has
argued for 

>  having a perfectly period feast in all respects. Here and elsewhere,

>  that is not doable. Many people on this list argue for having feasts

>  be more period than they usually are, and some argue that there is a

>  lower limit--roughly defined by corn on the cob and roast 

>  potatoes--which no SCA feasts ought to fall to.


So, if we're both trying to make the same point, what are we debating?
:)

</excerpt>

What I am debating (against) is the tendency of people, on this list
and more often elsewhere, to attribute to people who are in favor of
authenticity wholly unreasonable views, which makes it easier to
dismiss them.


<excerpt>>  Period people cooked. I doubt that they did it in eight
layers of court 

garb.


No, but they did it in layers. I go for the look, and that is a
personal 

choice. If my chemise is not real, but just sleeves. If my head wrap is

actually a constructed hat that slides over messy hair in the kitchen;
it is 

done for my convenience while I cook because dressing otherwise gets in
the 

way.

</excerpt>

It is a choice you are entitled to make--but let me try to persuade you
to make the opposite choice. People in period had to worry about most
of the same practical constraints we do. Wouldn't it be more
interesting to try to do it the way they did, and then figure out how
they solved the practical problems? That, like working out recipes from
period sources, is an opportunity for experimental archaology--figuring
out how things were done by actually trying to do them.


One advantage of layers is that you can strip down to adjust to
temperature; if your chemise is only sleeves, there is a serious
problem with talking off the overdress in order to get cool. At Pennsic
I wear period Islamic drawers (more precisely, the best reconstruction
I can manage given limits of information)--and the fact becomes obvious
when I am setting up the encampment on a hot day, because at that point
that's all I'm wearing.


<excerpt>Again, this is my personal choice. Each person will make their
own 

choice as to what and "how period" they will get with their way of
dress, or 

cooking--was what I was trying to point out. I've had individuals rag
me 

about my clothes in the kitchen; and then watched them catch fire
because 

they were inappropriately--although right for period persona and
kitchen 

help--dressed. 

</excerpt>

The fact that they caught fire is evidence that they were doing
something wrong--period people had even better reasons than we do to
avoid getting burned.


<excerpt>And that is why I'm talking about education and 

approachable attitude. If someone is told, "I'm trying my first feast"
and 

has a time period they have not a cursory look to the idea of a feast.
But if 

we don't ask, "Is it an outside feast, or indoor? Do you have dietary 

restrictions that need to be considered? What is your monetary range?
Were 

you thinking of a particular meat or fowl or fish for a main course?
Did you 

want to emulate a culture of the world? What did you read about, hear
about 

that sparked your idea for this feast? Do you plan to emmulate that
feast or 

do you have a certain receipe you want present? Do you have methods of

keeping the ingredients cold/hot/reheated if necessary." Those kinds of

planning questions don't usually come out until farther along in the 

discussion regarding the feast menu when I feel that they should come
first 

so as to help define a workable menu. That was one of the points I was
trying 

to make, as well. 

</excerpt>

The following is the first paragraph of the article "To Make a Feast"
from the Miscellany:


<fontfamily><param>Times</param><smaller>The first step in planning a
feast, even before choosing recipes, is to make a rough estimate of the
available resources. How many people are willing to spend most of the
event helping you cook? How many more are willing to spend a few hours
chopping onions or rolling meatballs? How many ovens and burners does
the kitchen have? Is your group-or the kitchen you are using-well
provided with ten gallon pots and twelve inch frying pans? How much
money will be available to spend on the feast, and how many people
should you expect to feed? The answers to questions like these will
determine what sort of a feast it is practical to put on. If you are
feeding a hundred people by yourself using one stove, you had better
plan on something simple-perhaps a thick stew, bread, cheese, and
fruit. With eight assistant cooks and a fair number of helpers, you can
plan something a good deal more elaborate.


</smaller></fontfamily><excerpt>What I was trying to make a point about
regarding ingredients is that if I 

know something was used in period, I'm all for using the modern
shortcut of 

it and not considering my rendition of it any less valid. I suspect
that most 

on this list and in the area of cooking period believe the same way. 

Otherwise there wouldn't have been the comment about using unhydrated 

concentrated grape juice for must. Unfortunately, I know a great many
cooks 

that believe otherwise; that believe that shortcuts shouldn't be taken,
and 

if they are, it reduces you in stature somehow of "periodness" of the
attempt 

being made. I believe that we all work to the best of our authenticity
to 

accomplish at the time, it is a learning experience, and it can only
get 

better. So, I guess we are in agreement there, as well. 

</excerpt>

I think you are confusing two different questions: "Does one have to be
perfectly authentic" (answer--no) and "Is more authentic better"
(answer--yes). If someone goes to the trouble of building a quern and
grinding their own flour in order to get more nearly authentic bread,
the rest of us ought to recognize that they are doing a better job than
we are in that particular dimension, and praise them for it.


By doing so, we are conceding that our version is inferior to theirs in
that respect, so why do you object to saying that our rendition was
"less valid?" It was. That doesn't mean we are wicked people--nobody
has the time and knowledge to do everything perfectly. It merely means
that someone else did better in this particular respect than we did,
and deserves the credit for doing so.


<excerpt>What I've heard from newbies is that sometimes they are 

led to believe that to have "fun" in the SCA they must disregard the 

authenticity of it, because the authenticty takes the "fun" out of it.
That 

belief is reinforced to them, I believe, when they are approached by
those 

with more knowledge who denegrate their efforts without offering
positive 

critique/alternatives to how it was done for "next time"; or just flat
out 

tell someone, "well, I wouldn't have done it that way, it wasn't
period" 

without further explanation/suggestion.

</excerpt>

Could be. Most of what I have observed in recent years has been online
conversation, since aside from Pennsic we don't go to many events, the
events we go to are geographically concentrated,and not much of our
time is spent listening to other people's conversation. 


Judged by the online discussions, the attitude that fun is inconsisent
with authenticity is about 98% due to people who are arguing against
authenticity, and perhaps 2% to people who are arguing for it in a
tactless fashion. 

David/Cariadoc

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/

- --============_-1250946189==_ma============--