SC - questions

[Philip & Susan Troy]

david friedman wrote:
> 
> We make those choices for what we think
> good reasons, and it is entirely appropriate to offer those good
> reasons to other people, including novice cooks, in order to persuade
> them to agree with us.

I didn't see the reply as an attempt to persuade anybody toward an ideal
approach, which is why I bothered to respond. While I agreed with the
basic sentiment that we oughtta serve period food, I was concerned with
the effect of the sentiment expressed in comparatively intimidating (for
a new person) negative terms. It is against, it violates the intent of
the SCA, I won't go, neither will my friends.
> 
> >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.
> 
> I agree. But the passage Ras was taking issue with said:
> 
> >  Nothing is wrong with ANY of these, you need to
> >decide what YOU want and what would make your branch happy.
> 
> "Wrong with" isn't limited to "against the rules." There is nothing
> in the rules that prohibits someone from spending the whole event
> sitting in a corner with face to the wall, but there are several
> things wrong with doing so--it isn't any fun for the person doing it,
> and makes no contribution to the event. Similarly I believe, and you
> believe, and for that matter AM believes, that there is something
> wrong with doing modern food at SCA events--that's why we don't do it.

Agreed. A minor quibble, perhaps, but I'd rather think in positive terms
about doing period food than in negative terms about modern food. Period
food at events is a good thing, it teaches people, it is fun, it
enhances the medieval atmosphere we try hard in many other ways to
foster. Those are positive terms. Period food is better than non-period
food; see above. Comparative or relative terms with a positive slant.
You've achieved wonders by going around at events offering people small
treats from period recipes, not by going around saying, "Gimme that
Twinkie, darnit, this is an SCA event, and that's not acceptable!" ;  )  
 
> If you believe that "most people's experience has shown that doing it
> that way is more enjoyable," then you also believe that there is
> something wrong with not doing it that way--namely that it will be
> less enjoyable.

Hmmm. Something's missing here. I don't know if the above works as a
piece of logic. I believe what I wrote in the quoted passage. It is a
qualified statement that period food is preferable to non-period food.
Extensions on that premise are also qualified, so maybe it should read
something like, "most people aren't satisfied with modern food at
events, because it's less enjoyable". My point, as I mince words with
this here 8" Sabatier, is that I don't demand that other people have the
same standards I do, especially a new person. I'll be very happy if
people acquire those standards, but I don't expect it immediately, and
would rather have a new person associate a good time and a creative
experience with his first attempt, rather than being discouraged by fear
of breaking the rules. The first feast I cooked wasn't any great shakes
as a piece of period recreation, but I don't know that, had there been
somebody to tell me that I should not have served, say, the spinach and
cheese pies from a modern recipe, that I'd have adopted my current
attitude any faster.   
> 
> >  > 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.
> 
> And what I (and, I suspect, Ras) object to in this is the moral
> relativist tone--the unwillingness to argue for something you believe
> in for fear you might somehow be misinterpreted as commanding it.The
> fact that something is someone else's decision doesn't mean you
> shouldn't tell them how to make it--it just means that they are free
> to ignore your advice if they want to.

Well, one can argue quite successfully that all morality is relative,
but I suspect we don't want to do that here. What I will say is that I
wouldn't refrain from actively advocating a course out of fear of a
remote chance it might be misinterpreted as a command. I am objecting to
the recommendation of a course that _does_ sound like a command,
directed to a person who has already demonstrated some confusion as to
what the SCA's rules call for, particularly when the same results, in
the long run, can probably be achieved without it. I think we all want
this lady to do period food, and can argue for days about the advantages
of producing it for an SCA event, but I don't think using intimidation
tactics will produce the desired results as well as explaining to the
lady her options, along with an explanation of why one option is better
than another. Which may have been everybody's intent all all along, but
there's always that distorting gap from brain to fingers to keyboard to
eyes to brain.  

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com