SC - questions

[david friedman]

At 1:04 PM -0400 6/14/00, CBlackwill at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 6/13/00 10:20:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, phil at spis.co.nz
>writes:
>
>  > I'd like to suggest a rule of thumb: if it's acceptable to attend the
>  >  event in jeans and t-shirt, then it's perfectly reasonable to have
>  >  obviously modern food. If a reasonable attempt at mediaeval clothing
>  >  is required, I believe we should expect the same standard for the
>  >  food.
>
>This sounds good, but then we have to ask "who's idea of "reasonable" are we
>talking about?"

He specified "obviously modern." A feast that represents an attempt 
at what the cook thinks would have been eaten, with no actual period 
recipes, is in the same category as the sort of garb that is regarded 
as tolerable, but that people are encouraged to improve on.

>   Let's remember that
>everyone's level of interest in the SCA varies.

Correct.

>  Some are in it for the
>fighting, and don't care whether their hauberk is done with period
>stitching... some are in it for the garb, and have no problem eating Sloppy
>Joes at feast... etc...

Note that your parallelism is between a hauberk done with inauthentic 
stitching and an entirely modern dish. It should be either between 
the hauberk with inauthentic stitching and a period recipe with some 
of the details wrong, or between sloppy joes and someone fighting in 
bluejeans and Tshirt. After all, you can walk into an ordinary 20th 
century restaurant (if you choose the right one) and get a sloppy 
joe; it's a little harder to walk into a clothing store and get a 
hauberk.

Or in other words, I think your example demonstrates that you, like a 
lot of other people in the Society, have much lower standards of 
authenticity for cooking than for some other things. That is 
certainly a choice you are entitled to make--but other people are 
entitled to point out that you are making it, and try to persuade 
you.to change your standards.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/