SC - questions/kinda long, sorry

[KallipygosRed at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/15/00 9:38:26 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
ddfr at best.com writes:

> >If you know you are from a small barony, or a shire,
>  >and the people you are serving are limited; and the goal of the feast is 
to
>  >at least break even...then you need to keep in mind what people will 
**eat**
> .
>  
>  An entirely period concern, and one that period cooks had even more 
>  reason than we do to take account of, since their jobs depended onit. 
>  Fortunately, there is a wide range of period food in the surviving 
>  recipes, so no conflict between making recipes that are period and 
>  recipes that people will eat.

Good. Then we are in agreement on this. I wasn't saying that it wasn't 
period. 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. I realize 
that some of you who have been doing this for a long time may consider that a 
"known" point when setting up a feast menu, that is, using **tried out** 
receipes; but here we have had not one but many encounters of what we 
consider being experimented on by cooks using their newest translation and 
dying to try it out on us. 

I'm new enough at this, and novice enough at this still--having done only a 
few feasts in my time; and only one really important **big feast** (over 300 
people) that I floundered with this at more than one of my own feasts early 
on. I've seen it happen for others who are starting out, too. The idea was to 
keep them from making that kind of costly mistake right off the bat.
  
>  >It doesn't do any good, as I've said before, to serve fish in our 
locality.
>  >It doesn't go over. We have tried salmon, trout, and various other 
> wonderful
>  >fish to have it returned practically uneaten and at great cost for a small
>  >limited budget.
>  
>  A mistake that can be made equally easily if you are doing a period 
>  or a non-period feast.
  
Yep. Again we are not in disagreement. What I was trying to say, is that it 
is important to know the audience for whom you are cooking; and again, to use 
tried out receipes that are acceptable to that audience. I'm not saying that 
things should not be tried out as new and the same old standard receipes used 
for every feast ad nauseum. What I was trying to say--and evidentally not 
expressing in written form very well--is that if you want to try out a new 
receipe, with expensive ingredients, and with taste or look that might be 
considered "doubtful" by the participants **then try to create it in advance 
of the feast and try it out on people**. 

I'm in memory of a feast that a collegium teacher told me of where she wanted 
to try a particular receipe using octopus, fried up. Tasted great, she said, 
when she tried it on herself. But when she took the small plate she had made 
in advance and served it to her household four of the ten people there told 
her it tasted too bland; one said they didn't like the taste at all, four 
adored it, and one threw up. However, none of the children of the household 
members would eat it. Said it was too "icky". Kids tastes, particularly, she 
was trying to point out, are odd. They will consume and insist upon hot dogs 
every day for two weeks, then say they don't like hot dogs and nothing you do 
will convince them to eat another for months. Her point to all this was, by 
trying out the "new" receipe in advance on her household she was able to 
discover that she could get away with reducing the ingredients that made it 
taste salty, she could reduce the amount served because there were going to 
be those who just didn't eat it, and basically, she was not going to get many 
children interested in it, so she might want to serve something else 
especially for the children during that part of the course during which she 
was going to serve the octupus. She was trying to point out to us that if she 
**hadn't** tried it out first on other palates it would have been too salty, 
uneaten by many parents for that reason, uneaten by most if not all of the 
kids, and she would have wasted a great deal of her budget on the single 
ingredient which to her little shire would have been an expensive mistake to 
recover from before the next feast came into being. All I was trying to say 
by bringing up the known example that our Barony has an "issue" with fish 
products at feasts based on experience, is that since I'm aware of that, I 
should make darn sure in advance that any receipe having fish as a major 
ingredient should be trial tested in other forums first before I decide that 
simply because I like fish I can spend a large junk of the feast budget on it 
and expect it to go over simply because I'm a great cook and I'm making the 
feast and the receipe I want to draw on is period for that fish. I believe a 
lot of newbies get so enthusiastic about doing a feast from a period source 
that they sometimes don't stop to think if the ingredients will be good for a 
wide range of taste palates that they will be serving. Granted you all, and 
me from my own experience, may have learned that already and do so without 
even consciously thinking about it. But a newbie signing on to the list for 
the first time, and asking questions for the first time about how to serve a 
feast or ingredients that make up a 14th century feast, may not have 
considered that. I was only trying to point out the obvious mistakes that can 
arise if not considered well in advance of the event. Perhaps that was my 
mistake.
  
>  >The point is, when you know that most
>  >folks will eat fowl, some will eat meat, that the attending king is a
>  >vegetarian, and the queen has an allergy to wheat based products...it can 
> put
>  >a damper on the feast staying truly period.
>  
>  Being vegetarian is entirely period--Chiquart provides a whole 
>  alternate menu to cover that possibility. If the queen (or anyone 
>  else) has an allergy to wheat based products, that is a good reason 
>  not to include wheat in everything you serve.
 

>  You seem to be assuming that if she doesn't have bread, she can't 
>  eat. You also seem to be assuming that soy flour (not available in 
>  Europe in our period, to the best of my knowledge) is the only 
>  substitute for wheat flour--when in fact there were a variety of 
>  grains other than wheat used to make bread in period.
>  
>  Or in other words, aren't you deliberately and unrealistically 
>  rigging your example--jumping from the existence of a problem that 
>  the cook ought to take account of to the assumption that the only 
>  solution is to introduce an out of period ingredient?

No, again I apologize as my writing and my example may not have been the 
best. I sniped the history of it when I sent it in as the point seemed 
relevant without going into it. But since it has become an arbitrary point, 
there was more to it than that. It was my first coronation event, I had over 
150 people coming, including the crown. I had done only two other feasts 
prior, for a much smaller group of 20-30 people each. I was somewhat 
overwhelmed and floundering. Unfortunately, although I was responsible for 
the meal planning, and the cooking, I was not the autocrat of the event. The 
autocrat informed me that the king had many allergies, as did the queen. The 
king was allergic to nuts, citrus, citric acid preservative in any form, was 
a vegetarian, and dairy products. The queen was allergic to wheat based 
products and eggs. I was new enough at this time that I didn't have access to 
a wide range of period cookbooks outside of the local library (very, very 
few), some well known books I had been told by guild members never to use as 
they were "not" period, and I didn't have access to a list like this to check 
with people outside of the immediate area who might have expertise and help 
me with the dilemma. So, I researched on my own. What was worse was that 
there were three or four items in the menu that I was told I **would** 
include from guild members who would show me how to make, prepare, etc., but 
whose cost of ingredients I would have to cover out of my budget. They were 
showing off for the crown. Fine, except that the ingredients of those meals 
were a little pricey for the $3 per head that I was going to be allowed to 
charge. Because of the dietary restrictions of the crown, and because I 
wanted it to be enjoyable for them as well and not just another event they 
presided over, I came up with receipes substituting what I knew they could 
eat, altering the ingredients where I could. I used goats milk instead of cow 
milk; that sort of thing. I also printed special menus just for them that 
listed all the ingredients and in what ratio in case there was another 
allergy (like to alcohol) that I had not been made aware of prior to serving. 
We had eight courses, and the dessert course was three items. I garnered many 
compliments. 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. I used soy flour for one only because I 
have allergic kids and had a multitude of soy flour on hand to draw from 
without expense. I didn't know if soy was period, but I did know that most 
individuals with wheat based allergies also have minor reactions to other 
bread sources except soy...so I used it. It wasn't period, but it was as 
period as I could make it for her without having her rushed to a hospital.  I 
was later approached by her and told that in the entirety of her reigns (and 
they had had several) no one had gone out of their way to do this for them 
and it had made feasting a chore. They had truly had a marvelous time and 
eaten well. Again, the point I was trying to make was that using period 
ingredients sometimes is the only fallback when you don't have a receipe to 
work from for the instance; and that each meal should be made as period as 
possible for the instance and circumstances.

 >Do you see what I'm getting at here? I'm not saying that everyone who 
attempts 
> a
>  >feast can go into it on the perfect aspect of having a period feast in all
>  >respects.
>  
>  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? :)

>  >  For kitchen wear I will "costume" myself in
>  >something that easily throws together and has the right look. It may not 
be
>  >totally authentic because I'm not gonna wear something that has eight 
> layers
>  >around hot ovens; and has to be dry cleaned to boot. In court, now that 
may
>  >require the full dress.
>  
>  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. 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. 

>  My point here is not that one has to be perfectly period all of the 
>  time--that isn't a practical option for anyone. What I am taking 
>  issue with is a particular argument for not being authentic--one 
>  which identifies "authentic" with "very fancy, elaborate, and 
>  expensive," thus ignoring the existence of everything in the Middle 
>  Ages outside of royal courts.

And yet, most newbies who come into the game think, erronously, that the only 
type of feasting that applies are those from the royal courts; and so they 
come in thinking that they have to emmulate expensive unusual subtlties, 
unusual sauces, etc. 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. 

 
>  >Yes, when I talk to people who are interested in
>  >sewing period I tell them how they can do it period. (sniped)...on one of 
my other lists they 
> have
>  >been talking about how Guilds require you to finish your seams in period
>  >style by period methods. Sorry, for this reason I will **never** join a
>  >guild. In our neck of the woods, it is not a requirement for A&S 
> Competition
>  >to do your seams this way, just to **know** that the seams would have been
>  >finished that way and document it for the judges.

>  2. You are putting the arguments in terms of "requirement for" and 
>  "require to." In my view, that is  the wrong way to think about all 
>  of these issues, whether A&S contests or anything else.  There isn't 
>  a single level of authenticity such that everything below it is 
>  worthless and there is no value to doing anything above it.

Again, I wasn't trying to say that it was. I was trying to say that different 
areas have different views as to what constitutes doing something 
"authentically".
>  
>  The proper categories are not "right" and "wrong" but "better" and 
>  "worse." Garments in the form of period garments are better than ones 
>  based on a vague idea out of memories of Prince Valiant. They are 
>  better still if they are of period fabrics. Better still if the 
>  fabrics were handwoven on period looms. Better still if died with 
>  period dyes. Better still ...  . There isn't any upper limit, hence 
>  "yes/no" categories are inappropriate.

Agreed. And there are good reasons not to have something that is made from 
period fabric and period dyes, and have the look of period just the same. 
That was another point that I was trying to make. There are different levels 
of what each individual will accept or believe is "authentic enough". The 
more knowledge a person amasses regarding their discipline, the more they 
tend toward wanting more authenticity I have found. There is a Thegn here who 
explained to me as a newbie that everyone starts out in the SCA generally as 
believing that they can recreate the middle ages of Conan the Barbarian in 
their dress/camp gear/feasting to some degree. As they learn about things, 
attend classes, they begin to understand the actual period parameters and the 
things that happened and **why** and **how** of it. They make changes. 
Eventually, with knowledge, they begin to hunger for authenticity in their 
own persona/camp/interests and they begin to grow and eventually give back to 
the SCA in general by teaching others, writing articles, etc. But it is a 
slow process and frustrating to someone who is totally new  who may feel 
bombarded with the authenticity aspects of it at every turn.
  
>  >I know how they were constructed, and if it becomes a requirement to
>  >construct it that way to enter the item; then I will consider it.
>  
>  If the reason to construct it that way is to enter a contest, I 
>  suggest you should instead be spending your time doing garments in 
>  the way you think they should be done....(sniped)

Agreed, whole heartedly. Each of us must choose the level to which we want to 
cultivate authenticity. But it doesn't just apply to clothing, it also 
applies to food, illumination, weaponry, tent making, furniture making, 
gaming....  There will be some who take advice and want to redo the menu of a 
feast item for item, ingredient for ingredient, without substitution for any 
reason and without using an easier modified version. There will be those at 
the bottom who are looking for the period "atmosphere" of a feast and have no 
intention of using period food ingredients. In the middle somewhere there 
will be the rest of us who want to make each feast as period as possible in 
all respects: food, entertainment, service, decoration.... 
>  
>  All of which is related to my general distaste for A&S contests and 
>  the culture they foster--the idea that authenticity is something we 
>  do because other people tell us to do it and will reward us with 
>  prizes if we do what they say, instead of something we do because it 
>  is fun, interesting, and makes the Society a better game.

Agreed. My distaste comes more from having my work ridiculed when I have 
attempted my best. That is a personal flaw. I hate to have my baby told its 
ugly. :)  I understand from the Premier Duke of Atenveldt that I spoke to 
once at an event that original A&S competitions was not to give prizes; that 
was secondary, but to show off the work that we were developing based on the 
ongoing research. A sharing of that with a demonstrable object to illuminate 
the research. A knife or sword made in the specifications of research 
documented. On that face, I like the A&S competitions. More like visiting a 
recreated musuem.
>  
>  >Or if I
>  >have a hankering to prove to myself that I can do it by hand, I might 
> attempt
>  >it.
>  
>  That's a good reason--entering a contest isn't, in my view.

Yep. Only reason I would try it, actually.
>  
>  >The same will hold for feasting, for me.
>  >If I know that flour and baking powder were used in a receipe for some 
sort
>  >of bread, then I have no aversion to using mixtures to cut out a step.
>  
>  As it happens, baking powder wasn't used at all--it appears to be 
>  long out of period.
(snip)
>I agree that people can be rude about authenticity, just as they can be 
>  rude in attacking authenticity--but that is an argument for being 
>  courteous, not an argument for or against being authentic or 
>  encouraging other people to be.]
>  
>  David/Cariadoc

Mea Culpa. I apologize for the example. I said I was still a novice at this. 
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. 

But I also believe that how we come across to those we speak to will affect 
their desire for authenticity on any subject. On other cooking lists, and a 
couple times on this list, I've heard someone say, "Well I want to do a this 
and that period feast" and then ask if a certain food is period. Then we all 
jump back with response. Sometimes the response comes across as 
short/curt/derogatory when it is not meant to be.  Granted, saying "Never did 
that. Wouldn't use that. Won't try, not period" saves a lot of bandwith when 
responding to someones request/questions; but it also could be intrepreted as 
short/curt to the individual. We are writing to be read, here, without 
inflection. Sometimes that can be difficult to interpret. The reader doesn't 
know any of us personally, and doesn't know any of our backgrounds. Although 
not meant to be blunt or sound "standoffish" it does happen to be interpreted 
that way sometimes. And attitudes can develop on lesser basis toward someone 
or some genre for lesser reasons than feeling brushed off and ignored or 
talked down toward. 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. I suspect that at times like that a 
newbie feels--and I've been told--they have to live up immediately to the 
level of authenticity that the other person is expounding on, or not attempt 
to play/learn/express in that discipline. And I've often been told that it 
instills in them a fear to ask questions again of the experts, but instead to 
stumble about in the dark making mistakes and growing much more slowly or 
frustratingly. This is most likely not the case but in few isolated 
incidents, but the behavior is now learned and it will take unlearning, which 
takes longer. So, we have to be careful how we respond whether in person to 
someone, or in written format. That was the only point I was trying to make 
with regard to that. I'm sure no one on this list, or in person, is 
deliberatly "thoughtless" to a person, but we sometimes speak "without 
thinking" how it can be intepreted, which is a whole different aspect of 
communication everyone needs to consider. Maybe this is such a point with me 
because I'm a paralegal and spend each day entrenched in that aspect of 
communication and meaning/intent. If so, I apologize for wasting the 
bandwith. But we all deal with that every day here too, or we wouldn't have 
so many interpretations on the face of things like the actual aspect of 
whether it means in a receipe to "grind the mustard" into flour or paste....

Okay. Now enough on that. We seem to be in agreement on most of the major 
points. As I said, my attitudes are novice oriented, and may change as I 
progress and get closer to the skill you all on the list possess with regard 
to this subject. I would be shocked if they don't to some degree. Sorry that 
I just wasn't clear enough on my personal viewpoints earlier to keep from 
starting an uproar. -sigh- Now back to lurking under my rock... 8)

Lars