SC - Ivanhoe

[Christine A Seelye-King]

Marcus Antaya wrote:
 
> You are correct...I have had very little experiences that were good with
> period feasts.
> Every time I have a "super period" feast, it turns out to be so esoteric
> that nobody seems to be able to eat it. It has indeed prejudiced me to that
> fact and I apologize.

I'm sorry to hear that, but as it's your loss there's no apology needed.
Maybe we can fix that, given time. The fact is that a lot of the
combinations of ingredients used in an undefinably huge percentage of
period dishes from around the known world aren't very different at all
from foods we eat and enjoy today. A lot of people react to stories
about hummingbird tongues, meat so highly spiced you cannot tell it is
rotten, and a plethora of other "facts" about medieval cookery that if
all the stories _were_ true, we wouldn't be here because our ancestors
would have starved or died of food poisoning long before reproducing. 
 
> > It sounds as if you've produced a perfectly fine meal and made a lot of
> > people happy, and this cannot but be a good thing. No problem there, and
> > I congratulate you most sincerely. Suppose, on the other hand, there had
> > been problems and, god forbid, you turned out a lousy meal. Would the
> > age of the recipes have made any difference or made it any less lousy?
> >
> > Bad food is bad. Good food is good. Bad cooks produce bad food no matter
> > what recipes they are working from, and good cooks can produce good food
> > from recipes centuries old, family recipes, or from the latest magazine.
> 
> I hazard to partially disagree with you on that one.
> I agree good cooks can make good food, but I know some very good cooks who
> have made recipies that were just horrible.  All in the name of period.
> However, you are correct for the most part.

Can you give me an example of the kind of thing you're talking about?
Medieval recipes are generally so vague that a _really_ broad range of
foods can be produced by following the instructions more or less
exactly. Two cooks can work on two plates of the same recipe, and
produce two different dishes. Given that a lot of medieval dishes are
things like pancakes, fritters, roasts, perhaps with mustard or
horseradish sauce, soups perhaps thickened with almonds and not very
different from ones eaten today in Spain or India, where does the
instrinsically bad food come in?

Now, I'm not saying you'll never run across a dish that you simply don't
like, no matter what. I've never managed to become a fan of mortrews,
for example, but the range of existing recipes is broad enough that it
is very easy to plan a menu, plan two hundred menus, and never serve
mortrews, and still not repeat dishes or run across something inherently bad.
 
> > Funny... there are extensive instructions in Le Menagier de Paris on how
> > to avoid burning pea soup, and what to do about it... sorry, I just had
> > to mention that... but then, real, live experienced friends are at least
> > as valuable as ones which have been dead for centuries.
> 
> True...I didn't know about the Menagier, I'm very new on this list.
> However, truly good chefs who happen to be friends make life ever so much
> easier.

I agree. Occasionally people have said I'm one of those people; I try.
The thing is, the reason why it's fun to do historical food is that it
renders a third dimension to the histories we read and study.  So many
people concentrate on historical costume for SCA use, for example, and
ignore the rest of what a historical figure would do, and how they
lived. The game that we play in the SCA, to varying extents, is about
recreating historical lifestyles, whether your interest lies in cookery,
tailoring, needlework, some other type of fine arts, fighting (another
sadly neglected, by and large, area that many people don't bother to
research to any extent). Even if you simply see the SCA as a great big
party (which is a fine thing), isn't there some reason why we do this
instead of, say, bungie-jumping or skyboarding, or crossword puzzles? No
matter the extent of one's interest, there has to be some connection,
some interest, in the history part of the game, or it makes no sense to
pursue it instead of some other hobby. I'm not saying this to control
anybody's actions or opinions, I'm just observing that an interest in
history and the recreation of some aspect of historical lifestyles is a
fairly reasonable expectation for a SCAdian, and period food is a part
of that.

> Ok, I also concede I'm letting my prejudice run away with me.  I hacked on
> the period thing, because I'm not a good enough cook yet to be able to pull
> off the stuff I'm not intimately familiar with, ie redacted recipies, but I
> was asked from any number of people if my feast was documentable, and it was
> really starting to get irritating.  I apologize to the list members if I
> offended anyone.

Nahh... you offend? We have some real pros on this list in the
offensiveness department. People like... well... me, for one. Of course,
we have plenty of opinionated souls on this list who will be happy to
Show You The Error of Your Ways, offended or not, as you can see. But is
does sound as if you are saying you weren't comfortable with
experimentation or dealing with Unknown Foods, and that's perfectly
understandable. For a minute it sounded as if you were suggesting you
might not be a good enough cook to carry it off. For an inexperienced
cook, cooking _anything_ for a hundred people can be enough of a shock
to the system. On the other hand, if you're going to go to the effort of
adapting your recipes for a hundred or more, thereby doing something
you've never done before, why not be really daring and find foods that
are historically accurate, tasty, attractive, and close enough to foods
you're familiar with (and this is the trick that will make or break you)
that nobody gets frightened away? Daring is a good quality for a
gently-reared noble, a warrior, and, dare I say it, a herald? Really,
the only thing truly preventing it is the fact that you may simply be
listening to people who tell you that it's impossible, that period food
is bad.

Except... it also sounds as if your crew of happy diners really were
interested to know if your menu was an attempt at historical accuracy,
which is why they kept asking if the dishes were documentable. One of
the fun parts is being able to say, "As a matter of fact, yes!"
Certainly there's nothing wrong with having to say no, especially at a
first feast, it's just that being able to say yes is _more cool_ by a
conservative minimum of 62%. Perhaps getting sick of the question
suggests that on some level you would have liked to say, "Yes." (Don't I
do Axis Sally well? "Say yes, period food is good... you know you want
to... lay down your weapons... eat blankmanger... you know you love
it...") 
 
> > Me, I'm sick and tired of houppelandes. And I'm really tired of garb
> > fascisti trying to make me wear historical clothing at events, in order
> > to create the illusion that we're medieval people...
> 
> Me too....grin.

Well, to tell you a little secret, I was kidding, trying to show that we
might pay more attention in the SCA to what we put into our bodies, in
addition to what we put onto our bodies, by demonstrating how ridiculous
it can sound, making such a claim. Although my extreme preference _is_
for simpler, early-period clothing.

Well, I've probably given you plenty to digest for now. Don't be a stranger.

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com