[Sca-cooks] Menu

[Siegfried Heydrich]

    Actually, I have been agitating for a long time to change the sequence
from court first, then feast to feast, then court. The majority of feasts I
have attended have suffered severely from the 'drag-ass court syndrome',
where the food comes out dry, cold, etc. As a feastcrat, I have thrown pink
and purple fits because court got started an hour late, ran an hour over,
and then the crowns just disappeared and the autocrat didn't want to start
feast without them . . .
    There are many advantages to reversing the order. First, the food
quality will not suffer from excessive delays, and you're far more likely to
get people to attend feast simply because the food will come out hot, moist,
tasting like it should. The daytrippers who are accustomed to leaving right
after court and hitting a restaurant on the way home are a lot more likely
to attend feast as well, and maybe they'll actually stay on site and attend
bardics . . .
    The Crowns (and the servitors) get a chance to eat and wind down a bit
after what was probably a long and fairly hectic day before having to deal
with court. The Heralds have more time to finish all their paperwork and
prepare scrolls before court. It's a LOT easier and less hectic to convert
the hall for court after feast than it is to set up for feast after court.
(no people trying to put their feast baskets on the tables you're trying to
set up). You also avoid the 'pig out on the bread and cheese' difficulty.
And if court runs late then, who cares? You've eaten, you're relaxed, and
when it's over, you can go party.
    In short, I think shifting the sequence would make for a vast
improvement over the current system, and make the event far more enjoyable
for just about everybody.

    Sieggy

-----Original Message-----

>Not criticism, just a leading comment/question. While I know it is very
>appropriate to the majority (if not all) of time periods, I find that in
the
>SCA, by having more than 2 - 3 major courses (not counting an opening
and/or
>closing course) you end up with a great deal of waste in the final courses.
>What I mean by a major course is a meat/veggie/starch course that has
decent
>quantities. It may just be the way feasts work in my area, but most fourth
>courses that I have seen end up with at least half of every dish remaining
>on the table.
>
>This could be attributed to the fact that we (in my area) almost always
have
>court before feast, and the first meat course that is set before those
>assembled gets consumed like rabid dogs. The second course a bit more
>liesurely, and then the third is just gilding the lily. It could be
>attributed to the fact that most people are not used to multi-course meals
>and have no idea that you are supposed to have small servings of everyting
&
>pace yourself. There are many reasons this could be, but the end result is
>the same. If there are courses beyond the 3rd it tends to go to waste -
with
>people looking wistfully at the last delicious dish to come out and wishing
>they had left room.
>
>So, those are my thoughts. I am not suggesting that you should cull a
>course - unless you really want to. Possibly I am suggesting you take extra
>thought to your serving size and serve smaller portions that would force
the
>feasters to pace themselves. I think the feast looks absolutely lovely,
>exceptionally so. But then again, even never having met you it is exactly
>the level of excellence I would expect from you. :)
>
>Glad Tidings,
>Serena da Riva