[Sca-cooks] Redaction? Definitions and commentary

[david friedman]

I wrote

>>An adaptation would be if you had the recipe for cooking over an 
>>open fire and converted it into "so many minutes on the stove at 
>>medium" and the like.

Adamantius replied:

>Perhaps you're confusing "the best way to do" something with 
>"universal practice"?
>
>Too often what is known as a redaction in the SCA is a modern recipe 
>which produces a dish similar in content and structure (to some 
>varying extent) to the original dish. Unfortunately, it's probably 
>more often than not; it's probably a function of the way moderns 
>learn to cook. The better versions will also include the original, 
>but frequently include nothing more than an attribution.

I wouldn't describe a modern recipe that the cook thought produced 
something similar to a period recipe as a redaction. If I use the 
term, it is to mean an attempt to recreate a period recipe by filling 
in the missing information.

>Now, bearing in mind that "redact" is essentially synonymous with 
>"edit", how is providing the original recipe with notes a redaction? 
>Has the text been changed (transcription changes notwithstanding) or 
>merely added to in a way that makes the distinction between text and 
>addition obvious? I would say it's more a period recipe in annotated 
>form.

I wan't arguing for "redaction;" I don't know what the best term is. 
I was arguing against "adaptation." As you mentioned earlier, I tend 
to use "worked out recipe."
-- 
David/Cariadoc
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/