[Sca-cooks] Out of the food topic altogether rantAuthenticitypolice

Mon Feb 7 19:18:09 PST 2005

--- Jeff Gedney <gedney1 at iconn.net> wrote:

> >> You comment about their garb implies that you have that very common idea that they only
> people
> >> who can talk to anyone else about authenticity are people who have 100% of everything
> authentic.
> >
> >
> >"Hello, Kettle??   This is Pot.  YOU'RE BLACK!!!"
> >
> >
> >Yeah...don't go there, please.  If someone came up to me wearing polyester garb or
> Birkenstocks,
> >and tried to deride me for using an undocumented recipe, I'd tell them where they could shove
> it,
> >in no uncertain terms.
> >
> >Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.... or else keep your jaw closed.
> >
> > 
> 
> *sigh* 
> 
> by your standards we are never allowed to question anyone, ever, regardless of what they wear,
> what they do.
> 
> bullpucky

I'm going to nip this in the bud before I read any further.  Bear in mind that my post indicated
*derogatory* comments made about the inauthenticity of this-or-that by another who was,
him/herself, less-than-authentic.  That's where I draw the line.  If I ask someone what they think
of my attempt at authenticity, or what I could do to make it more period, then I have invited
comments.  If another approaches me and asks, without malice or a holier-than-thou attitude, why I
did this-or-that, or included this-or-that in a recipe, then I will engage them in friendly
conversation, and quite possibly learn/teach something.  I have absolutely NO problem with this
kind of questioning/criticism.  My initial post on this subject quite clearly indicated that
criticism vomited out by another who is not above reproach is what gets my goat, and which will
land them in the crosshairs of a verbal assault they probably were not expecting.  And, truth be
told, you should just be happy with the effort you, yourself, have made.... and not really be all
that concerned about what others are doing.

Now, I will read on, and hope that the rest of this message is not based upon a misreading of my
comments...

> 
> >If you can't be 100% accurate, then you sure as heck shouldn't heckle someone else who is not
> 100%
> >accurate.
> 
> There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and offering some alternative sources. 
> There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and offering a candid assessment of what
> you think about the persons efforts at the behest of the recipient. 
> There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and mentioning quietly to a friend that
> susch and such is not all that period. 
> There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and politely asking what sources they
> used. 
> There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and asking why modern elements are
> knowingly and intentionally chosen for activities or garb. 

Ahh...too bad.  It is as I had feared.  Allrighty.

Yes, there is a difference between what you describe and 'heckling'.  I'm not concerned with the
non-heckling portion of our show.  Moving on to the next scene...

> 
> I have at various times been accused of snarking and being an authenticity "nazi" ( even had my
> picture posted on a web site, my face on an SS officers uniform ) for simply pointing out, when
> asked, that rum, skulls and crossed bones and tricorn hats are not period, which even a little
> research past certain disney movies will show. 

If you were asked, and answered in kind, then you are, in my mind, free of guilt.  If you weren't
asked, and merely pointed out the anachronism to make yourself look or feel better or smarter than
the next guy, then eternal shame on you.  That's the difference.  If you need a better explanation
of my stance on this, please contact me off list and I will give it to you with no punches pulled.
 I have a rather foul mouth to begin with, and this topic sours my tongue more than most others. 
However, if you need further clarification, I'll offer it up.

> 
> I can't tell you the number of times I have seen people take an innocent and helpful observation
> as trenchant criticism,

Yeah, that's going to happen from time to time.  It's unfortunate.

> >And maybe some other people just need to mind their own business, and not try to detract from
> >another persons efforts.  Maybe??  Maybe??
> 
> Tell me, William, in what way is asking a person what sources they used detracting? 

Please see above.  Again, I was not taking issue, nor do I now, with the kind and courteous
approach.  It is the attempt at detraction which rakes against my bones.

> If I as a cook, am interested in some food you are making, and I, as a cook do not know the
> provenance of your recipe, and I as a cook am primarily interested in period recipes, the simple
> fact that I am interested in period recipoes means I have to mind my own business? 

Not at all.  I would welcome the discussion, provided it were approached in the manner of friendly
discourse.  However, if you came into my encampment, stuck your nose into my marmite and said
'this is not period', I would probably shove your head the rest of the way in and duct tape the
lid back on.  That's me...that's how I roll.

> 
> So the fact that I am interested in authenticity means I should butt out and go play in my
> corner and never talk to anyone because I might offend soemone by asking for provenance?

Nope.  It means you should not demean another for their shortcomings.

> Why does the fact that I may not have a good deal on knowlege of 12th century clothing mean I
> cant know anything about 11th century Naabinding, or even 15th Century French cooking? 
> The simeple fact is, that NOBODY can be expert in EVERYTHING.

Then, perhaps, they should not pretend to be? 
> 
> I know people who have 100% perfect garb, 

This would require some qualification, first of all, before I would believe it to be anything
other than an exaggeration.  If any portion of that garb (home made or otherwise) was put together
using a sewing machine or any other non-period tool, dye, button, technique or implement, then
sorry...it ain't 100%.

> And I know people who wear polyester tunics or other equivalents and who can write doctoral
> level theses on the ingredients in powdre fort, or on peageantry or heraldry, or on falconry. 
> So the fact that these people arent interested in dressing period means that they are NOT
> capable of making an informed commentary on wheterh stuff that they HAVE studied has period
> provenance? 

Depends on how they offer that information.  If they do it with a sneer and a 'knowing wink', then
they need to have their head soaked in my stew pot.  If they do it in a proper, courteous manner,
then they are welcome to drink from my Wassail bowl.

> 100% period is simply impossible. 
> There is so much to recreate that the notion that you have to do everything perfectly before you
> can comment even on something you are well trained in is, to put it mildly, ludicrous.

I agree, with the caveats listed above.

> 
> Lets follow your logic to its extreme...
> So next time a guy shows up in Klingon garb at my local event, because I might have orlon thread
> sewing my hose together, I can't have and express an opinion about it?

Depends on how you do it.  Technically, you *can* have and express an opinion about anything you
want.  However, if you express that opinion in an indelicate or insulting manner, then you're more
than likely going to find yourself the recipient of a vulgar gesture, if not a boink on the
noggin.  Hey, you take your chances.

> I will admit, freely, that 90% of the cases of "authenticity policing" is committed by people
> who go about making unsolicited commentary and are are a**holes with nothing better to do. 
> I do not in any defend them and their method of co-opting authenticity as a conversation hammer
> to put down another and thereby feel superior.

Yup.  And it's these jackasses who will find themselves booted out of my encampment faster than
they can say 'Maestro Martino'.  In fact, if I see this happening to someone else, even if I don't
know the person, I'll intervene and rake so hard that the aggressor will recoil in shame.

> 
> But a good 10% or more of "Authenticity Policing" actually occurs at the behest of the commented
> upon, who just dont like the answer they get and complain to their friends about it.

Tough nuts for them, I guess.  If they can't take the heat, they shouldn't ask for a match.

> But one thing is true, unless the laws of free speech are repealed, one place where
> "Authenticity policing" DOES NOT HAPPEN is here, in public fora, and while commenting upon a
> public topic, where even we authenticists are entitled to our opinion, and moreover bloody well
> entitled to express it. 
> 

Absolutely.  Just expect a scathing reply if you try to bust someone's chops.

William de Grandfort

=====
Through teeth of sharks, the Autumn barks.....and Winter squarely bites me.

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com 