[Sca-cooks] Cooks within the SCA
ladyadele at paradise.net.nz
Thu Aug 21 15:36:25 PDT 2008
>Did anyone think that he was trying to be considerate in informing the staff
>not to count him in for feast. That he probably would not have been there
>for feast had he not had to serve head table which is a tradition? And
>failed to convey that normally he doesn't eat feast for personal reasons
>like bad experiences, to many allergies...etc. (which means he sucked it up
>while being King)?
Which would all be fine if it were done ahead of time and didn't involve
the word "refuse". I don't have a problem with him not eating-- I have
a problem with the way he spoke to the cook. It all could have been
covered nicely by-- "I'm not exactly at this feast--I haven't paid for
the meal, and I'm just here to serve their Majesties, so please don't
send me any food." or "May I come off board? I have to be present to
serve their majesties, but I have a number of allergies and I don't want
to put anyone to any trouble".
>I remember at one feast in the early days that the seating was 80 but only
>65 signed up. There had been a slue of bad feasts prior to the event
>elsewhere. The feast had people exclaiming to those who ate out that they
>missed a most delicious and satisfying feast. Basically, some (several?)
>people go by the saying "once bitten, twice shy". All it takes is one bad
>experience to make people reluctant to try again.
I utterly sympathise. I've been to a bad feast, and I can see how
offputting it might be. But I still can't imagine going into a kitchen
to tell a cook (probably not even the one who produced the bad meal) to
tell her that I refused to eat what she was cooking.
Antonia di Benedetto Calvo
Habeo metrum - musicamque,
hominem meam. Expectat alium quid?
More information about the Sca-cooks