discussion of fans & cons
Charlene Charette
thread, but I have seen the headers go by as I've skimmed the
newsgroup. While going through old BOD minutes for a project, I came
upon the following that's interesting. This is from the Oct. 25, 1972
minutes:
"A copy of the minutes of the Medieval Con committee meeting were read.
It sounds more and more fannish, and les and less medieval. It was
decided to write [name omitted] to discuss making sure that it was
loudly stated that this is *not* [emphasis in the original] SCA
sponsored. Any SCA officials participating should be warned not to do
so in their official characters. The possibility of adding a regulation
forbidding SCA officials to act in that capacity at non-SCA events was
discussed. David will draft such a regulation and present it at the
next meeting."
--Perronnelle
--
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders... All
you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
peacemakers for ... exposing the country to danger. It works the same
in any country. --Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
--
email perronnelle at earthlink . net
Kieran Windsong
> The possibility of adding a regulation
> forbidding SCA officials to act in that capacity at non-SCA events was
> discussed.
Well, there goes my plans for my halloween costume ;)
KW
Achbar ibn Ali
ConCarolinas. I am organizing an SCA demo for this Con. Have many
other groups done this before?
Achbar
Chris Zakes
Lots. The SCA used to put on demos every year at AggieCon, and I've
been to numerous other demos at gaming or SF cons in Houston. I'm sure
that's true of other areas as well. For that matter, I've been told
that the SCA first spread beyond the San Francisco area because some
SCA-folkdid a demo at a WorldCon in SF, and a lot of other people said
"that looks cool, how do I join?"
I suspect the original quote had to do with emphasizing the
distinction between what someone did at a Con as a private citizen,
and what they did as an "official spokesman" of the SCA.
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
Great holes secretly are digged where earth's pores
ought to suffice, and things have learnt to walk that
ought only to crawl.
Abdul Alhazred, "The Necronomicon"
Bronwynmgn
<ach...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> There is a Local Sci Fi Con called
>ConCarolinas. I am organizing an SCA demo for this Con. Have many
>other groups done this before?
It's not a scifi con, but I am currently working on a demo for a convention of
the Historical Miniatures Gaming Association. Which reminds me, any
high-authenticity types who do Crusades (either side) or time period roughly
between 700-1400, especially soldiers or people who might have been on
campaign, and who live reasonably close to Lancaster, PA, and are free March 9,
2003, please contact me!
Brangwayna Morgan
Ingeborg Denner
Every year for about 10 years, at the local gaming convention.
Most important rules, IMO:
1. Do not interrupt any other activity
2. Advertise
3. Have flyers handy
4. Have fun.
inge
--
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."
-Groucho Marx
===
<http://home.foni.net/~lyorn> -- Stories, RPG & stuff.
===
To send my priority mail, replace 'wildwusel' with 'lyorn'
Richard Lewis
All this bull here in the past couple of weeks about how to best keep
the fantasy and sci-fi folks *out* of SCA events, and now we get tips
and tactics on how to best influence people when the SCA hits one of
their cons???
Pot calling the kettle black or just pure hypocrisy yet again?
ral
Craig Levin
Richard Lewis <red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Wait wait wait wait wait!
>
>All this bull here in the past couple of weeks about how to best keep
>the fantasy and sci-fi folks *out* of SCA events, and now we get tips
>and tactics on how to best influence people when the SCA hits one of
>their cons???
>
>Pot calling the kettle black or just pure hypocrisy yet again?
Dunno why there's a problem with the SCA doing some recruiting at
sci-fi cons-lots of organizations recruit at them, like the
Libertarians and the National Space Society (formerly the L-5
Society), because the recruiting organizations perceive that sci-
fi fans seem to have attitudes that make them prime recruiting
material-interests in alternate forms of government (in fact,
counter to the Libs, there was a big Red presence in fandom
before the Second World War), space travel and colonization, or,
for the less hard-sci-fi-aligned, an antiquarian bent (the SCA).
Pedro
--
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html
cle...@rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin Librarians Rule: Oook!
Chris Zakes
Lewis) wrote:
>Wait wait wait wait wait!
>
>All this bull here in the past couple of weeks about how to best keep
>the fantasy and sci-fi folks *out* of SCA events, and now we get tips
>and tactics on how to best influence people when the SCA hits one of
>their cons???
>
>Pot calling the kettle black or just pure hypocrisy yet again?
>
>ral
Um... I don't recall that anyone was trying to keep the SF/fantasy
*folks* out of the SCA (heck, we'd probably lose half our membership
if we tried that). The objection was to the SF/fantasy *costumes*.
Last time I looked, SF cons didn't *have* rules requiring clothing
from a specific time period.
If an SCA person at a Con tried to fight a D&D battle using his SCA
weaponry instead of dice and a rulebook, *that* would be a more
accurate comparison. As it is, you're talking apples and oranges.
Matthew Ayers
When I was living in the West, I went to a Dundra Con where there was an
SCA Demo. Lots of folks watched the fights in the courtyard, and MANY
gamers laughed when the Scadians did a mock dungeon crawl. they set up
two long coat rack looking things to simulate a 10'x10' hall way and
showed exactly how silly it would be to expect a group in armor (there
were even a few in plate) to fight in close quarters with a 'backpack
full o'loot'. Quite humorous.
Matt
Richard Lewis
>On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:56:44 GMT, red...@mindspring.com (Richard
>Lewis) wrote:
>>Wait wait wait wait wait!
>>
>>All this bull here in the past couple of weeks about how to best keep
>>the fantasy and sci-fi folks *out* of SCA events, and now we get tips
>>and tactics on how to best influence people when the SCA hits one of
>>their cons???
>>
>>Pot calling the kettle black or just pure hypocrisy yet again?
>>
>>ral
>Um... I don't recall that anyone was trying to keep the SF/fantasy
>*folks* out of the SCA (heck, we'd probably lose half our membership
>if we tried that). The objection was to the SF/fantasy *costumes*.
>Last time I looked, SF cons didn't *have* rules requiring clothing
>from a specific time period.
>If an SCA person at a Con tried to fight a D&D battle using his SCA
>weaponry instead of dice and a rulebook, *that* would be a more
>accurate comparison. As it is, you're talking apples and oranges.
As it is, you're talking semantics, hypocrisy, double standards and
bull, bro. Nothing more.
"We can recruit from *their* con because everyone else does but they
should be kept out of ours".
"We can recrait from *their* con because *they* don't have a law that
forbids it but we should make a law to keep them out of ours".
Since the elf ears and fur haven't been shown to break any rules in
the SCA even after countless diatribes on the topic, it comes down to
*your* opinion and how *you* insist on applying your standards to
everyone else.
Sure sounds like hypocrisy to me.
ral
Ingeborg Denner
Richard Lewis wrote:
>
> moon...@austin.rr.com (Chris Zakes) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:56:44 GMT, red...@mindspring.com (Richard
> >Lewis) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>All this bull here in the past couple of weeks about how to best keep
> >>the fantasy and sci-fi folks *out* of SCA events, and now we get tips
> >>and tactics on how to best influence people when the SCA hits one of
> >>their cons???
>
> >Um... I don't recall that anyone was trying to keep the SF/fantasy
> >*folks* out of the SCA (heck, we'd probably lose half our membership
> >if we tried that). The objection was to the SF/fantasy *costumes*.
>
>
> As it is, you're talking semantics, hypocrisy, double standards and
> bull, bro. Nothing more.
>
> "We can recruit from *their* con because everyone else does but they
> should be kept out of ours".
>
> "We can recrait from *their* con because *they* don't have a law that
> forbids it but we should make a law to keep them out of ours".
>
>
> Sure sounds like hypocrisy to me.
If good behaviour or the demand for it is hypocrisy for you.
Usually when you do a demo somewhere, you ask the organizers whether
it's ok, and do not make a nuisance out of yourself. You do not try to
change anyone's game, instead you present yours in a way acceptable to
the con folks.
When you appear with elf ears at Pennsic or in Viking garb at a Star
Trek Convention, you break the house rules. You are also *not*
advertising your game, quite the contrary.
inge
(10 years of con demos, haven't yet pissed of the con folks nor
introduced elf ears to the SCA.)
Nerak
Matt >>
An SCA group did a fighter suit-up skit as part of a SF costume competition.
Chainmail - check, helm - check, sword - check.....each time having their
subject don or heft the required article....they had to wheel him off the stage
with a dolly!!!
Martha
crucial point: a war is not a con. Not in any shape or form.
If the SCA held a con (have we, ever?), then the attending public
would be welcome to wear whatever they wished, elf ears and fangs
included. Sort of like a demo, only on a larger scale. But Pennsic is
not a convention, it's a war, where most people try to pretend they're
spending a week or two in the middle ages. Hence the problems many of
us have with elf ears and fangs, which are not considered a part of
normal medieval dress.
If you show up at a fantasy con in an authentically-detailed 13th
century outfit, the organizers are likely to ooh and ah and encourage
you to enter the costume contest in the "other" category. If those
same organizers put on a LARP[1] the next week, and you show up
dressed the same way, chances are you will not be welcome. (Unless of
course the LARP storyline took place in the 13th century. In the same
way, the ren faire types are welcomed at Pennsic, because even though
they play a different game, their attire happens to match our game.)
Márti
[1] LARP stands for Live Action Role Play, in case anyone was
wondering.
red...@mindspring.com (Richard Lewis) wrote ...
Chris Zakes
Lewis) wrote:
I guess you're not very familiar with the early days of the SCA. For
example, Poul Anderson was one of the folks at the First Tournament.
Off the top of my head, other SF/Fantasy writers who've been involved
with the SCA include... Robert Asprin, Kathryn Kurtz, Randall Garrett,
Diana Paxson, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Dorothy Heydt.
I 'm sure if you looked into organized Fandom you'd find hundreds more
SCA members and I suspect that if you took an SCA-wide survey of
"favorite reading material", SF and Fantasy books would rate a lot
higher than, say, Westerns or "bestsellers."
So how are we keeping "them" out of "us"? "Them" *is* "us".
>Since the elf ears and fur haven't been shown to break any rules in
>the SCA even after countless diatribes on the topic,
Only for certain very limited definitions of "doesn't break the
rules." If such things were *really* acceptable SCA-wide, then why is
it that Pennsic is the only place they show up?
> it comes down to
>*your* opinion and how *you* insist on applying your standards to
>everyone else.
I asked someone else once before, I'll ask you now: When and where in
"pre-seventeenth century Europe" can you document the custom of
wearing pointed ears or dressing like Bram Stoker-style vampires?
>Sure sounds like hypocrisy to me.
No, hypocrisy is professing one belief while actually practicing
another--like the TV evangelists who claim to be for "decency" while
visiting prostitutes and collecting pornography on the sly.
Showing up at an SCA event in blatantly fantasy clothing or makeup is
"breaking the rules", just as wearing a sword to an SF Con that had a
"no weapons" policy would be. I don't advocate either. If a particular
Con didn't want an SCA presence, for whatever reason, I'd respect that
rule, too. Where's the hypocrisy in that?
Bronwynmgn
(Richard Lewis) writes:
>All this bull here in the past couple of weeks about how to best keep
>the fantasy and sci-fi folks *out* of SCA events, and now we get tips
>and tactics on how to best influence people when the SCA hits one of
>their cons???
>
>Pot calling the kettle black or just pure hypocrisy yet again?
Not in my case. We were contacted by the person in charge of the Historical
Miniatures Gaming Society and ASKED to provide a demo for their con. THEY
asked US to attend, and show off what we do, with the understanding that there
is likely to be an overlap of interest between the two groups - which is true,
as I've discovered that a member of my local group is also a member of HMGS.
I don't think we are talking about people crashing, say, a Darkover con and
setting up an unofficial SCA demo or deliberately doing stuff against what the
con is organized for. We're talking about people doing demos for other people
who may have their own interest in the SCA, and cases in which the SCA has
either gone through the proper channels to arrange to become an official
attraction at the con, or has been asked by the con organizers to provide a
demo.
Hardly hypocrisy, and very different from Vampire roleplayers, for instance,
showing up at an SCA event unannounced and uninvited, playing their unrelated
game in public, and deliberately trying to involve us in it.
Brangwayna Morgan
Bronwynmgn
(Richard Lewis) writes:
>"We can recruit from *their* con because everyone else does but they
>should be kept out of ours".
>
>"We can recrait from *their* con because *they* don't have a law that
>forbids it but we should make a law to keep them out of ours".
I've had lots of people tell me about their gaming group or a really cool con
they know about at SCA events. We're not stopping them from talking to us
about it, or inviting us to attend it. We're simply saying that, while we
might very well be interested in their Space Raiders con, we would rather they
didn't wear their Space Raiders gear to our event. Just as we, if we attend
the Space Raiders con on their invitation, wouldn't assume that it was OK to
wear our 14th century garb to it. If we go to their con, we'd either wear
mundanes or make an attempt to come up with a costume appropriate to their
group.
It has nothing to do with recruiting. It has to do with being courteous to the
group you are trying to recruit. We don't want them coming to our SCA event in
space fighter pilot gear; I expect they wouldn't want us at their event in 14th
century clothes. But if they want to make an attempt at medieval clothes, or
borrow ours, that's fine; likewise if we want to go to their event - we attempt
their costumes, borrow theirs, or go in mundanes if that's allowed.
Many generic sci-fi cons host a huge mismatch of sci-fi and fantasy topics,
everything from Darkover or Pern to Battle Tech and Transformers. It's hard to
say anything is inappropriate to that mix. But we do limit to a much more
specific topic than that, so it should be OK for us to say that something is
inappropriate at our event.
Brangwayna Morgan
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> I guess you're not very familiar with the early days of the SCA.
> For example, Poul Anderson was one of the folks at the First
> Tournament. Off the top of my head, other SF/Fantasy writers who've
> been involved with the SCA include... Robert Asprin, Kathryn Kurtz,
> Randall Garrett, Diana Paxson, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Dorothy
> Heydt.
Kurtz even has a supposed-to-be-touching, actually-amusing bit in one
of her novels in which a white belt symbolises knighthood:-)
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Q: Can some one tell how bad the digital divide was before the
information age?
A: It was basically Boole and Turing on one side, and all the other
slobs in the world one the other. Things have gotten better pretty
steadily since then.
nes...@nessmuk.com
>I asked someone else once before, I'll ask you now: When and where in
>"pre-seventeenth century Europe" can you document the custom of
>wearing pointed ears or dressing like Bram Stoker-style vampires?
>
>
The same place you can document rattan, plastic armor, titanium gauntlets and
chrome plated helms:)
JP McCartain
Three Walls Midrelm
Dennis M O'Connor
> moon...@austin.rr.com (Chris Zakes) wrote:
> >I asked someone else once before, I'll ask you now: When and where in
> >"pre-seventeenth century Europe" can you document the custom of
> >wearing pointed ears or dressing like Bram Stoker-style vampires?
>
> The same place you can document rattan, plastic armor,
> titanium gauntlets and chrome plated helms:)
Plus cell phones, motorcycle boots, running shoes,
digital watches, bifocals, sunglasses, plywood "thrones",
director's chairs, metal and/or plastic tables, and so on.
The SCA is not, in general, about historical re-enactment.
It's about "medieval ambiance", which, like beauty ...
--
Dennis M. O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
"We don't become a rabid dog to destroy a rabid dog,
but we do get a bit rude."
Lyle H. Gray
news:m3vg3fj...@latakia.dyndns.org:
> moon...@austin.rr.com (Chris Zakes) writes:
>>
>> I guess you're not very familiar with the early days of the SCA.
>> For example, Poul Anderson was one of the folks at the First
>> Tournament. Off the top of my head, other SF/Fantasy writers who've
>> been involved with the SCA include... Robert Asprin, Kathryn Kurtz,
>> Randall Garrett, Diana Paxson, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Dorothy
>> Heydt.
>
> Kurtz even has a supposed-to-be-touching, actually-amusing bit in one
> of her novels in which a white belt symbolises knighthood:-)
That wouldn't bother me, as long as it was part of the knighting ceremony,
rather than an every day thing...
Nerak
> of her novels in which a white belt symbolises knighthood:-)
That wouldn't bother me, as long as it was part of the knighting ceremony,
rather than an every day thing...
>>
She even used her obsevations of SCA politics and infighting for inspiration.
Her novels are also sprinkled with the names of SCA friends and associates.....
Chris Zakes
We use rattan for safety reasons. The plastic, titanium and chrome
are, at least, "an attempt" (however poor or inaccurate) at
reproducing armor from our time period. Now answer *my* question about
wearing modern fantasy elf-ears or clothing based on a 19th century
fictional source at an event that's supposed to be aiming at
pre-seventeenth century.
Or are you one of those who thinks "If I can't have a perfectly
accurate outfit and all the accoutrements from a specific place and
time, then I shouldn't bother to do any historical research at all"?
By that logic, we can probably shut down 90% of the SCA right now. The
fellow with the gorgeous fluted plate armor may be living in a nylon
tent; the lady who teaches the meticulously researched calligraphy may
be wearing tennis shoes under her dress and the folks cooking the
thoroughly-documented feast are probably working with gas stoves under
electric lights, and their ingredients came from the local grocery
store, instead of being hand-grown.
As Cariadoc says, "don't let the good be the enemy of the best." Just
because we can't be 100% accurate doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be
as accurate as possible within the limits of our ability and interest.
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
Life isn't fair. Anyone who tells you different is
either selling something or trying to get your vote.
dbooker
"Matthew Ayers" <mystyc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3DC0A759...@verizon.net...
> Achbar ibn Ali wrote:
>
> > All o of this makes me think. There is a Local Sci Fi Con called
> >ConCarolinas. I am organizing an SCA demo for this Con. Have many
> >other groups done this before?
> >
> >
> >Achbar
Over the years I have participated in or observed SCA demos at SF cons, and
a couple of time been on con committees where demos were part of the
program. On the basis of this varied experience I would advise :
1. Make sure the con-com invites you / approves of your group's
participation. I assume from what you posted that this is all taken care
of.
2. Find out beforehand what you will have for space/time, etc. A meeting
room with a normal hotel-type ceiling is one thing, the ball-room or an
outdoor courtyard is something else. Will people not part of the convention
be in the area?
3. If you are outdoors or in the ball-room, fighters make a great
eyecatching demo feature. BUT demo-fighting is not like practice, not like
a war, and not like a tourney. It is one occassion when a little
choreography is sometimes a good thing.
1-on-1, 2 -on-2, 2-on-1 scenarios work, but especially in the latter 2
situations, prior practice prevents problems.
Note : the hotel will not appreciate it if their ball-room floor is gouged
by armour/boots.
Note 2 : letting people have a try at hitting an armoured fighter is not
very safe, you'ld be surprised how hard a 6 year old can swing a sword.
4. Rapier fighters look really good at demos to, if you have them available.
5. Dancing is another useful demo activity, alternating perhaps with
fighting.
6. Non-fighting activities. Have a couple of tables with board games,
crafts, "neat portable stuff" (a nice feast set-up for 1 person, for
example, complete with chest, etc.), banners, some books (no more than 4 or
5) with neat medieval stuff (costumes, heraldry, survey of the middle ages
type books). If you can get someone who can make chain-mail, spin on a drop
spindle or wheel, or calligraph peoples names on 3 x 5 cards, this adds an
active feel to things. It is a good idea to have at least 1 but no more
than 2 people at the "neat stuff" table to explain, encourage and
guard-the-stuff.
7. Have a 1 page, double sided handout that gives a brief description of the
sca, a couple of pointers on how to start, and contact information for your
seneschal/gold key (in An Tir gold key has the loaner garb, hand-holding
stuff), and information about the next event, fighter practice, etc.
8. Choose the people who participate in the demo carefully - some people are
stars in the sca, but you still really don't want them front and centre at
what is, in effect, a recruiting demo. Your demo people should be
courteous, articulate, enthusiastic and knowledgeable or, minimally, 3 out
of 4 <grin, wink>.
hope this is of some help
Aldreada of the Lakes
Montengarde/An Tir
nes...@nessmuk.com
>We use rattan for safety reasons. The plastic, titanium and chrome
>are, at least, "an attempt" (however poor or inaccurate) at
>reproducing armor from our time period. Now answer *my* question about
>wearing modern fantasy elf-ears or clothing based on a 19th century
>fictional source at an event that's supposed to be aiming at
>pre-seventeenth century.
>
>Or are you one of those who thinks "If I can't have a perfectly
>accurate outfit and all the accoutrements from a specific place and
>time, then I shouldn't bother to do any historical research at all"?
Well as my father used to say "A job worth doing is worth doing well"
The point I was trying to illustrate is that people get upset at the sight of
a elf ear or a vampire fang but think nothing of it when Sir Rhino Hide
marches out on the field in armor made of Lexan. This whole issue seems to
me to be a classic case about the splinter vs.. the log in one's eye.
If we played a game that was 100% correct most of the time. I could see the
point of this argument and even to the point of joining the masses with
pitchfork in hand to run the slobs out.
With a great amusement I have been following this debate for years.
I am confident that this will continue to amuse me.
JP McCartain
Three Walls Midrelm
.
David Friedman
nes...@nessmuk.com wrote:
> Well as my father used to say "A job worth doing is worth doing well"
> The point I was trying to illustrate is that people get upset at the sight of
> a elf ear or a vampire fang but think nothing of it when Sir Rhino Hide
> marches out on the field in armor made of Lexan.
There is an important point you are missing.
A fighter uses plastic armor not because he is trying to create the
illusion of a medieval fighter in plastic but because he is willing to
do an imperfect job of creating the illusion of a medieval fighter in
steel in exchange for having lighter armor.
Someone wears elf ears or vampire fangs because creating the effect of
an out of period fiction is the objective he is aiming at.
Nobody would be annoyed at someone who happened to have odd shaped ears
or teeth, and came to an event. It's the attempt to superimpose a
different and inconsistent game on the game we are playing that is the
problem.
--
David/Cariadoc
www.daviddfriedman.com
Chris Zakes
wrote:
(snippage for space)
>6. Non-fighting activities. Have a couple of tables with board games,
>crafts, "neat portable stuff" (a nice feast set-up for 1 person, for
>example, complete with chest, etc.), banners, some books (no more than 4 or
>5) with neat medieval stuff (costumes, heraldry, survey of the middle ages
>type books). If you can get someone who can make chain-mail, spin on a drop
>spindle or wheel, or calligraph peoples names on 3 x 5 cards, this adds an
>active feel to things. It is a good idea to have at least 1 but no more
>than 2 people at the "neat stuff" table to explain, encourage and
>guard-the-stuff.
A good set of suggestions. One additional item that I've found to be
popular (especially at school demos) is a "hands on" table where folks
can handle some armor pieces. I try to have a helm, a mail shirt or
coif and a pair of gauntlets that people can pick up, play with and
even try on.
This table *will* need someone sitting there and answering questions
during the entire demo, if for no other reason than to prevent the
kids from using the gauntlets as boxing gloves. <G>
Chris Zakes
>In article <3dc557c0...@news-server.austin.rr.com>, moon...@austin.rr.com (Chris Zakes) wrote:
>
>>We use rattan for safety reasons. The plastic, titanium and chrome
>>are, at least, "an attempt" (however poor or inaccurate) at
>>reproducing armor from our time period. Now answer *my* question about
>>wearing modern fantasy elf-ears or clothing based on a 19th century
>>fictional source at an event that's supposed to be aiming at
>>pre-seventeenth century.
>>
>>Or are you one of those who thinks "If I can't have a perfectly
>>accurate outfit and all the accoutrements from a specific place and
>>time, then I shouldn't bother to do any historical research at all"?
>
>
>Well as my father used to say "A job worth doing is worth doing well"
>The point I was trying to illustrate is that people get upset at the sight of
>a elf ear or a vampire fang but think nothing of it when Sir Rhino Hide
>marches out on the field in armor made of Lexan.
<shrug> What can I say? I think plastic armor is worse than the carpet
armor we had 25 years ago. Back then, people would use carpet because
they couldn't afford leather or steel, or because there simply weren't
that many armorers out there. That's no longer true.
>This whole issue seems to
>me to be a classic case about the splinter vs.. the log in one's eye.
>If we played a game that was 100% correct most of the time. I could see the
>point of this argument and even to the point of joining the masses with
>pitchfork in hand to run the slobs out.
Tacky as it is, the plastic is still "an attempt". The same can't be
said for the fantasy outfits. I've yet to find anyone who has
documented wearing pointy ears or Dracula costumes in our time period.
But I have no desire to "run the slobs out", I just want to enforce
the existing rules a little better, and let *them* decide if they want
to follow them, or continue to play their fantasy games, but in a
different venue.
thomas
Achbar ibn Ali <ach...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<o5tsru8q2gtlvkftv...@4ax.com>...
> All o of this makes me think. There is a Local Sci Fi Con called
> ConCarolinas. I am organizing an SCA demo for this Con. Have many
> other groups done this before?
Lots. I used to run a demo for a con in Pittsburgh. Next weekend I'll be a
guest at a con in Roanoke VA, where one of the featured events is an SCA
demo.
Thomas
thomas
Matthew Ayers <mystyc...@verizon.net> wrote in article
<3DC0A759...@verizon.net>...
> When I was living in the West, I went to a Dundra Con where there was an
> SCA Demo. Lots of folks watched the fights in the courtyard, and MANY
> gamers laughed when the Scadians did a mock dungeon crawl. they set up
> two long coat rack looking things to simulate a 10'x10' hall way and
> showed exactly how silly it would be to expect a group in armor (there
> were even a few in plate) to fight in close quarters with a 'backpack
> full o'loot'. Quite humorous.
Excellent idea! I think I'll have to pirate it for the next con demo I'm
asked to do.
Thomas
nes...@nessmuk.com
>On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 00:15:15 GMT, nes...@nessmuk.com wrote:
>
>
>
><shrug> What can I say? I think plastic armor is worse than the carpet
>armor we had 25 years ago. Back then, people would use carpet because
>they couldn't afford leather or steel, or because there simply weren't
>that many armorers out there. That's no longer true.
I agree with you 100% but as long as we have that and all the other
inaccuracies. It's just more one thing. To me, it is like standing in the rain
and complaining two more drops fell out of the sky.
>Tacky as it is, the plastic is still "an attempt". The same can't be
>said for the fantasy outfits. I've yet to find anyone who has
>documented wearing pointy ears or Dracula costumes in our time period.
>But I have no desire to "run the slobs out", I just want to enforce
>the existing rules a little better, and let *them* decide if they want
>to follow them, or continue to play their fantasy games, but in a
>different venue.
It was more a figure of speech. Conjuring up images of the peasants storming
the castle with torches and pitchforks. Once again I agree with you.
The basic thrust of what I am trying to say is that if people are going to
spend this much time and energy on this subject then a equal amount of time
and energy should spent on the other errors in our game.
In all the years I have done this, I can't really recall when the last time I
saw Count Dracula walk by. So to me this is a really minor subject.
As far as dressing as part of the undead, Vampires are period and people did
dress up on All Hallows Eve to fool the spirits. So in one way it could be
considered period. Even though I am not sure if the classic Count Dracula
garb is in our time period.
Jay and Diane Rudin
> As far as dressing as part of the undead, Vampires are period and people
did
> dress up on All Hallows Eve to fool the spirits. So in one way it could
be
> considered period. Even though I am not sure if the classic Count
Dracula
> garb is in our time period.
Of course nineteeenth century evening dress is not in our period. What we
consider the "Dracula" look is based on the Bram Stoker novel and (mostly)
the movies.
Similarly, the problem with pointy ears isn't that elves aren't period --
it's that pointy ears for elves are quintessentially late19th to 20th
century. There's no mention of them in the Elizabethan *Faerie Queen*. As
near as I can tell, they are an Arthur Rackham artistic style. (If anyone
knows an earlier example, I'd love to hear about it.)
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
Achbar ibn Ali
>Over the years I have participated in or observed SCA demos at SF cons, and
>a couple of time been on con committees where demos were part of the
>program. On the basis of this varied experience I would advise :
>
>1. Make sure the con-com invites you
>
>
>eyecatching demo feature. BUT demo-fighting is not like practice, not like
>a war, and not like a tourney.
>
>
>5. Dancing is another useful demo activity, alternating perhaps with
>fighting.
>
>6. Non-fighting activities. Have a couple of tables with board games,
>crafts, "neat portable stuff" (a nice feast set-up for 1 person, for
>example, complete with chest, etc.), banners, some books (no more than 4 or
>5) with neat medieval stuff (costumes, heraldry, survey of the middle ages
>type books).
>sca, a couple of pointers on how to start,
>
>
>
>Aldreada of the Lakes
>Montengarde/An Tir
>
Achbar ibn Ali
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> As far as dressing as part of the undead, Vampires are period and
> people did dress up on All Hallows Eve to fool the spirits.
Actually, I recall reading somewhere that this is not actually true,
and that dressing up as demons &c. is a relatively modern past-time.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Be wary of strong drink; it makes you shoot tax collectors--and miss.
--Robert Heinlein
Martha
> As far as dressing as part of the undead, Vampires are period
Really? I'd be quite interested to see your documentation for that.
(D&D rulebooks don't count as documentation. Neither do vague
references to foreign folk tales.)
Sorry 'bout the digression... it's just that this is one of those
things people in the US tend to take for granted, even though there is
no more support for it than all the other Victorian inventions.
Márti
nes...@nessmuk.com
Okay so I could be wrong. I always thought that the people in the middle ages
had a belief in the undead and other nasties climbing out of the coffin.
They certainly believed in evil spirits, witches, goblins, ghosts, wraiths,
banshees and etc.
I was going to see if light net research would shake lose a answer on this but
there is too much vampire fantasy crap to wade through
JP McCartain
Chris Zakes
>In article <3dc7296a...@news-server.austin.rr.com>, moon...@austin.rr.com (Chris Zakes) wrote:
>>On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 00:15:15 GMT, nes...@nessmuk.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>><shrug> What can I say? I think plastic armor is worse than the carpet
>>armor we had 25 years ago. Back then, people would use carpet because
>>they couldn't afford leather or steel, or because there simply weren't
>>that many armorers out there. That's no longer true.
>
>I agree with you 100% but as long as we have that and all the other
>inaccuracies. It's just more one thing. To me, it is like standing in the rain
>and complaining two more drops fell out of the sky.
I don't totally agree with that. There's a difference between a poor
attempt at medieval gear, and a "reverse attempt"--introducing
elements that are clearly based in fantasy or several centuries
post-period. It's the difference between using rattan in our
tournaments instead of hardwood or blunted steel, and using a Nerf
sword or plastic light saber instead of hardwood or blunted steel.
>>Tacky as it is, the plastic is still "an attempt". The same can't be
>>said for the fantasy outfits. I've yet to find anyone who has
>>documented wearing pointy ears or Dracula costumes in our time period.
>>But I have no desire to "run the slobs out", I just want to enforce
>>the existing rules a little better, and let *them* decide if they want
>>to follow them, or continue to play their fantasy games, but in a
>>different venue.
>
>It was more a figure of speech. Conjuring up images of the peasants storming
>the castle with torches and pitchforks. Once again I agree with you.
>The basic thrust of what I am trying to say is that if people are going to
>spend this much time and energy on this subject then a equal amount of time
>and energy should spent on the other errors in our game.
>
>In all the years I have done this, I can't really recall when the last time I
>saw Count Dracula walk by. So to me this is a really minor subject.
>
>As far as dressing as part of the undead, Vampires are period and people did
>dress up on All Hallows Eve to fool the spirits.
I would have very little trouble with someone dressing up as a
*period* vampire for an in-SCA costume party. (It's probably worth
pointing out that according to the one class I took on vampires, the
period concept of vampires was *nothing* like the character in
Stoker's book, or the later movies.) But as I understand it (not
having been to Pennsic in a number of years) that's not what's
happening.
> So in one way it could be
>considered period. Even though I am not sure if the classic Count Dracula
>garb is in our time period.
"Dracula" was written in the late 1800s. It was produced as a stage
play in the early 1900s and the Bela Lugosi movie (which seems to be
the starting point for most of the vampire folks) came out in 1931.
FWIW, Vlad the Impaler, the fictional character's namesake, *did* live
within the SCA's time period.
Michael Grossberg
cousin of Vlad Tepes, who was known for
her predilection for bathing in the blood of virgin girls as a beauty
treatment. She, too, was in our period, about the mid
1500's. A good book to read for info on Vlad, Erzebet, and others is "In
Search of Dracula" by Radu Florescu(a direct
descendant of Vlad, by the way) and Raymond McNally.
GART(H) GUNTARSSON
Barony of Settmour Swamp
"Chris Zakes" <moon...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3dc854b0...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
Jay and Diane Rudin
common enough that many people accept it without ever realizing it. Indeed,
it's the act of accepting something without ever realizing it.
We all do it sometimes. We just need to be watchful for when it leads us
astray.
<nes...@nessmuk.com> wrote:
> Okay so I could be wrong. I always thought that the people in the middle
ages
> had a belief in the undead and other nasties climbing out of the coffin.
> They certainly believed in evil spirits, witches, goblins, ghosts,
wraiths,
> banshees and etc.
Of course, if you believe that evil spirits walk the night on the eve of All
Saints' Day, that's a reason *not* to go out dressed as a vampire.
And if your neighbors also believe it, that's an even stronger reason not
to.
The real issue here isn't fantasy personae, but fantasy research. I wear a
doublet, not because "I always thought " people wore them, but because the
portraits show Elizabethans wearing them. I fight using a slope pass, not
because "I always thought" people used rapiers that way, but because the
period manual says to.
People who do things because "they always thought" such things were done in
period, absent any glance at a book, are making an attempt at costume, but
they are not making an attempt at pre-seventeenth century costume. As Arval
said, "If you haven't done the research, you can create, but you cannot
possibly RE-create."
Samuron
To me, that's the important distinction: that the object of the
"attempt" is period. I treat each case as a point in a debate; each
item is an "affirmative" argument. The burden of proof is thus on the
person displaying the item.
The SCA sets relatively low standards of "proof" of authenticity, to
wit: "an environment which evokes the atmosphere of the pre-17th
century European Middle Ages and Renaissance." As such, nearly any
attempt at period garb which makes the person "blend in" with that
atmosphere is acceptable under the rules.
Items such as eyeglasses, flip-flops, wheelchairs, etc. are obviously
not period; however, I don't see their use as an "affirmative".
Rather, they are part of the "normal" appearance of the person, and
are commonly seen in everyday life. As such, I can not only accept
their presence, I can easily "tune them out".
Obviously unusual items, OTOH, force me to acknowledge them, and thus
evaluate their appropriateness; this goes for everything from spandex
tights and plastic armor to trench coats and klingon heads.
Ignoring safety issues which set armor apart from normal garb, plastic
armor is still an attempt at producing a period item. While I would
like to see every effort made to conceal the mundane materials, the
article itself conforms to the proper goal.
Klingon heads, to use a clear example, are not such an attempt; no one
could argue (with a straight face) that a late 20th C. fictional alien
evokes a pre-17th C. atmosphere.
Elf ears then provide a good test of this reasoning. If one can
produce a reputable period source for their appearance (and I would
accept period eye-witness accounts, YMMV) then they have a place; if
not, I would consider them intrusive.
The rules of participation include more than just the "attempt at
pre-17th century clothing"; they also require that the individual
"conforms to the provisions in Corpora". This would then include not
only the "atmosphere" (II.A.) provision, but the "historical
recreation activities" (I. B., I. C.)
one as well.
As such, while I might be annoyed with a person's "everyday" blue hair
or pierced nose, I feel that those are within the rules; trenchcoats
and klingons are not.
Samuron (James)
www.samuron.com
"I belive that hyperbole is the greatest danger facing mankind today."
Dennis M O'Connor
> To me, that's the important distinction: that the object of the
> "attempt" is period. I treat each case as a point in a debate; each
> item is an "affirmative" argument. The burden of proof is thus on the
> person displaying the item.
> Elf ears then provide a good test of this reasoning.
However, the SCA only requires an attempt at period
_clothing_, not an attempt at period appearance. Thus,
whether elf ears are period, or an attempt, is irrelevant
to the question of whether they are appropriate at an
SCA event. They are at least as appropriate as, say,
a T-shirt with the word "garb" printed on it. :-)
> The rules of participation include more than just the "attempt at
> pre-17th century clothing"; they also require that the individual
> "conforms to the provisions in Corpora". This would then include not
> only the "atmosphere" (II.A.) provision, but the "historical
> recreation activities" (I. B., I. C.) one as well.
The "atmosphere" argument has no bearing, given the
prevalence of running shoes, pop-up sunshades,
gaudy fantasy weapons, cell phones, coke cans
and so on at a typical SCA event.
> As such, while I might be annoyed with a person's "everyday" blue hair
> or pierced nose, I feel that those are within the rules; trenchcoats
> and klingons are not.
Trenchcoats, being non-period clothing, obviously are not.
Klingons, on the other hand, are conformant with the
medieval fantasy setting that is (and always has been)
the SCA, and are not barred by the rules.
The SCA is, in the main, not much about history,
never has been, and never will be.
Samuron
> "Samuron" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > To me, that's the important distinction: that the object of the
> > "attempt" is period. I treat each case as a point in a debate; each
> > item is an "affirmative" argument. The burden of proof is thus on the
> > person displaying the item.
> [...]
> > Elf ears then provide a good test of this reasoning.
>
> However, the SCA only requires an attempt at period
> _clothing_, not an attempt at period appearance. Thus,
> whether elf ears are period, or an attempt, is irrelevant
> to the question of whether they are appropriate at an
> SCA event. They are at least as appropriate as, say,
> a T-shirt with the word "garb" printed on it. :-)
This is only true if you take the narrowest possible definition of
"clothing", and ignore "costume" or "apparel" as common synonyms.
Since you have many times argued that the "rights of the _people_" (a
plural, referring to humans as a group) is synonomous with "the rights
of the _person_" (a singular, referring to an individual), I know that
you don't rely on narrow, literal definitions. ;)
> > The rules of participation include more than just the "attempt at
> > pre-17th century clothing"; they also require that the individual
> > "conforms to the provisions in Corpora". This would then include not
> > only the "atmosphere" (II.A.) provision, but the "historical
> > recreation activities" (I. B., I. C.) one as well.
>
> The "atmosphere" argument has no bearing, given the
> prevalence of running shoes, pop-up sunshades,
> gaudy fantasy weapons, cell phones, coke cans
> and so on at a typical SCA event.
So your response is that since people commonly break a rule, or
enforcement is lax, there is no rule? Ludicrous; I may as well tell
the cop that since nobody is driving the speed limit, there is no
speed limit.
> > As such, while I might be annoyed with a person's "everyday" blue hair
> > or pierced nose, I feel that those are within the rules; trenchcoats
> > and klingons are not.
>
> Trenchcoats, being non-period clothing, obviously are not.
> Klingons, on the other hand, are conformant with the
> medieval fantasy setting that is (and always has been)
> the SCA, and are not barred by the rules.
As defined in the document itself, in section B. "Role of Corpora":
"Corpora serves as a framework for the structure of the historical
re-creation activities of the Society"
As such, the "historical re-creation activities" statement is prefixed
to every rule in the document; the rules for participation may be
constructed to be as inclusive as possible, by they are still within
that context. Even if you want to debate that implicit contex, the
rules also _explicitly_ require following the "provisions of corpora",
which must include the "role of corpora" (and the "atmosphere"
provision).
> The SCA is, in the main, not much about history,
> never has been, and never will be.
That would be your opinion, and one that I would on the whole agree
with. However, whether the the actualization of the SCA is within
those rules or not is completely irrelevant.
Achbar ibn Ali
>However, the SCA only requires an attempt at period
>_clothing_, not an attempt at period appearance. Thus,
>whether elf ears are period, or an attempt, is irrelevant
>to the question of whether they are appropriate at an
>SCA event. They are at least as appropriate as, say,
>a T-shirt with the word "garb" printed on it. :-)
>
>> The rules of participation include more than just the "attempt at
>> pre-17th century clothing"; they also require that the individual
>> "conforms to the provisions in Corpora". This would then include not
>> only the "atmosphere" (II.A.) provision, but the "historical
>> recreation activities" (I. B., I. C.) one as well.
>
>The "atmosphere" argument has no bearing, given the
>prevalence of running shoes, pop-up sunshades,
>gaudy fantasy weapons, cell phones, coke cans
>and so on at a typical SCA event.
Achbar
Dennis M O'Connor
> >However, the SCA only requires an attempt at period
> >_clothing_, not an attempt at period appearance. Thus,
> >whether elf ears are period, or an attempt, is irrelevant
> >to the question of whether they are appropriate at an
> >SCA event. They are at least as appropriate as, say,
> >a T-shirt with the word "garb" printed on it. :-)
> >The "atmosphere" argument has no bearing, given the
> >prevalence of running shoes, pop-up sunshades,
> >gaudy fantasy weapons, cell phones, coke cans
> >and so on at a typical SCA event.
>
> Would this rule out Tuchuks?
Not if they wear an attempt at pre-17thC clothing.
David Dyer-Bennet
> All o of this makes me think. There is a Local Sci Fi Con called
> ConCarolinas. I am organizing an SCA demo for this Con. Have many
> other groups done this before?
Back in my youth, 20 and some years ago, SCA demos (mostly fighting
demos) were very common at the science fiction conventions around the
Midwest (I was in Minneapolis, saw a number of cons in Wisconsin and
Iowa and Missouri). It seems to be less common now, but both then and
now I get to a *tiny* percentage of the conventions being held.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
> Wait wait wait wait wait!
>
> All this bull here in the past couple of weeks about how to best keep
> the fantasy and sci-fi folks *out* of SCA events, and now we get tips
> and tactics on how to best influence people when the SCA hits one of
> their cons???
>
> Pot calling the kettle black or just pure hypocrisy yet again?
The SCA does not seem (to me) to be basically corrosive to the sinews
of SF fandom, and there's a *lot* of overlap of interest. (Not that
many people are terribly *active* on both sides, presumably because
of the time investment needed, but lots of people have interests, and
know other people whose activity is the other side, and people shift
their interests over time.) If a convention is interested in a
demonstration of medieval skills and technologies, what's the problem?
Seems like the objection to "elves" in the SCA doesn't invert onto SF
fandom; there's nothing against historical accuracy or use of
historical basis in writing SF or fantasy that I'm aware of.
Amusingly, one of the things I would think an SF convention might get
from good SCA demos is a bit of antidote to the idiocies of some of
the less realistic fantasy authors.
(I come to this from the SF side; the SCA always seemed interesting,
but too much work and too much oriented towards costuming whereas I
hate dressing uncomfortably, and not too compatible with my other main
hobby of photography. But I know a bunch of people with various
levels of SCA contact over the years, plus sometimes hanging out
places like this newsgroup. I think most SF fans recognize the SCA as
a friendly cousin group at some level.)
Dennis M O'Connor
> "Dennis M O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> ...
> > "Samuron" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > > To me, that's the important distinction: that the object of the
> > > "attempt" is period. I treat each case as a point in a debate; each
> > > item is an "affirmative" argument. The burden of proof is thus on the
> > > person displaying the item.
> > [...]
> > > Elf ears then provide a good test of this reasoning.
> >
> > However, the SCA only requires an attempt at period
> > _clothing_, not an attempt at period appearance. Thus,
> > whether elf ears are period, or an attempt, is irrelevant
> > to the question of whether they are appropriate at an
> > SCA event. They are at least as appropriate as, say,
> > a T-shirt with the word "garb" printed on it. :-)
>
> This is only true if you take the narrowest possible definition of
> "clothing", and ignore "costume" or "apparel" as common synonyms.
No, it is possible if you take the _usual_ meaning of clothing.
If the people who wrote the rules had wanted to say "apparel",
"costume" or "appearance", they could have. But they did not,
and it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that they did, or even
that they meant to, given the long history (back to Event 1, even)
of fantasy in the SCA.
> Since you have many times argued that the "rights of the _people_" (a
> plural, referring to humans as a group) is synonymous with "the rights
> of the _person_" (a singular, referring to an individual), I know that
> you don't rely on narrow, literal definitions. ;)
Ah, what a wonderful example. Nowhere is the modern "Liberal"
doctrine of complete disrespect for written law and outright fraud
more outrageously and obviously on display than in discussions
of the meaning of the common word "people" in this simple sentence:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
That's how it reads, as the fourth amendment proposed, and the second
amendment added, to the Constitution. No fancy noun capitalization,
as you can see by looking at a scan of the original document at
http://www.constitution.org/cons/bill.jpg.
Why would anyone think, or any intelligent person believe, that
the word "people" doesn't mean simply that: people ? What
honest person would say that it really means "the States" ?
Especially, why would they think it meant "the States" in
Amendment 2, but not in the other Amendments written at
the same time on the same paper: Amendment 1, Amendment 4,
Amendment 9, or especially Amendment 10, which enumerates
"the States" as a separate entity from "the people" ? :
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
Obviously, only a complete charlatan, an idiot, or a lunatic could
believe that. So what alternative interpretation is possible ?
Should we focus on the plural versus the singular ? If so, does
that mean that two people have the right to be "persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure",
but a lone person is not. Obviously that is nonsense.
The only honest and rational interpretation of the use of the
word "people" in the U.S. Bill of Rights is that rights acknowledged
and guarantees made to "the people" are being made to every
single one of "the people". (Modern doctrine exempts from this
group those people convicted via due process of serious crimes,
but not everyone agrees on this doctrine.)
And, to bring it back to the SCA, this dishonest or outright
stupid attempt to claim that "clothing" doesn't mean
"clothing" (much like past attempts to claim that "sex"
didn't mean "sex") is exactly the same thing as the liars and
the deceived in the anti-RKBA movement do.
Words have meaning: people have to learn that the meaning
of words don't change just because they, personally, find
it "convenient".
>> The "atmosphere" argument has no bearing, given the
>> prevalence of running shoes, pop-up sunshades,
>> gaudy fantasy weapons, cell phones, coke cans
>> and so on at a typical SCA event.
>
> So your response is that since people commonly break a rule, or
> enforcement is lax, there is no rule?
Not at all: you are basing your claim on the outright stupid
assumption that I think the rule is what you think it is.
In fact, nobody is "breaking the rules" by doing the
things I listed, unless (as in the Enchanted Ground)
the event they are at imposes additional restrictions
beyond those in Corpora.
Can't you craft a better argument than this, Samuron ?
The rest of your post was full of similarly invalid
arguments, such as arguing that if the SCA intends
to support historic re-creation, it must therefor
intend to ban everything else.
I would also advise you to not misrepresent my
positions (as you have) or engage in content-free
derogatory interjections (as you have) unless you
can deal with what history tells us would happen.
Samuron
> "Samuron" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > "Dennis M O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> ...
> > > "Samuron" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
<Lots snipped>
> Can't you craft a better argument than this, Samuron ?
Apparently not; sorry to have wasted your time.
> The rest of your post was full of similarly invalid
> arguments, such as arguing that if the SCA intends
> to support historic re-creation, it must therefor
> intend to ban everything else.
>
> I would also advise you to not misrepresent my
> positions (as you have) or engage in content-free
> derogatory interjections (as you have) unless you
> can deal with what history tells us would happen.
Wow, you got me; where did I do that?
Jay and Diane Rudin
> > Wait wait wait wait wait!
> >
> > All this bull here in the past couple of weeks about how to best keep
> > the fantasy and sci-fi folks *out* of SCA events, and now we get tips
> > and tactics on how to best influence people when the SCA hits one of
> > their cons???
> >
> > Pot calling the kettle black or just pure hypocrisy yet again?
Not at all. People in pre-seventeenth century costumes should stay away
from events for which the rules say that an attempt at pre-seventeenth
century costume is forbidden.
People in elf-ears, T-shirts, 19th century opera dress with fangs, etc,
should stay away from events for which the rules say that an attempt at
pre-seventeenth century costume is required.
Both can attend an event with no dress code.
Most cons I've attended have had no dress code -- so both can attend.
Wargame conventions often have a "no costume" rule -- to keep out the Nazi
uniforms. When such a rule is in place, SCA people should not appear in
costume.
Certainly SCA costumes are out of place at a pure SF con -- but when was the
last time you saw one of those (i.e., a con at which one cannot discuss
Heinlein's *Glory Road*, Stasheff's Warlock series, or Zelazny's Amber
books)? SCA costumes are *not* out of place at a fantasy, or F/SF, or comic
book con.
Dennis M O'Connor
> "Dennis M O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> wrote ...
> > "Samuron" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > > "Dennis M O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> ...
> > > > "Samuron" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> <Lots snipped>
>
> > Can't you craft a better argument than this, Samuron ?
> Apparently not; sorry to have wasted your time.
That's okay, I enjoy refuting sloppy arguments.
> > The rest of your post was full of similarly invalid
> > arguments, such as arguing that if the SCA intends
> > to support historic re-creation, it must therefor
> > intend to ban everything else.
> >
> > I would also advise you to not misrepresent my
> > positions (as you have) or engage in content-free
> > derogatory interjections (as you have) unless you
> > can deal with what history tells us would happen.
>
> Wow, you got me; where did I do that?
Well, for example:
]> The "atmosphere" argument has no bearing, given the
]> prevalence of running shoes, pop-up sunshades,
]> gaudy fantasy weapons, cell phones, coke cans
]> and so on at a typical SCA event.
]
] So your response is that since people commonly break a rule, or
] enforcement is lax, there is no rule? Ludicrous; [...]
Here you attribute to me a position that is completely
inconsistent with anything I've posted (as I pointed out
in the previous post) , and then call it "Ludicrous".
And BTW, although not applicable in this case, there
have been many cases of laws being thrown off the books
by judges for something called "selective enforcement";
perhaps you should let all those judges know how
"ludicrous" it is to say "there is no rule" just because the
police had only been applying that law on a "annoy me
and I'll charge you with this crime" basis.
But perhaps the reasoning for voiding laws because of
selective enforcement is too sophisticated for you to grasp.
It's called "equal justice under law", a concept Clinton
supporters, for example, never seemed to properly grasp.
Dennis M O'Connor
> People in elf-ears, T-shirts, 19th century opera dress with fangs, etc,
> should stay away from events for which the rules say that an attempt at
> pre-seventeenth century costume is required.
However, the SCA has no such rules. It only requires an attempt
at pre 17th C. clothing, not "costume". If they had meant "costume",
they would have written "costume", but they didn't.
TomK
> I am organizing an SCA demo for this Con. Have many
> other groups done this before?
"Back in the day" - ie, the glory days of MOC, a local ( I assume) SCA group
would put on a demo once or twice during the weekend. I believe I even have
some footage of it on VHS somewhere. But I digress...
I believe that it's perfectly OK to "recruit", demo, or what-have-you at a
Sci/FI-Fantasy convention. And in the Southeast at least, it's pretty
commonplace.
--
Thomas MacLeod of Lewes
...the result of a youth squanderd
on D&D and comic books.
Samuron
> "Samuron" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > "Dennis M O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> wrote ...
> > > "Samuron" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > > > "Dennis M O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> ...
> > > > > "Samuron" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> > > positions (as you have) or engage in content-free
> > > derogatory interjections (as you have) unless you
> > > can deal with what history tells us would happen.
> >
> > Wow, you got me; where did I do that?
>
> Well, for example:
>
> ]> The "atmosphere" argument has no bearing, given the
> ]> prevalence of running shoes, pop-up sunshades,
> ]> gaudy fantasy weapons, cell phones, coke cans
> ]> and so on at a typical SCA event.
> ]
> ] So your response is that since people commonly break a rule, or
> ] enforcement is lax, there is no rule? Ludicrous; [...]
>
> Here you attribute to me a position that is completely
> inconsistent with anything I've posted (as I pointed out
> in the previous post) , and then call it "Ludicrous".
You are correct that I did not check the posting history; I apologize.
I would like to point out, however, that you have in response done the
same to me.
You said:
> And, to bring it back to the SCA, this dishonest or outright
> stupid attempt to claim that "clothing" doesn't mean
> "clothing"
I'm sure you have read the dictionary definitions of clothing; but
just to be sure, here are the ones I could find while at work:
\Cloth"ing\, n.
1. Garments in general; clothes; dress; raiment; covering.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
cloth·ing Pronunciation Key (klthng)
n.
1. Clothes considered as a group; wearing apparel.
2. A covering.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
clothing
n : covering designed to be worn on a person's body [syn: clothes,
apparel, vesture, wearing apparel, wear]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
cloth·ing Pronunciation: 'klO-[th]i[ng]
Function: noun
garments in general; also : COVERING
Source: Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary
cloth-ing
Pronunciation klo dhIng
Definition 1. articles of dress collectively; clothes.
Synonyms dress (2) , apparel (1)
Definition 2. a covering.
Synonyms covering , coating , blanket (1) , mantle (2)
Source: The Wordsmyth Educational Dictionary-Thesaurus
All of these would allow a reasonable disagreement as to whether a
klingon mask, clearly a "covering" meant to be "worn on a person's
body" is an article of clothing. I think it is, and the above 5
references could reasonably be used to support it, especially when one
looks at the definitions of "clothes" and aparell.
While you may disagree with my conclusion, I would suggest that it is
unfair and insulting to accuse me of being "dishonest" or "outright
stupid" for holding such a view.
At least you get points for consistency; you don't let a little thing
like personal friendship stand in the way of making calling someone a
charlatan, an idiot, a lunatic, irrational, dishonest, or outright
stupid.
Granted, I had no reason to expect so, but the reality was jarring
nonetheless.
James
Richard Lewis
>I guess you're not very familiar with the early days of the SCA. For
>example, Poul Anderson was one of the folks at the First Tournament.
>Off the top of my head, other SF/Fantasy writers who've been involved
>with the SCA include... Robert Asprin, Kathryn Kurtz, Randall Garrett,
>Diana Paxson, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Dorothy Heydt.
Probably moreso than you, sir since you argue my point for me.
The SCA was born in fantasy and sci-fi and trying to take them out of
the SCA today is what the nazis are trying to do, not I.
>Only for certain very limited definitions of "doesn't break the
>rules." If such things were *really* acceptable SCA-wide, then why is
>it that Pennsic is the only place they show up?
As we've been told elsewhere in this thread, those customs *were* seen
as acceptable in certain houses and only when they came to Pennsic did
they meet any opposition. Want me to go back and quote the folks
involved or can I assume that you will?
>> it comes down to
>>*your* opinion and how *you* insist on applying your standards to
>>everyone else.
>I asked someone else once before, I'll ask you now: When and where in
>"pre-seventeenth century Europe" can you document the custom of
>wearing pointed ears or dressing like Bram Stoker-style vampires?
As I have said before and will again for your benefit, sir....
May Day....in all its incarnations included several documented
examples of pointed ears being used on costumes. Germany is my fav
example. Feel free to look it up.
Rome-based May Day celebrations (Floralia) with Flora/Chloris
characterized the nymphs et al as having pointed ears (all
mythological less than humans were).
William Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream (circa 1600)
characterized all the less-than-human traits with characters with
pointed ears.
How many examples do you require?
ral
Richard Lewis
>Seems like the objection to "elves" in the SCA doesn't invert onto SF
>fandom; there's nothing against historical accuracy or use of
>historical basis in writing SF or fantasy that I'm aware of.
The objection to elves in the SCA is based upon one member choosing to
judge another based on his or her own hypocritical view of what the
"SCA according to them" should be.
Try wearing a white robe with a cross or a large silver "swastika"
around your neck and see how far "history" actually goes in the SCA.
The same thing applies to the pointed ears arguments....even though
they can be demonstrated to have existed in period, the viewer of said
ears is going to base his opinion on what he sees as acceptable and
nothing more. Pointed ears to him will represent klingons and vulcans
while the wearer probably sees them as representing Chloris or Pan et
al.
ral
Rowanwald Central
> Try wearing a white robe with a cross or a large
> silver "swastika" around your neck and see how
> far "history" actually goes in the SCA.
I fail to see your point. When in history did a person wear a white robe
with a cross or a large swastika on it? (Leaving out popes, for the robe and
cross since that position is excluded, as is that of period Rulers, for a
persona).
If you were talking about white clerical robes (w/cross. Danged if I can
find any reference to white robes and swastikas anywhere but modernly), then
we already have one monk in our kingdom of the proper order. Perhaps most
folks just don't want to play a persona that forbids shoes, meat, alcohol,
or "consorting with the opposite sex".
Rosine
Chris Zakes
Lewis) wrote:
>moon...@austin.rr.com (Chris Zakes) wrote:
>
>>I guess you're not very familiar with the early days of the SCA. For
>>example, Poul Anderson was one of the folks at the First Tournament.
>>Off the top of my head, other SF/Fantasy writers who've been involved
>>with the SCA include... Robert Asprin, Kathryn Kurtz, Randall Garrett,
>>Diana Paxson, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Dorothy Heydt.
>
>Probably moreso than you, sir since you argue my point for me.
>
>The SCA was born in fantasy and sci-fi and trying to take them out of
>the SCA today is what the nazis are trying to do, not I.
I'll grant that the SCA was born in fantasy (since some of the folks
described as attending the First Tournament include characters from
Narnia and Middle Earth) but where do you get the science fiction
aspect?
Also, the notion of focusing on history instead of fantasy is hardly a
new one. It was prevalent when I joined 27 years ago.
>>Only for certain very limited definitions of "doesn't break the
>>rules." If such things were *really* acceptable SCA-wide, then why is
>>it that Pennsic is the only place they show up?
>
>As we've been told elsewhere in this thread, those customs *were* seen
>as acceptable in certain houses and only when they came to Pennsic did
>they meet any opposition. Want me to go back and quote the folks
>involved or can I assume that you will?
I recall one person--who was part of a LARP or other fantasy-based
group, *not* an SCA member--saying he went to Pennsic without a clue
that fantasy characters weren't the norm. Feel free to refresh my
memory on *SCA* groups who do fantasy characters on a regular basis.
>>> it comes down to
>>>*your* opinion and how *you* insist on applying your standards to
>>>everyone else.
>
>>I asked someone else once before, I'll ask you now: When and where in
>>"pre-seventeenth century Europe" can you document the custom of
>>wearing pointed ears or dressing like Bram Stoker-style vampires?
>
>As I have said before and will again for your benefit, sir....
>
>May Day....in all its incarnations included several documented
>examples of pointed ears being used on costumes. Germany is my fav
>example. Feel free to look it up.
>
>Rome-based May Day celebrations (Floralia) with Flora/Chloris
>characterized the nymphs et al as having pointed ears (all
>mythological less than humans were).
>
>William Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream (circa 1600)
>characterized all the less-than-human traits with characters with
>pointed ears.
>
>How many examples do you require?
How about some examples from everyday life, rather than theatrical or
festival costumes. Or are you assuming that the kind of clothing
people wear in New Orleans on Mardi Gras is the same kind of clothing
they wear the rest of the year? I've *been* to New Orleans on several
occasions, and I can assure you that this isn't the case.
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
"Dragons don't have friends. The nearest they can get
to the idea is an enemy who is still alive."
-Terry Pratchett, "Guards! Guards!"
Chris Beilby
Chris Beilby
pointy hood, Rosine.
And his mention of the Swastika is going to bring Godwin's law into effect
any time now...
Samuron
> moon...@austin.rr.com (Chris Zakes) wrote:
>
> >I guess you're not very familiar with the early days of the SCA. For
> >example, Poul Anderson was one of the folks at the First Tournament.
> >Off the top of my head, other SF/Fantasy writers who've been involved
> >with the SCA include... Robert Asprin, Kathryn Kurtz, Randall Garrett,
> >Diana Paxson, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Dorothy Heydt.
>
> Probably moreso than you, sir since you argue my point for me.
>
> The SCA was born in fantasy and sci-fi and trying to take them out of
> the SCA today is what the nazis are trying to do, not I.
That may well be how it was born; I wasn't there, so I can't say.
What I can say is that in 1990, I began paying dues to the SCA, Inc.;
this was an organization which had been created over two decades
earlier for the alleged purpose of presenting activities and events
which re-create the environment pre-17th-Century Western Culture. I
understood at the time that this was not a D&D group, a fantasy group,
or a sci-fi group; it was a historical re-creation society with highly
inclusive standards for participation. If the SCA had wanted to
incorporate as fantasy, sci-fi, D&D, whatever, it could have done so,
but it did not.
None for me; this is precicesly what the SCA, Inc. was created for, in
my opinion. I have never been to Pennsic, so I have never seen the
"elf ear" people first-hand; if recreating such period festivals is
all they are doing, then I would actually like to see it. I'm even
open to an explanation of "verily, we are performing a play, milord".
My point is that the SCA, Inc. takes my money for reasons that are
clearly stated in it's articles of incorporation. As such, I have a
reasonable expectation that my money will be used for that purpose.
I'm all for fantasy and sc-fi, but that's not why I send my money to
Milpitas.
Heather Jones
> >I asked someone else once before, I'll ask you now: When and where in
> >"pre-seventeenth century Europe" can you document the custom of
> >wearing pointed ears or dressing like Bram Stoker-style vampires?
>
> As I have said before and will again for your benefit, sir....
>
> May Day....in all its incarnations included several documented
> examples of pointed ears being used on costumes. Germany is my fav
> example. Feel free to look it up.
It would be difficult to look it up since you haven't actually
offered anything to look up -- if someone attempts to follow the
extremely vague lead you offer and fails to find examples of
pre-17th century costumes with pointed ears, you could always
claim that it was in some book they didn't look at.
Documentation normally involves providing the specifics of the
source, not simply an assertion that it exists.
> Rome-based May Day celebrations (Floralia) with Flora/Chloris
> characterized the nymphs et al as having pointed ears (all
> mythological less than humans were).
Is this an assertion that mythological figures were depicted with
pointed ears, or that there is clear evidence that people
portrayed mythological figures by dressing up with pointed ears?
> William Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream (circa 1600)
> characterized all the less-than-human traits with characters with
> pointed ears.
I know it's not unknown in modern stagings of this play to use a
pointy-ear motif to indicate the fairy characters, but is there
evidence that Elizabethan players used this type of costuming technique?
> How many examples do you require?
The problem is: I don't see any actual _examples_ yet -- just
assertions that they exist. Without providing any specifics of
the evidence, there's no way of knowing whether it actually
indicates what you claim it indicates.
Tangwystyl
--
*****
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*****
Dennis M O'Connor
> [ ... nothing with any content ...]
Ah, another idiot puts my name in the thread title.
<chuckle> Some never learn, and there's a
fool joining USENET every minute.
Dennis M O'Connor
[ as a second-remark about Richard Lewis' post, though of
course Chris is too incompetent to state that in his post ...]
> And his mention of the Swastika is going to bring Godwin's
> law into effect any time now...
http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/15/151.html says
this, among other things, about the 3000-yr old swastika:
"Although not commonly used in Europe during the Middle Ages,
it was well known and had many different names: Hakenkreuz
in Germanic princedoms, fylfot in England, crux gammata in
Latin countries, and tetraskelion or gammadion in Greece."
So, Chris Beilby's ignorance makes Richard Lewis' point
quite clearly: the SCA isn't about history, it's about creating a
medievalesque fantasy-world that never existed, and that is
free of activities, symbols and ideas that many 21st Century
people object to. In the SCA, historical accuracy takes a
back seat to political correctness, every time.
Many hypocrites in the SCA pretend otherwise, of course,
in order to justify their persecution of the people who have
a different, more inclusive idea of what that "medievalesque
fantasy-world" should be.
Dennis M O'Connor
> What I can say is that in 1990, I began paying dues to the SCA, Inc.;
> this was an organization which had been created over two decades
> earlier for the alleged purpose of presenting activities and events
> which re-create the environment pre-17th-Century Western Culture.
So you claim, and yet, no such SCA event has ever occurred,
to my knowledge. Can you name one such event that you
have been to, Samuron ? I doubt it.
You're pretty holier-than-thou for someone who has
been known to walk around during events in a
thoroughly 20th C. T-shirt with "garb" printed on it.
Dennis M O'Connor
> At least you get points for consistency; you don't let a little thing
> like personal friendship stand in the way of making calling someone a
> charlatan, an idiot, a lunatic, irrational, dishonest, or outright
> stupid.
Oh, so when you falsely attributed a strawman position
to me, and then called it "Ludicrous", that was friendship
in your opinion ? You were the one who introduced
insulting people into the conversation: I just replied in kind,
as I am well-known for doing.
I also don't know why you consider yourself to have
been my friend. It's not like we ever do anything
together, or talk much. We are acquainted, yes.
But friends ? I see no evidence of that.
Katherine Rowberd
> I think that the White robe with Cross is supposed to be acompanied by a
> pointy hood, Rosine.
Uh, guess again. I believe that the crusaders wore something like this,
if you include "longish tunic" in the definition of "robe".
> And his mention of the Swastika is going to bring Godwin's law into effect
> any time now...
For what it's worth, the swastika pre-dates the National Socialist party
by centuries, if not millenia. It is used in many cultures as a
religious symbol or simply a decorative motif.
Yours,
Katherine
--
Lady Katherine Rowberd (mka Kirrily "Skud" Robert)
kath...@infotrope.net http://infotrope.net/sca/
Caldrithig, Skraeling Althing, Ealdormere
"The rose is red, the leaves are grene, God save Elizabeth our Queene"
Rowanwald Central
> > I think that the White robe with Cross is supposed
> > to be acompanied by a pointy hood, Rosine.
Katherine Rowberd answered:
> Uh, guess again. I believe that the crusaders wore something
> like this, if you include "longish tunic" in the definition of "robe".
Which we see often (at least at Pennsic), with no condemnation and instead a
(general) appreciation for the warrior households which (who?) wear them. So
again - I can't really grasp where he was going with the statement
"Try wearing a white robe with a cross or
a large silver "swastika" around your neck
and see how far "history" actually goes in
the SCA."
As it appears to be an attempt at saying that outfits which he believes
to be period would be frowned upon within the Society. Now, as far as the
"large silver swastika around your neck" goes - *I* have never seen a period
depictation of such a thing in the form of jewelry, certainly not as a
religious symbol of some specific meaning. But then, I'm fairly new at
studying history. Perhaps Mr. Lewis would be interested in giving us some
ideas as to where to find such examples or artifacts.
> > And his mention of the Swastika is going to bring
> > Godwin's law into effect any time now...
>
> For what it's worth, the swastika pre-dates the National Socialist party
> by centuries, if not millenia. It is used in many cultures as a
> religious symbol or simply a decorative motif.
I've seen it carved, woven, embroidered, used in mosaics... but cast as a
pendant and worn in the same manner as a Christian Cross (before our modern
period, I mean)? Have you seen such? I'm not trying to be argumentative on
this one point - just curious, because as common as the motif is, this
thread has pointed out an oddity in it's "non-use". Which is sort of
strange, now that attention's been drawn to it.
Rosine
Zebee Johnstone
Rowanwald Central <rowa...@sybercom.net> wrote:
>
>I've seen it carved, woven, embroidered, used in mosaics... but cast as a
>pendant and worn in the same manner as a Christian Cross (before our modern
>period, I mean)? Have you seen such? I'm not trying to be argumentative on
>this one point - just curious, because as common as the motif is, this
>thread has pointed out an oddity in it's "non-use". Which is sort of
>strange, now that attention's been drawn to it.
>
Look at it from another angle.
What things were used in that way?
The only two that I can think of are the Thor's Hammer and the Cross,
and I am not sure of the hammer...
Why would people wear it? Was the cross worn as a pendant all through
our period, if not, when and why? And if so, why? What things were worn as
pendants, were only things with meaning so worn, or was it a common
way of wearing jewellry? Were other single motifs worn as decoration
in the way crosses were?
Was wearing a cross as pendant a marker, a badge of allegiance? If so,
presumably it would only be needed in situations where the default wasn't
Christian. What would wearing the swastika say about the bod wearing it,
considering that it was found in Jewish and Christian and other contexts?
Was it an amulet? If so, then it would need to be considered useful in
that context, unless the swastika was associated with a particular
deity or helpful spirit or had other properties making it useful as an
amulet, wouldn't make sense to wear it.
I believe that most crosses were worn as amulets. As a protection.
As were other things, like lockets with bits of the Gospel of St John
worn as prevention against disease. The crucifix is central to the
religion, a very powerful amulet. What would a swastika do for the
wearer?
I don't find it odd at all, because people don't wear symbols unless
they have a use as a symbol. There are lots of decorative motifs that
don't make it to symbol status until someone makes them that.
There were a lot of 5 pointed stars about in various contexts,
including church decorations, before modern folk (was it Crowley or
was it Gardner?) took the symbol and used it. Now someone see it and
goes "witch/pagan", but that's relatively new. I doubt you'll find it
as a symbolic pendant or marker motif on its own in any period source,
even though you will find it in decorations.
So I'd say the first thing is to discover what things were worn as
pendants and why. Then you can determine what other things might have
also been worn, and what wearing them would mean.
Seems to me, considering what little I know, that the swastika had no
symbolic or protective/amulet function until the 20thC, same as the 5
pointed star didn't. So someone wearing one is making a modern era
statement, not a period one. And would be reacted to by people in
that way.
I am not sure what period gear you could wear that would have the same
reaction as a big swastika round your neck. I suspect that we moderns
don't have the references, we might see someone dressed in a
particular way in a manuscript illustration and just not realise it's
something to be offended at, just as a period person wouldn't have the
swastika refererences we do.
Silfren
Jean
> For what it's worth, the swastika pre-dates the National Socialist party
> by centuries, if not millenia. It is used in many cultures as a
> religious symbol or simply a decorative motif.
>
It is still used in Korea as a symbol of Buddhism. The local museum
has a swastika carved in a statue that is around 500 years. Though
thinking on it I think the buddhist version is actual a mirror
opposite of the European one, but I'm not sure.
Jean
just adding some trivia
Jay and Diane Rudin
>
> May Day....in all its incarnations included several documented
> examples of pointed ears being used on costumes. Germany is my fav
> example. Feel free to look it up.
I will, if you will name a source -- a pre-1601 reference to pointed ears.
> Rome-based May Day celebrations (Floralia) with Flora/Chloris
> characterized the nymphs et al as having pointed ears (all
> mythological less than humans were).
>
> William Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream (circa 1600)
> characterized all the less-than-human traits with characters with
> pointed ears.
The only character with undeniably pointed ears is the all-too-human Bottom,
when turned into an ass.
> How many examples do you require?
Any of these would do nicely, thank you. Would you please provide the
actual example? I have found no mention of pointed ears anywhere in the
text of William Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, nor have I found any
reference to pointed ears being worn in a period production of it. I can't
find a reference to pointed ears on nymphs or other mythological being in
Ovid or Homer, though I certainly don't know these books well.
I suspect that you are confusing two issues:
1. references to elves, fairies, nymphs, and other non-human races before
1601, and
2. references to pointed ears as a racial trait before 1601.
Nobody denies the existence of the first. But until the second is shown,
there is no justification to wearing pointed ears as part of an SCA fairy
costume.
I don't know of any reference to, or picture of, non-human races with
pointed ears before the Victorian era. If you know of one, please pass on
the reference -- I'd very much like to know about it.
Morgan Smith
"Rowanwald Central" <rowa...@sybercom.net> wrote in message
news:uss5qsm...@corp.supernews.com...
> > For what it's worth, the swastika pre-dates the National Socialist party
> > by centuries, if not millenia. It is used in many cultures as a
> > religious symbol or simply a decorative motif.
>
> I've seen it carved, woven, embroidered, used in mosaics... but cast as a
> pendant and worn in the same manner as a Christian Cross (before our
modern
> period, I mean)? Have you seen such? I'm not trying to be argumentative on
> this one point - just curious, because as common as the motif is, this
> thread has pointed out an oddity in it's "non-use". Which is sort of
> strange, now that attention's been drawn to it.
>
I have a weaving draft (which I am just beginning to think I have a real
use for, in that my husband really, really needs a new tunic) that has what
is essentially a swastika motif running through it. I have made chair covers
in a pattern called "Gothic Cross" which has (gasp) little crosses woven at
the centre of lozenges all over it. I haven't had anyone object to these
motifs. I show people the drafts, they say "Oooh, pretty - how long will it
take to weave?" (usually followed by "Isn't it *hard* to do all that?") -
they emphatically do not say that I will be hauled up in front of the
Royalty or the BoD and summarily r+d'd or banished, nor do they complain
about my motifs. In fact, many people would like to have the chair covers
for their very own.
So what the hell are we on about here?
Morgan the Unknown
> Rosine
>
>
Paul Hume
>
> What things were used in that way?
>
> The only two that I can think of are the Thor's Hammer and the Cross,
> and I am not sure of the hammer...
Mjollnir pendants and decorations seem to have been period, though I'd
have to chase the references. I *think* the Valknut was as well, but
am less certain. Like the cross, a symbol of one's God(s) intended to
protect, bring Their favor, etc.
> I believe that most crosses were worn as amulets. As a protection.
> As were other things, like lockets with bits of the Gospel of St John
> worn as prevention against disease. The crucifix is central to the
> religion, a very powerful amulet. What would a swastika do for the
> wearer?
In period in Tibet, isn't it? (g)
> There were a lot of 5 pointed stars about in various contexts,
> including church decorations, before modern folk (was it Crowley or
> was it Gardner?) took the symbol and used it.
Nope, again in period, though not something you'd hang around your
neck. Agrippa, D'Abano, et al. use it magically. So does the "Solomon"
of the Lemegeton, but damned if I know if we can actually trace that
Grimoire to period, or if it was a later one (most "mediaeval"
grimoires are 17th century productions). But for certain with Agrippa.
Paul
Craig Levin
Chris Zakes <moon...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>How about some examples from everyday life, rather than theatrical or
>festival costumes. Or are you assuming that the kind of clothing
>people wear in New Orleans on Mardi Gras is the same kind of clothing
>they wear the rest of the year? I've *been* to New Orleans on several
>occasions, and I can assure you that this isn't the case.
Assuming that his citations hold up, he _does_ have a point
there. If the goal of our events is to evoke mediaeval festive
events (like market days, city patron saint's days, etc.) then
elaborate costumes wouldn't be unusual-see, for instance, the
descriptions of city pageants in Huizinga.
So, if there's a crowd of people dressed like woodwoses, it's
obvious that the local big shot has spared no expense, by having
these fancy costumes made up, and finding some people willing to
put them on and go through a masque, doubtless written by some
local savant. Right? <grin>
Pedro
--
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html
cle...@rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin Librarians Rule: Oook!
Chris Zakes
<ru...@ev1.net> wrote:
snip)
>I don't know of any reference to, or picture of, non-human races with
>pointed ears before the Victorian era. If you know of one, please pass on
>the reference -- I'd very much like to know about it.
Just to play the other side of the field for a moment, I did a bit of
digging, and period pictures/sculptures of fauns and satyrs *do* have
pointy ears (http://users.transfur.com/narzil/satpic1.html).
Unfortunately, a similar search for "elves" turned up multiple pages
of D&D fluff, and I didn't feel like wading through it all to find out
if there were any period pictures of elves in there.
So that part of the question is still open, although there's still no
evidence that people wore pointy ears as an "everyday" fashion
accessory.
Chris Zakes
Well, that's certainly a more... "charitable" interpretation than
thinking "Gee, those folks are clueless. What'd they do, use a Conan
comic book for a primary source?" <grin back at ya>
Craig Levin
Richard Lewis <red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Seems like the objection to "elves" in the SCA doesn't invert onto SF
>>fandom; there's nothing against historical accuracy or use of
>>historical basis in writing SF or fantasy that I'm aware of.
>
>The objection to elves in the SCA is based upon one member choosing to
>judge another based on his or her own hypocritical view of what the
>"SCA according to them" should be.
>
>Try wearing a white robe with a cross or a large silver "swastika"
>around your neck and see how far "history" actually goes in the SCA.
I doubt that anyone'd notice that a person would be wearing a
crucifix. If they did, it'd most likely be to the effect that the
individual's gone a bit farther than usual in their depiction of
their persona-lots of people wore rosaries and the like in
period.
Fylfots have, unfortunately, an ugly modern reputation, one which
the SCA probably doesn't want to be tainted by. Yes-I know that
they're currently a Buddhist symbol in the Far East, but most of
us aren't from there, and most of the SCA isn't there. The
interpretations youre' going to have to deal with, in the SCA,
are going to be distinctly Western, if not American.
>The same thing applies to the pointed ears arguments....even though
>they can be demonstrated to have existed in period, the viewer of said
>ears is going to base his opinion on what he sees as acceptable and
>nothing more. Pointed ears to him will represent klingons and vulcans
>while the wearer probably sees them as representing Chloris or Pan et
>al.
There's where your chance at education can come into being. Talk
about Renaissance sculptures, civic pageants, and so on and so
forth. Then, you'll come away having taught somebody something
they didn't know before, a clear instance of our educational
mission in practice...
Richard Lewis
>I'll grant that the SCA was born in fantasy (since some of the folks
>described as attending the First Tournament include characters from
>Narnia and Middle Earth) but where do you get the science fiction
>aspect?
That's a good question, Chris. The sci-fi question I mean. Personal
definitions/semantics is all I can answer. I mean as in defining Mark
Twain's Connecticut Yankee as sci-fi etc. Not that it has anything to
do with the current topic or anything, it's just the way I define the
SCA.
Since it was born in fantasy and sci-fi (in my opinion), refining it
to the point that those no longer fit will (has already) change the
entire thing and not for the good.
It's escapism and nothing more. Make it too much like real life and
the fun factor ceases to exist for a lot of folks.
>Also, the notion of focusing on history instead of fantasy is hardly a
>new one. It was prevalent when I joined 27 years ago.
Well it wasn't when I joined 22 years ago. The focus was on the
atmosphere and the fun factor and not the mundane details. Strange
but I'd bet we had more fun back then, too.
>I recall one person--who was part of a LARP or other fantasy-based
>group, *not* an SCA member--saying he went to Pennsic without a clue
>that fantasy characters weren't the norm. Feel free to refresh my
>memory on *SCA* groups who do fantasy characters on a regular basis.
Well since this garbage usenet service of mine (news.mindspring.com)
only goes back as far as 10/15 and that series of posts was in the
beginning of this entire topic of "elf ears at Pennsic", I'll have to
decline that offer to look them up. Yeah, I know I could do deja or
google but to be honest, I'm not in the mood to argue.
>>>> it comes down to
>>>>*your* opinion and how *you* insist on applying your standards to
>>>>everyone else.
>>
>>>I asked someone else once before, I'll ask you now: When and where in
>>>"pre-seventeenth century Europe" can you document the custom of
>>>wearing pointed ears or dressing like Bram Stoker-style vampires?
>>
>>As I have said before and will again for your benefit, sir....
>>
>>May Day....in all its incarnations included several documented
>>examples of pointed ears being used on costumes. Germany is my fav
>>example. Feel free to look it up.
>>
>>Rome-based May Day celebrations (Floralia) with Flora/Chloris
>>characterized the nymphs et al as having pointed ears (all
>>mythological less than humans were).
>>
>>William Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream (circa 1600)
>>characterized all the less-than-human traits with characters with
>>pointed ears.
>>
>>How many examples do you require?
>How about some examples from everyday life, rather than theatrical or
>festival costumes. Or are you assuming that the kind of clothing
>people wear in New Orleans on Mardi Gras is the same kind of clothing
>they wear the rest of the year? I've *been* to New Orleans on several
>occasions, and I can assure you that this isn't the case.
You missed the point, Chris.
If they can be shown to have existed at even *one time* in period,
they are perfectly correct for Pennsic. Arguing that they might have
existed and might have been worn at one time but not properly at
Pennsic comes back to your opinion and trying to force your view on
someone else.
Comes back to my view of your "suggestions", Chris. See, you just
took something that *might* be correct and made your own rule about
how and where it *might* be correct to wear it. The guidelines don't
prohibiti it but you just made your own rule to do just that. Easy to
be judgemental, isn't it?
ral
Richard Lewis
>It would be difficult to look it up since you haven't actually
>offered anything to look up -- if someone attempts to follow the
>extremely vague lead you offer and fails to find examples of
>pre-17th century costumes with pointed ears, you could always
>claim that it was in some book they didn't look at.
>Documentation normally involves providing the specifics of the
>source, not simply an assertion that it exists.
When most folks talk about "liberal arts", "hippies", "pot-smoking
freaks", "ridiculous social experimentation gone horribly wrong" et
al, the mention of the name "Berkeley" is assumed to be understood.
Some folks....you in particular....could make the assertion that
"Berkeley" means much more but in that context stated, "most folks"
would understand.
Two plus two equals four, Tangwystyl. Trust me, it does. I'm sure
you can make the logical leap.
"May Day, Germany, pointed ears"....most folks wouldn't exactly call
that "extremely vague"....
I am sorry for sounding so condescending but I have long ago come to
understand that some folks don't *want* "fact"....they simply want to
argue.
ral
Harold Groot
>>It would be difficult to look it up since you haven't actually
>>offered anything to look up -- if someone attempts to follow the
>>extremely vague lead you offer and fails to find examples of
>>pre-17th century costumes with pointed ears, you could always
>>claim that it was in some book they didn't look at.
>>Documentation normally involves providing the specifics of the
>>source, not simply an assertion that it exists.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 05:51:04 GMT, red...@mindspring.com (Richard
Lewis) wrote:
>When most folks talk about "liberal arts", "hippies", "pot-smoking
>freaks", "ridiculous social experimentation gone horribly wrong" et
>al, the mention of the name "Berkeley" is assumed to be understood.
>Some folks....you in particular....could make the assertion that
>"Berkeley" means much more but in that context stated, "most folks"
>would understand.
You are doing a disservice to a great number of people here. Those
terms apply equally well (and equally poorly) to a number of other
institutions. When I lived back in the State of New York, there were
several closer institutions that might have come to mind before
Berkeley if given those quotes. It may be the most familiar to you,
but to generalize it to the entire population is asking for trouble.
>Two plus two equals four, Tangwystyl. Trust me, it does. I'm sure
>you can make the logical leap.
>"May Day, Germany, pointed ears"....most folks wouldn't exactly call
>that "extremely vague"....
>I am sorry for sounding so condescending but I have long ago come to
>understand that some folks don't *want* "fact"....they simply want to
>argue.
>ral
Now here you do a great disservice to Tangwystyl. She is simply
asking you to provide a direct citation. She is not trying to be
argumentative, she is simply asking you provide something that should
be very simple for you to provide - if you actually have the
documentation that you claim.
No, it is YOU who come across as evasive and/or argumentative here.
Tangwystyl is perfectly willing to accept EVIDENCE about something if
you can provide it. To date you have not done so, so there is no
reason for her to change her conclusions.
As for your condescending attitude - please put it somewhere else. If
you have found =someone else= who didn't want the facts you may be
entitled to treat them that way. That does not mean it is correct to
assume that NO ONE wants the facts. You are coming off very poorly
here so far - but there is still time to correct that.
Jay and Diane Rudin
T> It would be difficult to look it up since you haven't actually
T> offered anything to look up -- if someone attempts to follow the
T> extremely vague lead you offer and fails to find examples of
T> pre-17th century costumes with pointed ears, you could always
T> claim that it was in some book they didn't look at.
T> Documentation normally involves providing the specifics of the
T> source, not simply an assertion that it exists.
> When most folks talk about "liberal arts", "hippies", "pot-smoking
> freaks", "ridiculous social experimentation gone horribly wrong" et
> al, the mention of the name "Berkeley" is assumed to be understood.
So what? Are you asserting that hurtful prejudice ought to be the standard
for SCA discussions on the Rialto?
Meanwhile, back in the discussion on pointed ears, Tangwystyl is exactly
right -- Documentation normally involves providing the specifics of the
source, not simply an assertion that it exists. More germane, perhaps, is
that you are conversing with real researchers. You *WILL NOT* convince us
without showing us the citation.
> Some folks....you in particular....could make the assertion that
> "Berkeley" means much more but in that context stated, "most folks"
> would understand.
>
> Two plus two equals four, Tangwystyl. Trust me, it does. I'm sure
> you can make the logical leap.
Nobody ever denied this. Get back to the point, which is pointy ears, not
sneering at Tangwystyl.
> "May Day, Germany, pointed ears"....most folks wouldn't exactly call
> that "extremely vague"....
*Every* intelligent, literate, educated person asking in good faith for a
citation would call that extremely vague.
> I am sorry for sounding so condescending but I have long ago come to
> understand that some folks don't *want* "fact"....they simply want to
> argue.
Fortunately, you are now dealing with the people who do, indeed, want fact.
You are sneering at her and condescending to her *because* she wants fact.
NAME A BOOK. Until you have done that, you have *not* provided an example.
You have asserted, with no proof whatsoever, that examples exist, and then
sneered at Tangwystl for actually wanting them.
I can't find an example of anybody wearing pointed ears to represent a
non-human race until the twentieth century. If you have found an example,
please show it to us.
Name a book. Give an author and title, with (ideally) a page number. Until
you do that, you will continue to look like somebody who hasn't done the
research, but is claiming that he has.
If you show us the research, then we can learn something we don't know. If
you actually don't have a citation, and admit it, then you can learn
something about research that you don't know.
But please stop sneering at people who actually want the facts. That
doesn't help anybody learn anything.
Jay and Diane Rudin
> If they can be shown to have existed at even *one time* in period,
> they are perfectly correct for Pennsic.
"If".
Chris has asked you to show this. Tangwystyl has asked you to show this. I
have asked you to show this. You continue to not show it. Please show us
an example of people wearing pointed ears in period.
I suspect that you don't realize how this looks. If I, or Chris, or Heather
had a citation for this, we'd be showing it to people on a regular basis.
We'd be emailing the name, title and ISBN number of the book all over the
known world. And we don't even like the idea of pointed ears in the SCA.
We do not understand why somebody who had a citation for a human wearing
pointed ears, and who is in a discussion about wearing pointed ears,
wouldn't show us the clear compelling proof that he's right.
If this were a poker game, then you raised, trying to bluff us out. But we
didn't fold. Now the only way to win is to actually show us the winning
hand.
If you show us the citation, you win the discussion. I will back down to a
real example. I'm a recent Ph.D., and expect to see the research.
Tangwystyl will back down to a real example. She's doing serious academic
research in history at Berkeley. Tivar will back down to a real example.
He travels across the Known World teaching.
Maybe you have the winning hand. But your royal flush doesn't beat my pair
of jacks until you let me see it.
David Dyer-Bennet
[snipping the irrelevant nonsense]
> "May Day, Germany, pointed ears"....most folks wouldn't exactly call
> that "extremely vague"....
>
> I am sorry for sounding so condescending but I have long ago come to
> understand that some folks don't *want* "fact"....they simply want to
> argue.
You're asking her, and the rest of us, to do the work to prove *your*
point. If you want the point to be taken seriously, that's a stupid,
stupid, strategy. If you have evidence, show it. If you don't, shut
up.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Richard Lewis
> As it appears to be an attempt at saying that outfits which he believes
>to be period would be frowned upon within the Society. Now, as far as the
>"large silver swastika around your neck" goes - *I* have never seen a period
>depictation of such a thing in the form of jewelry, certainly not as a
>religious symbol of some specific meaning. But then, I'm fairly new at
>studying history. Perhaps Mr. Lewis would be interested in giving us some
>ideas as to where to find such examples or artifacts.
http://www.antiquities.co.uk/items/557.html took all of 2 seconds
searching, too.
ral
Craig Levin
Richard Lewis <red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>moon...@austin.rr.com (Chris Zakes) wrote:
>
>>I'll grant that the SCA was born in fantasy (since some of the folks
>>described as attending the First Tournament include characters from
>>Narnia and Middle Earth) but where do you get the science fiction
>>aspect?
>
>That's a good question, Chris. The sci-fi question I mean. Personal
>definitions/semantics is all I can answer. I mean as in defining Mark
>Twain's Connecticut Yankee as sci-fi etc. Not that it has anything to
>do with the current topic or anything, it's just the way I define the
>SCA.
But the SCA's sort of got its own written definition, on record
with the authorities in California. Nothing about science fiction
or fantasy in it.
Just because a group began as a subset of another group does not
mean that it will remain a subset forever-would you call the
Episcopalians Jews, because, centuries ago, Christianity was a
subgroup of Judaism?
>Since it was born in fantasy and sci-fi (in my opinion), refining it
>the fun factor ceases to exist for a lot of folks.
I don't follow your reasoning. I joined it because I thought the
notion of historical recreation (and, to some extent, re-
enactment) was fun, and because my friends thought it was fun.
Not because I felt like "being" Darrin the Paladin in "realtime".
>>Also, the notion of focusing on history instead of fantasy is hardly a
>>new one. It was prevalent when I joined 27 years ago.
>
>Well it wasn't when I joined 22 years ago. The focus was on the
>atmosphere and the fun factor and not the mundane details. Strange
>but I'd bet we had more fun back then, too.
It may depend on your branch. Some groups are pretty laid back
and just "here for the beer", and others have some high-powered A
and S or service oriented people who will not just talk the talk,
but also walk the walk about our educational role.
Craig Levin
Richard Lewis <red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>When most folks talk about "liberal arts", "hippies", "pot-smoking
>freaks", "ridiculous social experimentation gone horribly wrong" et
>al, the mention of the name "Berkeley" is assumed to be understood.
Not Madison, Wisconsin (sorry Ary!)?
>"May Day, Germany, pointed ears"....most folks wouldn't exactly call
>that "extremely vague"....
I would. Do you have any proof that they were wearing these things-these
*precise* *things*-before 1600? Where in Germany? Bavaria?
Hanover? The Palatinate? Even now, the different regions of
Germany have distinct cultural differences, even discounting the
imposition of the Cold War upon Wessis and Ossis. The final
political separations weren't *really* hammered out until the
late nineteenth century, just outside of living memory, after
all.
Heather Jones
>
> Heather Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> >It would be difficult to look it up since you haven't actually
> >offered anything to look up -- if someone attempts to follow the
> >extremely vague lead you offer and fails to find examples of
> >pre-17th century costumes with pointed ears, you could always
> >claim that it was in some book they didn't look at.
> >Documentation normally involves providing the specifics of the
> >source, not simply an assertion that it exists.
>
> When most folks talk about "liberal arts", "hippies", "pot-smoking
> freaks", "ridiculous social experimentation gone horribly wrong" et
> al, the mention of the name "Berkeley" is assumed to be understood.
>
> Some folks....you in particular....could make the assertion that
> "Berkeley" means much more but in that context stated, "most folks"
> would understand.
>
> Two plus two equals four, Tangwystyl. Trust me, it does. I'm sure
> you can make the logical leap.
>
> "May Day, Germany, pointed ears"....most folks wouldn't exactly call
> that "extremely vague"....
"Most folks" seem perfectly happy to say that a horse has five
legs if you call the tail a leg. I stand firmly by the position
that "May Day, Germany, pointed ears" is not even in the same
solar system as adequate reference to evidence. Previously, I
considered the reference vague. Given your current response, I'm
quite happy to consider it deliberately vague, and past
experience has indicated that deliberate vagueness is strongly
associated with an absence of actual evidence. In fact, there
seems to be an entire genre of net.posters whose argumentation
follows this general format:
- make interesting, but somewhat improbable claim
- assert that there is "lots of evidence" for this claim
- when asked, refer to evidence in ways that make it impossible
for the evidence to be followed up, e.g., authors referred to by
last name with no specifics on particular publications; large
bodies of material referenced by general category (e.g. "medieval
annals", "classical writers", etc.) with no information on
specific works or texts; categories of evidence referred to
simply by topic (e.g., "books on the ancient Celts", "books on
medieval art")
- when pressed for more specific references, ridicule the asker
for "clearly not having any familiarity with the field" or
"expecting me to do their work for them"
- the next time the topic comes up, when asked for references,
proclaim, "I've provided lots of references in the past and
nobody ever bothered to look at them -- why should I bother"
> I am sorry for sounding so condescending but I have long ago come to
> understand that some folks don't *want* "fact"....they simply want to
> argue.
Oh, I assure you, you don't sound condescending. You just sound
silly. Given that you're the one who claims to have the "facts"
and yet seems oddly averse to providing them in usable form, I
have to wonder who it really is who doesn't want the "facts" to
be known. I'm always delighted to have facts ... I just consider
them a different category from vague, unsupported assertions.
I would like to point out that you still haven't made clear
exactly _what_ practices or artifacts your supposed references
are in support of, whether the depiction of supernatural
creatures with pointed ears or the use by human beings of
pointy-eared costume accessories in portraying supernatural
creatures. That's very much the sort of thing that leads me to
apply the label "vague".
David Friedman
red...@mindspring.com (Richard Lewis) wrote:
Neat.
I certainly wouldn't object to someone wearing it. I can imagine that
some people would--but most likely they would be people who didn't know
the relevant historical facts.
--
David/Cariadoc
www.daviddfriedman.com
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> http://www.antiquities.co.uk/items/557.html took all of 2 seconds
> searching, too.
Now that's _exactly_ what folks are asking for. Sure, it's not a
scholarly source (which would of course be better still), but I for
one am glad to accept it as decent evidence that swastika brooches
were worn prior to 1600. Which is, as you've pointed out, good enough
for Society use anyway.
Of course, now I'm curious as to how widespread the custom might have
been, but I'm not curious enough to research it:-)
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
It goes against the grain of modern education to teach children to
program. What fun is there in making plans, acquiring discipline in
organising thoughts, devoting attention to detail and learning to be
self-critical? --Alan Perlis, Epigrams in Programming
Craig Levin
A Roman brooch, from the 100's or 200's CE. Point made, there.
However, the problem with the fylfot isn't that it was never used
in period, one way or another, but the reputation that it has
today, where most SCAfolk are from (that is, the US, the British
Commonwealth, and Europe)-and a very ugly one it is. Basically,
the heralds' take on the matter is that we won't register badges
or arms with fylfots because we want to avoid the rather expectable
rumpus that could be generated by their display.
Rowanwald Central
Cool! Thanks for posting the link. I wonder if it was religiously
significant or just decorative (this symbol was once important, but now it's
on your cereal box). I doubt we'd ever know.
I wouldn't see having a problem with wearing it, if you were dressed for
it's time period. It'd look a little out of place in the middle ages and the
renn period though.
Rosine
ken koll aka Lord Valdis
to block certain people from being viewed, does anyone remember how to do
this with Outlook Express. I have redone my system and just took a peek
back here after a few months and there are some discussions that left out
made viewing this group so much nicer. Thank you for any help.
Yours In Service,
Lord Valdis of Gotland
Rowanwald Central
onto "message" in the upper left corner of your screen, scroll to "block
sender" and click on it. You're done for that poster - unless they change
their email address.
If you wish to tweak it further (say block out all messages with "Zorba"
in the subject line), you can go to "tools" -> "message rules" ->
"newsgroups", then fill in the blanks (use the form). It's pretty
fool-proof.
For any other system, someone else will have to answer.
Rosine
Chris CII
"ken koll aka Lord Valdis" <nors...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1TKdnUeuyZB...@comcast.com...
In outlook express, you click on the title of the offending message and then
go to Message | Block Sender
I do not vouch for the exact labels because I have a french version, but you
should be able to figure it out quite easily.
Hope this helps,
--
Salutations, Greetings,
Guiraud Belissen, Château du Ciel, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France
Chris Zakes
Lewis) wrote:
>moon...@austin.rr.com (Chris Zakes) wrote:
>
>>I'll grant that the SCA was born in fantasy (since some of the folks
>>described as attending the First Tournament include characters from
>>Narnia and Middle Earth) but where do you get the science fiction
>>aspect?
>
>That's a good question, Chris. The sci-fi question I mean. Personal
>definitions/semantics is all I can answer. I mean as in defining Mark
>Twain's Connecticut Yankee as sci-fi etc. Not that it has anything to
>do with the current topic or anything, it's just the way I define the
>SCA.
>
>Since it was born in fantasy and sci-fi (in my opinion), refining it
>to the point that those no longer fit will (has already) change the
>entire thing and not for the good.
>
>It's escapism and nothing more. Make it too much like real life and
>the fun factor ceases to exist for a lot of folks.
Maybe, maybe not. Granted, I don't want to re-create some of the less
pleasant aspects of our period, but... I was interested in Elisabethan
England long before I ever heard of the SCA. Being able to, for
example, learn Italian fencing techniques from that period, taught by
someone who has actually translated the manual--as opposed to merely
looking at a few pictures and reading a 19th century
interpretation--is *lots* more fun than using modern fencing
techniques while wearing 16th century clothes. If I want pure escapism
I'll stay home and read a book.
>>Also, the notion of focusing on history instead of fantasy is hardly a
>>new one. It was prevalent when I joined 27 years ago.
>
>Well it wasn't when I joined 22 years ago. The focus was on the
>atmosphere and the fun factor and not the mundane details. Strange
>but I'd bet we had more fun back then, too.
<shrug> The past *always* looks prettier than the present. Ten years
from now you'll probably be thinking about how bad things are in 2012
and how great they were in 2002.
Okay, so *maybe* some mummer somewhere wore pointed ears as part of a
costume (although the jury is still out on that, because you've *yet*
to provide amy actual documentation.) If some SCA-er wants to wear
pointed ears for their performance of "Midsummer Night's Dream" or a
re-creation of a Roman festival, that's reasonable. That doesn't
legitimize the people who claim to *be* elves, or the ones who
*aren't* in a play. And it doesn't cover the folks with the 19th
century Dracula outfits, either.
Chris Zakes
Lewis) wrote:
>Heather Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>>It would be difficult to look it up since you haven't actually
>>offered anything to look up -- if someone attempts to follow the
>>extremely vague lead you offer and fails to find examples of
>>pre-17th century costumes with pointed ears, you could always
>>claim that it was in some book they didn't look at.
>>Documentation normally involves providing the specifics of the
>>source, not simply an assertion that it exists.
>
>When most folks talk about "liberal arts", "hippies", "pot-smoking
>freaks", "ridiculous social experimentation gone horribly wrong" et
>al, the mention of the name "Berkeley" is assumed to be understood.
>
>Some folks....you in particular....could make the assertion that
>"Berkeley" means much more but in that context stated, "most folks"
>would understand.
>
>Two plus two equals four, Tangwystyl. Trust me, it does. I'm sure
>you can make the logical leap.
>
>"May Day, Germany, pointed ears"....most folks wouldn't exactly call
>that "extremely vague"....
Okay, I tried that phrase in Google. I got a "does not match any
documents" response.
I tried again with "May Day, pointed ears"... no matches there,
either.
Once again, with "May Day ears"... still no matches.
How about "May Day, Germany"... I got a bunch of sites about *modern*
May Day celebrations, but nothing about what happened in period.
Maybe "extremely vague" isn't the right description. "Useless" would
be closer
Marc Carlson
> Okay, I tried that phrase in Google. I got a "does not match any
Not to dispute the relevance of your point, but I really need to note
that a) the Internet is not yet the Great All-Knowing Database wherein
all things are contained if you use only the right keywords; b) Google
is not the be-all and end-all of search engines (there isn't one). It
does not list everything that is out there; and c) even if you had
found it out there, that doesn't mean it's accurate, the Internet
having an even lower overall accuracy rate than most people seem to
realize.
What we need (barring "ral"'s coughing up a real citation) is an
actual expert on historical festival cotumes and practices to say
whether there is even a chance that before (oh, at a guess) the
mid-19th century there were people dressing up as elves on May Day.
Unfortunately, it's not something I know anything about.
I don't know why you all are making such a fuss though. Where I'm
from, a lack of willingness to supply any sort of citation is a tacit
admission that the speaker is just pulling their information out of
their ... thin air, and can safely be ignored.
Marc/Diarmaid
Jay and Diane Rudin
> Not to dispute the relevance of your point, but I really need to note
> that a) the Internet is not yet the Great All-Knowing Database wherein
> all things are contained if you use only the right keywords; b) Google
> is not the be-all and end-all of search engines (there isn't one). It
> does not list everything that is out there; and c) even if you had
> found it out there, that doesn't mean it's accurate, the Internet
> having an even lower overall accuracy rate than most people seem to
> realize.
Exactly. I get 8 hits on Yahoo -- running the gamut from modern day fandom
(the ears were Spock's), neopagan sites, and one Christian site. A couple
of the neopagan ones claim it's a period practice, but they gave no
documentation or argument in favor.
> What we need (barring "ral"'s coughing up a real citation) is an
> actual expert on historical festival cotumes and practices to say
> whether there is even a chance that before (oh, at a guess) the
> mid-19th century there were people dressing up as elves on May Day.
> Unfortunately, it's not something I know anything about.
That wouldn't be enough. Clearly, the actors playing Oberon, Titania, and
Robin Goodfellow were portraying fairies on stage. What's needed is some
indication that pointed ears were used to do so.
Just as proof of dressing as vampires does not justify modern opera dress,
proof of dressing as elves does not justify modern ear prosthetics. I
cannot find a period reference to people wearing pointed ears in period.
(The closest I've seen is Tivar's link to sculptures and pantings of satyrs,
which does not show either such ears on elves, or people wearing them.) I
find it quite relevant that several people in this thread have told us about
some attempt to find the citation, but that the person claiming it exists
has not.
> I don't know why you all are making such a fuss though. Where I'm
> from, a lack of willingness to supply any sort of citation is a tacit
> admission that the speaker is just pulling their information out of
> their ... thin air, and can safely be ignored.
Of course. But to make that clear in a public forum, each time somebody
claims that pointed ears were worn by humans in period, somebody has to ask
for the citation. It's just politer to ask for the documentation than to
claim it doesn't exist, and both have the same effect:
If he has it, he will show it to us.
If he doesn't have it, he won't.
Marc Carlson
> Exactly. I get 8 hits on Yahoo -- running the gamut from modern day fandom
> (the ears were Spock's), neopagan sites, and one Christian site. A couple
> of the neopagan ones claim it's a period practice, but they gave no
> documentation or argument in favor.
Yeah, well... That's a path we probably want to avoid :)
> That wouldn't be enough. Clearly, the actors playing Oberon, Titania, and
> Robin Goodfellow were portraying fairies on stage. What's needed is some
> indication that pointed ears were used to do so.
In which case, an expert (or at least someone who's done the research)
on, say, late 16th century theatrical costuming. Gee, Tangwystl, can
you think of anyone like that?
> Just as proof of dressing as vampires does not justify modern opera dress,
> proof of dressing as elves does not justify modern ear prosthetics...
Absolutely, I stand corrected.
> Of course. But to make that clear in a public forum, each time somebody
> claims that pointed ears were worn by humans in period, somebody has to ask
> for the citation. It's just politer to ask for the documentation than to
> claim it doesn't exist, and both have the same effect:
> If he has it, he will show it to us.
> If he doesn't have it, he won't.
True.
Marc/Diarmaid
Heather Jones
>
> "Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<utaimbd...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Exactly. I get 8 hits on Yahoo -- running the gamut from modern day fandom
> > (the ears were Spock's), neopagan sites, and one Christian site. A couple
> > of the neopagan ones claim it's a period practice, but they gave no
> > documentation or argument in favor.
>
> Yeah, well... That's a path we probably want to avoid :)
>
> > That wouldn't be enough. Clearly, the actors playing Oberon, Titania, and
> > Robin Goodfellow were portraying fairies on stage. What's needed is some
> > indication that pointed ears were used to do so.
>
> In which case, an expert (or at least someone who's done the research)
> on, say, late 16th century theatrical costuming. Gee, Tangwystl, can
> you think of anyone like that?
Well, the people I know who research late-period theater focus
fairly strongly on commedia -- I don't know that they'd
necessarily be familiar with staging conventions for, e.g. Shakespeare.
Craig Levin
Chris Zakes <moon...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Just to play the other side of the field for a moment, I did a bit of
>digging, and period pictures/sculptures of fauns and satyrs *do* have
>pointy ears (http://users.transfur.com/narzil/satpic1.html).
OTOH, how alive was a belief in fauns during the Renaissance? I
noticed that the page has Roman and Greek stuff, and then flips
directly to the Renaissance. You've got that yawning gap between
the "Fall of Rome" and the "Rebirth of Learning" that people used
to make such a big deal about. Those pointy-eared Italian Ren.
statues are knockoffs of Roman stuff, made to basically show that
one could keep up with the Viscontis and be a lover of
classicism, too. I don't see them as an active belief in fauns.