SCA v's Historical Re-enactment
Jock
society fighting with metal weapons. I enjoy the dressing up in
reasonably accurate costumes and learning the traditional art of sword
fighting, but like so many such organisations, they appear to be
commercialising themselves in an almost obsessive pursuit of acuuracy,
dictating who we buy our weapons, armour and clothes from etc. It almost
smacks of a franchise. I also enjoy a good wack with a shinnai, great
fun!!!
And when I read the SCA literature, you too, as a group seem to take
yourselves way too seriously,
Where is the sense of fun guys, people who like a good fight and a lot
of drink.
What do you think, are there others here who feel that fun is
disappearing from re-enactment/recreation?
Rhys M. Blavier
You are not alone. There is a small group of us that have started and are
working on expanding a new group. Unlike the others, our focus is being a
social group rather than an "educational" group. In fact, I specifically
refer to what we do as historical "rec-reation" not historical
"re-creation". If you want to learn more, my sig at the bottom of this
message includes links to the websites we are working on. We are currently
finishing up a Newcomer's Guide and what we have written so far is on the
Excite site in the "Files" section and there is a link to that page on our
Juno webpage. Let me know if you are interested or have any questions after
you have a chance to look over our info. until then, I remain now as
always...
Your Servant,
Ieuan of Falkeep
*************************************************************************
The Realm Association of Modern Medievalists is now on-line.
You can find out information about our organization and leave messages for
us at:
http://homestead.juno.com/falkeep/Welcome_to_The_Realm.html or at
http://mycomm.excite.com/mycomm/browse.asp?cid=.X9eZ7ztjIlR
Check us out. We're not your daddy's SCA.
*************************************************************************
RLobinske
>society fighting with metal weapons. I enjoy the dressing up in
>reasonably accurate costumes and learning the traditional art of sword
>fighting, but like so many such organisations, they appear to be
>commercialising themselves in an almost obsessive pursuit of acuuracy,
>dictating who we buy our weapons, armour and clothes from etc. It almost
>smacks of a franchise. I also enjoy a good wack with a shinnai, great
>fun!!!
>
>And when I read the SCA literature, you too, as a group seem to take
>yourselves way too seriously,
>
>Where is the sense of fun guys, people who like a good fight and a lot
>of drink.
>
>What do you think, are there others here who feel that fun is
>disappearing from re-enactment/recreation?
>
>
One of the advantages of the SCA is the wide range of authenticity found within
the members, with members ranging from those barely in T-tunics to others in
period tudor underware that is never seen. Try attending a meeting or two and
an event to see the range of interests and participation and see if the group
is for you. Hope you find yourself welcome.
Victor Hildebrand vonn Koln
Trimaris
Death before dishonor,
Nothing before coffee
Shameless website Plug: Military Life on Saipan, 1944-1945
http://members.aol.com/RLobinske/Saipan.html
Ian Dixon
----
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Rhys M. Blavier wrote:
> Jock,
>
> You are not alone. There is a small group of us that have started and are
> working on expanding a new group. Unlike the others, our focus is being a
> social group rather than an "educational" group. In fact, I specifically
> refer to what we do as historical "rec-reation" not historical
> "re-creation". If you want to learn more, my sig at the bottom of this
> message includes links to the websites we are working on. We are currently
> finishing up a Newcomer's Guide and what we have written so far is on the
> Excite site in the "Files" section and there is a link to that page on our
> Juno webpage. Let me know if you are interested or have any questions after
> you have a chance to look over our info. until then, I remain now as
> always...
>
there are groups all around the world that do re-enactment, some older
some younger than the SCA.
you can find links to many of these groups (should be more)
http://www.saxon.hl.com.au/link/
Ian
Susan Carroll-Clark
RLobinske wrote in message <19991002210631...@ng-cq1.aol.com>...
>>And when I read the SCA literature, you too, as a group seem to take
>>yourselves way too seriously,
There's the problem--our literature is not our group.
>>Where is the sense of fun guys, people who like a good fight and a lot
>>of drink.
Come to an event, and you'll meet plenty of folks like this, alongside
others who enjoy research and the pursuit of authenticity. Some even like
both. The SCA is a diverse group, which, I think, is a strength.
>>What do you think, are there others here who feel that fun is
>>disappearing from re-enactment/recreation?
In the SCA, we recognize that "fun" is a relative term. One person's fun
might be getting into a battle with 3000 other people, and then going to a
party in the evening. Another's might mean storytelling and singing.
Another's might mean researching clothing and trying one's hardest to
recreate it. Another's might mean an enjoyment of the pageantry and
atmosphere of the past. All of these things are considered "fun" by at
least some of the people in the SCA, and can probably be found at any of our
events. And as passionate as we each may be about our version of "fun", the
fact is that none of these are the "correct" SCA--they're all part of who we
are.
Nicolaa
Pafra & Scott Catledge
big sticks, and Blue Ribbon beer will meet your stated needs? If you need
more than than these things, then you have answered your own question.
Jock <jo...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
news:37F690C7...@hunterlink.net.au...
> For some time now, I have been involved with an historical re-enactment
> society fighting with metal weapons. I enjoy the dressing up in
> reasonably accurate costumes and learning the traditional art of sword
> fighting, but like so many such organisations, they appear to be
> commercialising themselves in an almost obsessive pursuit of acuuracy,
> dictating who we buy our weapons, armour and clothes from etc. It almost
> smacks of a franchise. I also enjoy a good wack with a shinnai, great
> fun!!!
>
> yourselves way too seriously,
>
> of drink.
>
Arval d'Espas Nord
Greetings from Arval! Jock wrote:
> And when I read the SCA literature, you too, as a group seem to take
> yourselves way too seriously,
It is a mistake to judge the SCA on the basis of this newsgroup. A
newsgroup, by its nature, is one step removed from real activities; and it
tends to attract people who take its subject seriously, whatever the
subject, or at least people who simply like to talk about it.
But the SCA is not the same as talking about the SCA.
Go to a few events. See if you like the people in your area and the things
they do. Keep in mind that the SCA is VERY diverse group, and that the
first set of people you meet are not necessarily representative of other
people you'll meet. Every local group is different. Every household is
different. I would be surprised if you couldn't find a group to hang out
with who share your interests and your ideas of fun.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> In the SCA, we recognize that "fun" is a relative term. One person's fun
> might be getting into a battle with 3000 other people, and then going to a
> party in the evening. Another's might mean storytelling and singing.
> Another's might mean researching clothing and trying one's hardest to
> recreate it. Another's might mean an enjoyment of the pageantry and
> atmosphere of the past. All of these things are considered "fun" by at
> least some of the people in the SCA, and can probably be found at any of our
> events. And as passionate as we each may be about our version of "fun", the
> fact is that none of these are the "correct" SCA--they're all part of who we
> are.
Heck, they all sound petty good to me. I hate having to make
decisions....
Then again, as a Pel, that's part of the job. sigh.
Effingham
Dennis O'Connor
Arval d'Espas Nord <mit...@panix.com> wrote ...
> It is a mistake to judge the SCA on the basis of this newsgroup.
Given its geographic and cultural diversity, a more concise
and accurate statement might be:
"It is a mistake to judge the SCA."
Of course, for a small enough subset of the SCA (like a
single group or perhaps the Corporation itself) you might
be able to collect enough data to make a valid judgement.
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
Justin Greywolf
posted to the Rialto, it was a flurry of attacks against the SCA.
Apparently some people have either forgotten, not noticed, or dont really
care.
I would be in the last group, but I thought I would say something, just
cause it amused me.
(if people dont remember, in the original post he had claimed to be involved
with the Routiers (in Australia), and how they were much better than us)
:)
--
Justin Greywolf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Xcentric(dot)net - bringing communication to the new millenium
Email, Web site design, hosting, programming, network consulting
http://www.xcentric.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jock <jo...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
news:37F690C7...@hunterlink.net.au...
> For some time now, I have been involved with an historical re-enactment
> society fighting with metal weapons. I enjoy the dressing up in
> reasonably accurate costumes and learning the traditional art of sword
> fighting, but like so many such organisations, they appear to be
> commercialising themselves in an almost obsessive pursuit of acuuracy,
> dictating who we buy our weapons, armour and clothes from etc. It almost
> smacks of a franchise. I also enjoy a good wack with a shinnai, great
> fun!!!
>
> And when I read the SCA literature, you too, as a group seem to take
> yourselves way too seriously,
>
yah...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu
: And when I read the SCA literature, you too, as a group seem to take
: yourselves way too seriously,
Well, Jock, all I can say is quit reading and start playing.
You will find the sort of people you are wanting to hang out with...
they do exist in the SCA.
Giraude
Jakys the Cheesemonger
>
> You know what I think is interesting...is the last time this individual
> posted to the Rialto, it was a flurry of attacks against the SCA.
Thank you! I thought I was losing my mind there for a bit. I knew the
nick looked familiar, and for some reason I was associating him with a
group of posts about how great the "Routiers" (sp?) group, or some such
live steel group, was. They were also a series of very immature, mean
spirited, attacks on the society which resulted in some sort of
recrimination towards the poster's ISP, and his/her subsequent apology
to the group being posted here.
Or was that some other troll? If so, my apologies for the confusion.
The similarities were shocking.
Jakys
--
Behold the Power of Cheese
Eric Hafner
discussion, so I decided to forgive and forget his past transgressions.
--
In service,
Eric Hafner
Jakys the Cheesemonger <jazzm...@myremarq.com> wrote in message
news:37F8C05C...@myremarq.com...
alwin
Jock wrote:
> And when I read the SCA literature, you too, as a group seem to take
> yourselves way too seriously,
Isn't taking the topic of re-enactment seriously part of the fun?? For me,
attempting to create the sense of being in the time period by way of manner,
clothing, furnishings, etc. IS the purpose for re-enacting.
> Where is the sense of fun guys, people who like a good fight and a lot
> of drink.
I think this covers most of the society. Most people I know in the society
have great fun at playing in the SCA (why else would we all do it?) and
enjoy a good fight and a good drink...but these things should enhance, not
obscure the idea of re-creation.
> What do you think, are there others here who feel that fun is
> disappearing from re-enactment/recreation?
I will agree that the fun has diminished. But this is due to something
quite opposite of Jock's intent. To me, the fun has diminished over the
seven years I've been in the society largely because people don't take it
seriously enough.
In the beginning, I had grand dreams of the society from the Knowne World
Handbook and other readings; alas, when did you last hear someone casually
speak in a courtly manner other than a simple "milord" or "milady" thrown in
to conversation? When was the last time you saw sneakers or sunglasses
being worn at court or a Knight of the Society wearing bluejeans on the eric
as part of his garb? How often do royals pass by without so much as a
single bow from a group of the populace too deep in conversation to be
bothered with the formality? When was the last time you saw a nice period
style encampment with a propane lantern? If you attended an event this past
weekend, the answer to all of these questions is probably, "Yesterday."
Unfortunately, we can't change the world around us, but it is possible to
create your own world within the society. Do your own thing and associate
yourself with those whom you have like interests and maybe, just maybe,
teach by example.
Alwin of Spottiswoode
Cumhail
>
> <snippage>
>
> Where is the sense of fun guys, people who like a good fight and a lot
> of drink.
>
Re-read your post, Jock and see if you can figure out WHY it smacks of
ingorance and immaturity. As evidenced from your prior as well as
present posts, you are making decisions about a world-wide organization
(the SCA) based upon your very limited exposure. You've never once even
hinted that you might not actuall know everything there is to know about
a group, to which you've never even belonged.
If all you want out of "historical re-enactment" is drinking and
fighting, you're going to be disappointed in most, if not all of the
larger groups. Larger groups tend to consist of numbers of family
units, and the heads of familiy units generally do everything within
their power to keep their charges away from drunken kids with edged
weapons. On the bright side...you'll either soon outgrow the "drinking
and fighting" stage, as most of us have, or find a more suitable venue.
Cumhail
Charles Buckley
Jock <jo...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
>For some time now, I have been involved with an historical re-enactment
>society fighting with metal weapons. I enjoy the dressing up in
>reasonably accurate costumes and learning the traditional art of sword
>fighting, but like so many such organisations, they appear to be
>commercialising themselves in an almost obsessive pursuit of acuuracy,
>dictating who we buy our weapons, armour and clothes from etc. It almost
>smacks of a franchise. I also enjoy a good wack with a shinnai, great
>fun!!!
>
>yourselves way too seriously,
>
>of drink.
>
>disappearing from re-enactment/recreation?
>
Huh.. Well the Routiers have some cool aspects. The commercialism is
understandable. Whenever you have a specific timeframe, you have the potential
of have a specific supplier. Most re-enactment groups fall into that
sort of trap. No one has time to learn all apects of making garb and gear,
so you need to find someone who has learned what you need. I suspect that
you are being a little too harsh on them. I doubt that there is any
malevolent intent involved.
The fun is at the events, for the most part. For me, it is at local
practices. For others, it's at the major camping events. I don't think the
fun is dissappearing. I think it's more a condition of what we thought as fun
doesn't match what we see now, or we don't find as being fun now.
A lot of people come into the SCA, or Routiers, with preconceptions about
what things will be like. The best time I have at fighter practice (and
I am not a fighter) is the new guys getting D&D eyes the first time they get
hit. [D&D eyes are defined as that look of total shock that a D&D players
get when they realize that getting hit *hurts*.]
--
Silly Customer, you can not hurt a Twinkee! Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
Bryan J. Maloney
Jock?
Isn't this the same guy who showed up not too long ago with a bunch of
frothing nonsense. I thought it was a Routiers initiation rite, myself...
Zebee Johnstone
Justin Greywolf <di...@cryogen.com> wrote:
>You know what I think is interesting...is the last time this individual
>posted to the Rialto, it was a flurry of attacks against the SCA.
Yup, I saw that.
>
>Apparently some people have either forgotten, not noticed, or dont really
>care.
Probably. Happens all the time. Me, I figured he'd had new
experiences, changed his attitude, you know... done the human thing
and changed in the interval.
People do after all.
The original attack was very over the top, and the Routiers disclaimed
knowledge of him.
THe Routiers are both an anal retentive set o f accuracy addicts and a
bunch who like to go drinking and being loud. They have fun combining
the two.
Someone who saw the drinking and being loud and the spiffy gear and
listened to the general talk of how important accuracy is could easily
think "what a cool mob" and then get jolted by how much *work* there
is in a group like that.
As he wasn't a member of the Routiers when he made the posts, it's
quite possible he only got a superficial look at them at some point,
and didn't think through the implication.
There are plenty of groups in Oz to play with. Some very accuracy minded,
some not much at all. Most are in that very broad bit known as "the
middle" :) If the general SCA culture isn't what someone is after, then
they can find other groups who are not at all accuracy minded and have a
drinking culture. THe Easter Conference at Malden is a good place to try.
I'm told that the people running the Easter conference are trying to
impose a minimum standard to "keep out the Braveheart clones", no idea
how m uch success they'll have.
Silfren
Morgan E. Smith
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, alwin wrote:
>
> I will agree that the fun has diminished. But this is due to something
> quite opposite of Jock's intent. To me, the fun has diminished over the
> seven years I've been in the society largely because people don't take it
> seriously enough.
You know, I had this discussion with someone a couple-six months ago,
and we came to the conclusion that the problem (and the solution) was
within ourselves. We resolved to put more _into_ the SCA, to be more
easily entertained, to get more into things.
Guess what? It works. It's easy to get tired and jaded, but it's not
much fun. Now, when I go to events, I don't think "Oh, cripes, who told
those people _that_ head-dress should go with _that_ gown" - I just
remember what it's like to be new and scared and hopeful - and try to be
the person who gently made me feel like a part of things (Baroness Amanda
Kendal, if anyone is wondering.) And I eat the feast without trying to be
"Miss Gourmet 1497", and I offer _gentle_ suggestions about research only
when I'm asked. And I try to remember that what happened at work isn't due
to occur for another 1200 years or so, so no point discussing it now.
>
> In the beginning, I had grand dreams of the society from the Knowne World
> Handbook and other readings; alas, when did you last hear someone casually
> speak in a courtly manner other than a simple "milord" or "milady" thrown in
> to conversation? When was the last time you saw sneakers or sunglasses
> being worn at court or a Knight of the Society wearing bluejeans on the eric
> as part of his garb? How often do royals pass by without so much as a
> single bow from a group of the populace too deep in conversation to be
> bothered with the formality? When was the last time you saw a nice period
> style encampment with a propane lantern? If you attended an event this past
> weekend, the answer to all of these questions is probably, "Yesterday."
Come to Avacal. Our first Prince trained us so well, the entire
Principality occasionally resembles those little dogs in the rear window
of ancient Dodge convertibles - we bob so much that one tends, if one is
on retinue, to succumb to vertigo at inconvenient moments. (Or, if one
wants a more incisive description, this is a landlocked Principality
suffering from an epidemic of seasickness.)
> Unfortunately, we can't change the world around us, but it is possible to
> create your own world within the society. Do your own thing and associate
> yourself with those whom you have like interests and maybe, just maybe,
> teach by example.
Well, there you go. I don't think it is change, exactly: I think that
there are just so many people, that it gets difficult to see the royalty
at times, and hard to remember that there's more to an event than just
getting there.
You do get out of this what you put in.
Morgan the Unknown
Derek Lyons
>Where is the sense of fun guys, people who like a good fight and a lot
>of drink.
>
>What do you think, are there others here who feel that fun is
>disappearing from re-enactment/recreation?
Fun can be had that involves neither fighting or drinking. I suggest
the problem lies not in the society (any society), but rather in your
outlook.
------------------------------
Proprietor, Interim Books
Used & Rare Books of all sorts
http://www.hurricane.net/~fairwater/
------------------------------
Sponsor, USS Henry L. Stimson homepage
http://www.hurricane.net/~elde/655.html
------------------------------
Jock
lot since my silly bugger days. Once again apologies to the group.
Eric Hafner wrote:
> I noticed right away, but it seemed like he was ready to engage in a mature
> discussion, so I decided to forgive and forget his past transgressions.
>
> --
> In service,
> Eric Hafner
> Jakys the Cheesemonger <jazzm...@myremarq.com> wrote in message
> news:37F8C05C...@myremarq.com...
> > Justin Greywolf wrote:
> > >
> > > You know what I think is interesting...is the last time this individual
> > > posted to the Rialto, it was a flurry of attacks against the SCA.
> >
Dietmar
Alwin wrote:
> alas, when did you last hear someone casually speak in a courtly manner
> other than a simple "milord" or "milady" thrown in to conversation?
Saturday.
> When was the last time you saw sneakers or sunglasses being worn at court or
> a Knight of the Society wearing bluejeans on the eric as part of his garb?
Sneakers, never. Sunglasses, perhaps 5 years ago. Blue jeans, never...they're
against the rules of the list here.
> How often do royals pass by without so much as a single bow from a group of
> the populace too deep in conversation to be bothered with the formality?
Never in my experience.
> When was the last time you saw a nice period style encampment with a propane
> lantern?
Nice period encampments around here don't use propane lanterns (except
occasionally to cook).
> If you attended an event this past weekend, the answer to all of these
> questions is probably, "Yesterday."
I did, but my answers differed. Go figure.
Regards,
Dietmar
"Victory or Defeat rests in God's hands;
over Honor, we ourselves are Lord and Master."
Zebee Johnstone
alwin <al...@home.com> wrote:
>
>In the beginning, I had grand dreams of the society from the Knowne World
>speak in a courtly manner other than a simple "milord" or "milady" thrown in
>to conversation?
At most events. Often done badly, sometimes done well.
When was the last time you saw sneakers or sunglasses
>being worn at court or a Knight of the Society wearing bluejeans on the eric
>as part of his garb?
Sneakers no. Sunglasses yes when the court is outside, you don't mess
with the light in this hemisphere. Bluejeans not recently, black
jeans and sweatpants or army greens are the usual ugly attire,
more folk are discovering the joys of padded fighting trews. (Oh and
that's fioghters, never seen it on a local knight at an event.)
How often do royals pass by without so much as a
>single bow from a group of the populace too deep in conversation to be
>bothered with the formality?
Depends. A lot of the time certainly, but then it's never been a big
thing
here - interkingdom anthropology and all that.
When was the last time you saw a nice period
>style encampment with a propane lantern?
Never. The periodish folk here don;t use 'em, they all use candle
lanterns or oil lanterns. Some people use gas lanterns in the
"grungy areas" but they are usually hidden by walls. Can be seen
though.
Silfren
Jay Rudin
> In the beginning, I had grand dreams of the society from the Knowne
> World Handbook and other readings;
If your grand dreams involved everything being perfect, then they were
doomed to failure. But if your dreams can include continuing to try in
imperfect circumstances, then they can live on forever.
> alas, when did you last hear someone casually speak in a courtly
> manner other than a simple "milord" or "milady" thrown in to
> conversation? When was the last time you saw sneakers or sunglasses
> being worn at court or a Knight of the Society wearing bluejeans on
> the eric as part of his garb?
It's true that we are not perfect, and never will be. It's also true
that we never were. Worse yet, different things bother different
people. Speaking for myself, I find blue jeans to be neither as obvious
nor as intrusively modern as referring to the lists as an "eric".
There will always be something modern in front of us to see or hear;
there will always be something period in front of us to see or hear.
The question is which one occupies our mind.
And for the record, last week's event was probably pretty mundane,
overall. But every single one of my opponents treated me with honor and
dignity -- including the silly fights when I limped onto the field with
a cane. The bards spoke of honor and of war and of love, and they
opened their hearts to us. A household of ladies honored the fighters
in court that night, and the populace honored the wedding couple, and
the baron and baroness held a simple but sincere court.
Were there jeans? I can't remember any. I do remember the Japanese
kimono, the Elizabethan dress, the Italian gown, and the leather-plated
armor. Were there propane lamps? I'm pretty sure there were; but I
cannot describe them, and I *can* describe the torches and the
candlesticks at feast.
Most tents were modern tents, but I have a strong image of Mistress
Stella's Viking tent, and her display of her arms.
After the tourney, there were discussions of footwork as described in Di
Grassi and Saviolo, Italian Renaissance gowns, and I'm sure many other
topics I never heard.
Most of the small kids were in mundane play clothes, but I don't
remember much about them. One three-year-old was in a cute green gown
with silver and black trim.
We cannot get rid of the modern; we *can* focus on the period.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
gtv...@my-deja.com
Jay Rudin <jru...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> alwin wrote:
>
>
> We cannot get rid of the modern; we *can* focus on the period.
>
> Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
>
Well put. I was afraid this post was going to degenerate into that old
tired Society for Compulsive Authenticity versus Society for Consumption
of Alcohol thread. Hopefully, any potential newby seeing your post will
realize there is a middle ground.
Jordi d'Andraitx
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Friedman
> When was the last time you saw a nice period
> >style encampment with a propane lantern?
>
> Never. The periodish folk here don;t use 'em, they all use candle
> lanterns or oil lanterns.
Which raises an interesting point.
"Oil lamps" in period were, I believe, burning olive oil or the
equivalent; what modern people think of as oil lamps burn petroleum
products. Does anyone know of evidence for the use of petroleum products
as lamp fuel in period? Alternatively, are there people in your area whose
oil lamps are burning olive oil or the like?
David/Cariadoc
ThranSloth
<< "Oil lamps" in period were, I believe, burning olive oil or the
equivalent; what modern people think of as oil lamps burn petroleum
products. Does anyone know of evidence for the use of petroleum products
as lamp fuel in period? Alternatively, are there people in your area whose
oil lamps are burning olive oil or the like? >>
I didn't think petroleum had been discovered and/or used in period. But I could
be wrong. Let's do some of that fun research stuff.
Here's some of the tidbits I could find with a quick search:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/petroleum_history.html
PETROLEUM HISTORY
1859: Edwin Drake drills the first producing oil well, in Titusville, PA.
http://www.cems.umn.edu/~aiche_ug/history/h_petro.html
Ancient, and Less Ancient, Times
Small amounts of petroleum have been used throughout history. The Egyptians
coated mummies and sealed their mighty Pyramids with pitch. The
Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians used it to pave their streets and hold
their walls and buildings together. Boats along the Euphrates were
constructed with woven reeds and sealed with pitch. The Chinese also came
across it while digging holes for brine (salt water) and used the petroleum
for heating. The Bible even claims that Noah used it to make his Ark seaworthy.
American Indians used petroleum for paint, fuel, and medicine. Desert nomads
used it to treat camels for mange, and the Holy Roman
Emperor, Charles V, used petroleum it to treat his gout. Ancient Persians and
Sumatrans also believed petroleum had medicinal value. This seemed
a popular idea, and up through the 19th Century jars of petroleum were sold as
miracle tonic able to cure whatever ailed you. People who drank this
"snake oil" discovered that petroleum doesn't taste very good!
The Search for Oil
Yet despite its usefulness, for thousands of years petroleum was very scarce.
People collected it when it bubbled to the surface or seeped into wells.
For those digging wells to get drinking water the petroleum was seen as a
nuisance. However, some thought the oil might have large scale economic
value. George Bissell, a lawyer, thought that petroleum might be converted into
kerosene for use in lamps. An analysis by Benjamin Silliman, Jr., a
Yale chemistry and geology professor, confirmed his hunch.
In 1854 Bissell and a friend formed the unsuccessful Pennsylvania Rock Oil
Company. Not one to be easily dismayed, in 1858 Bissell and a group of
business men formed the Seneca Oil Company. They hired an ex-railroad conductor
named Edwin Drake to drill for oil along a secluded creek in
Titusville Pennsylvania. They soon dubbed him "Colonel" Drake to impress the
locals. But the "Colonel" needed help so he hired Uncle Billy Smith
and his two sons who had experience with drilling salt wells. In 1859 this
motley crew found oil at a depth of 69 * feet.
http://www.minerals.nsw.gov.au/mapspubs/publish/minfacts/86.htm
Probably the earliest report of petroleum in New South Wales was in 1807 when a
French
scientific expedition, which visited Australia in 1802, reported on the
occurrence of kerosene
shale in the Sydney area.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=kerosene
kerosene \Ker"o*sene`\, n. [Gr. ? wax.] An oil used for illuminating purposes,
formerly obtained from the distillation of mineral wax, bituminous shale, etc.,
and hence called also coal oil. It is now produced in immense quantities,
chiefly by the distillation and purification of petroleum. It consists chiefly
of several hydrocarbons of the methane series.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, In
My theory would the that until the mid 1800s that petroleum would not have seen
much use as a lamp oil, since George Bissel at that time had looked into
converting pertroleum into kerosene. Previously Kerosene had been distilled
from mineral wax, bituminous shale, etc.
Of course, the line above about American Indians (a.k.a. Native Americans)
using it for fuel would be reason for further research, unfortunately no
citations are given.
Note that this is just theory based upon crappy sources, but it would be a
starting place.
-Gille Eoin
Phyllis M. Gilmore
Friedman) wrote:
> "Oil lamps" in period were, I believe, burning olive oil or the
> equivalent; what modern people think of as oil lamps burn petroleum
> products. Does anyone know of evidence for the use of petroleum products
> as lamp fuel in period? Alternatively, are there people in your area whose
> oil lamps are burning olive oil or the like?
>
> David/Cariadoc
Not at an SCA event, but I have burned olive oil (in a reproduction clay
lamp of a Holy Landish pattern). I wasn't terribly impressed with the
smell--but that leads me to wonder, also, if people have tried different
quality levels of oil (say, from different pressings). And, further,
which modernly available types of oil might a period person have been able
to buy?
Philippa
Zebee Johnstone
David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7vjc16...@zipperii.zip.com.au>, ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
>
>> When was the last time you saw a nice period
>> >style encampment with a propane lantern?
>>
>> Never. The periodish folk here don;t use 'em, they all use candle
>> lanterns or oil lanterns.
>
>Which raises an interesting point.
>
>equivalent; what modern people think of as oil lamps burn petroleum
>products. Does anyone know of evidence for the use of petroleum products
>as lamp fuel in period? Alternatively, are there people in your area whose
>oil lamps are burning olive oil or the like?
I'm not sure. THe usual "lamp oil" is almost certainly petroleum
based, although most use one that is citronella scented so it
doesnt' *smell* like kerosene :)
Next time I'll ask who is using other oils.
Silfren
james koch
>
> In article <ddfr-05109...@ddfr.vip.best.com>, dd...@best.com wrote:
>
> << "Oil lamps" in period were, I believe, burning olive oil or the
> equivalent; what modern people think of as oil lamps burn petroleum
> products. Does anyone know of evidence for the use of petroleum products
> as lamp fuel in period? Alternatively, are there people in your area whose
> oil lamps are burning olive oil or the like? >>
>
>
lamps with Mazola Oil. It burned just fine with no smoke. The only
problem I encountered was with the smell. It gave my house a french
fried aroma which made me hungry for McDonald's. Jim Koch (Gladius The
Alchemist)
Bert G
derivative, or to pine tar / wood tat from trees. Does the source say
which type of pitch this was? (Until I looked it up, I thought it was
just the pine resin)
Berwyn
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: "Oil lamps" in period were, I believe, burning olive oil or the
: equivalent; what modern people think of as oil lamps burn petroleum
: products. Does anyone know of evidence for the use of petroleum products
: as lamp fuel in period? Alternatively, are there people in your area whose
: oil lamps are burning olive oil or the like?
I have a Roman-style lamp that I burn olive oil in. (There's probably a
better technical term for the style, but that should convey the essence.)
Since the flame isn't enclosed, I can't normally use it around the
campsite, though. (I'm sure I've been to events where there _wasn't_ a
noticable breeze in the evening, but they don't stick in the memory.) I've
never tried the experiment of trying to burn olive oil in a hurricane lamp
(which, of course, is another non-medievalism, but we can take these
things one step at a time). In general, for wind-protected lighting, I
prefer candles in a lantern, although the light production is less -- but
I'm not the only one who makes decisions about what gets used in my
household's encampment, so a variety of light sources get used.
Tangwystyl
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Muirenn ingen Chonaill
> "Oil lamps" in period were, I believe, burning olive oil or the
> equivalent; what modern people think of as oil lamps burn petroleum
> products. Does anyone know of evidence for the use of petroleum
> products as lamp fuel in period? Alternatively, are there people in
> your area whose oil lamps are burning olive oil or the like?
Greetings --
While I don't know about petroleum products in period, all the oil lamps
we use in our pavilion are burning olive oil, as it is not as dangerous
as the petroleum oils. It doesn't catch fire if the lamp gets knocked
over. I don't know about all oil lamps, but the lamps our friends bought
us at Target adapted very nicely to the use of olive oil once I changed
their fiberglass wicks to twisted cotton. The cotton wicks I make myself
from plain cotton packaging string or crochet cotton, and they work very
well. We have to replace them every couple of events, but it's not a big
deal.
Also, my husband made several olive oil candles that we use on the
table. We bought square, heavy glass votive cups from Cost Plus, and
someone gave us an oil candle wick holder, which was duplicated easily
-- it's just a copper wire spiral to hold the wick, with the last twist
made extra wide to form a base, and then bent upward to make a small
handle. The handle makes it easier to light.
We've found that the least expensive olive oil burns quite nicely, and
as with any oil lamp, if you keep the wicks trimmed properly the lamps
and candles smoke very little. What oil is left over in the candles at
the end of an event can be absorbed in a paper towel and disposed of
safely, and we don't have to worry about the children in camp getting
into petroleum products.
It's very interesting to find that this practice is period!
regards,
Muirenn ingen Chonaill
Cynagua, West
alwin
Jay Rudin wrote:
> If your grand dreams involved everything being perfect, then they were
> doomed to failure. But if your dreams can include continuing to try in
> imperfect circumstances, then they can live on forever.
> There will always be something modern in front of us to see or hear;
> there will always be something period in front of us to see or hear.
> The question is which one occupies our mind.
A very nice posting, Jay. Your eloquence is only surpassed by the wisdom of
your words. I never expected perfection, nor I do not consider myself an
authenticity nazi, and hope my posting did not come across that way. I live
in the same glass house as most others. But I try. I really try.
Gatorade will always come in plastic bottles but you won't see me drinking
from one on the field, nor will you see my truck parked right next to my
pavilion for the weekend. I don't snark about period this and period that.
It's overt mudanity that bothers me. If I wanted to see people talk on
celluar phones, I'd get on the freeway...and it only takes a yard of cloth
to cover that Igloo in the sun shade. My point was (or at least, is now)
simply that it takes a little effort to play the game, if that little effort
to create the illusion is not made...then you're not playing the game... and
why be there at all?
>But if your dreams can include continuing to try in
> imperfect circumstances, then they can live on forever.
I still have those grand dreams I spoke of. I realize that the society is
diverse and there is room for everyone. But like the title of an old SCA
article for newcomers says, "If you're going to play, PLAY!"
Alwin
Glenda Robinson
>
>The original attack was very over the top, and the Routiers disclaimed
>knowledge of him.
This guy still isn't a member of the Routiers. My husband is and we receive
the membership lists every quarter.
If he WAS a member of the Routiers, he should have been at the Taminick
encampment over the weekend, instead of writing to newsgroups!
<sensible things about the Routiers snipped>
>
>There are plenty of groups in Oz to play with. Some very accuracy minded,
>some not much at all. Most are in that very broad bit known as "the
>middle" :) If the general SCA culture isn't what someone is after, then
>they can find other groups who are not at all accuracy minded and have a
>drinking culture. THe Easter Conference at Malden is a good place to try.
Too right! There are an amazing amount of smallish groups in Australia. Some
are purely hitting societies that wear bad clothes so they get to play with
swords and armour, others are more the 'aiming for complete as possible
accuracy' types.
However, the Easter Conference hasn't been at Maldon since 1989! It's a
travelling show, every two years (I was on the committes for 1991 and 1993).
The alternate Easter is a 'Dark Age' campaign in a pine forest at Armidale,
which actually attracts more people these days.
>
>I'm told that the people running the Easter conference are trying to
>impose a minimum standard to "keep out the Braveheart clones", no idea
>how m uch success they'll have.
The successes have been varied. One guy was hassled about his gear this
year, and asked what the minimum combat gear was (helmet and gauntlets), so
that's what he fought in! Made for some interesting pictures! I was a bit
annoyed, as his gear was a lot better than others around, but he was picked
on because of the club he belonged to.
As a postscript: 30 of the Routiers attended the Taminick military
encampment over this last weekend. 7 children were also in attendance (with
correct clothing!). Lots and lots of hats, no sunnies. Won the foot drill
competition against many later period reenactors (up to the end of the 19th
century). As we were the hosts for the weekend, were unable to enter any
other 'reenactment' competitions. Cooked up a storm for a banquet on
Saturday night, which was a great success (90 completely stuffed
attendees!). 30% of adult attendees were of female birth, although about
half of them choose to reenact males. All tents and camp furniture were to
correct patterns, and the cooking equipment was as close as is possible at
the moment (some dutch ovens were about 50 years too late). Eating utensils
and drinking equipment are 90%ish, with a lot of orders pending. The Pike
ranks have swollen over the last few years, but the musket ranks haven't,
which leaves a shortfall at the moment. The clothing is getting more and
more accurate, but a lot is still showing a little too much machine
stitching (eg button holes). Didn't see any glaring mistakes with the food
cooked at the emcampment, even at the pot luck dinner the night before the
official catering started.
Glenda
Goodwyfe Robynsone
(wyf to the Wytchefynder Generale)
arian
>
>I didn't think petroleum had been discovered and/or used in period. But I
could
>be wrong. Let's do some of that fun research stuff.
>
the Chinese were using both petroleum, and natural gas for many uses,
including fuel.
As soon as I get my book back I will give detail if you like :)
adieu,
Arian Shieldbreaker,
Lochac,
Everything is true, god is an astronaut, Oz is over the rainbow, and Middian
is where the monsters live.
ThranSloth
In article <37FA82...@attglobal.net>, Bert wrote:
<< "Pitch" can refer either to the distilled coal tar / petroliam
derivative, or to pine tar / wood tat from trees. Does the source say
which type of pitch this was? (Until I looked it up, I thought it was
just the pine resin) >>
Na, like I said crappy source. I didn't know that kerosene was previously
non-petrol until I looked it up.
Ah, the evolution of definitions.
[evolitions?]
-Gille Eoin
Zebee Johnstone
Glenda Robinson <gle...@antispam.compassnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>However, the Easter Conference hasn't been at Maldon since 1989! It's a
>travelling show, every two years (I was on the committes for 1991 and 1993).
>The alternate Easter is a 'Dark Age' campaign in a pine forest at Armidale,
>which actually attracts more people these days.
Ah OK. Last I heard of it was a radio broadcast earlier this year
and I think I just associated it with Malden cos that was the
last time anyone said a place name in my hearing :)
It's good to see that the scene is doing well, the more opportunities
for people, the better. The SCA is big, but it's certainly not the only
game in town or work for everyone, the more info out about alternatives
the better. Where do I point people for info about the various multi
group events?
>The successes have been varied. One guy was hassled about his gear this
>year, and asked what the minimum combat gear was (helmet and gauntlets), so
>that's what he fought in! Made for some interesting pictures! I was a bit
>annoyed, as his gear was a lot better than others around, but he was picked
>on because of the club he belonged to.
*snorfle* As the SCa requires groin protection we don't get that
stripped down.... <cue jokes about "not enough duct tape!">
As to the group problem - seems that guy's group are not alone,
was a bit of a kerfuffle on soc.history.living a while back
as you probably saw dealing with restrictions at Hastings. Seems
that club politics is one of those human things, can't get
away from it.
The SCA gets it with households mostly, I'd think it would be even
harder with an event where the rules are so different for each group
and many wouldn't see each other except there. Rumours and
reputations get very magnified with little contact.
(not to mention the "not old timey enough" problem - with such
different levels of knowledge I bet there are lots of arguments
about what's correct.)
>
>As a postscript: 30 of the Routiers attended the Taminick military
>encampment over this last weekend. 7 children were also in attendance (with
>correct clothing!). Lots and lots of hats, no sunnies. Won the foot drill
>competition against many later period reenactors (up to the end of the 19th
>century). As we were the hosts for the weekend, were unable to enter any
>other 'reenactment' competitions. Cooked up a storm for a banquet on
>Saturday night, which was a great success (90 completely stuffed
>attendees!). 30% of adult attendees were of female birth, although about
Well done! 90 is decent number given the facilities. I've seen bigger
but usually with the help of gas stoves....
How do you judge a drill competition with such different drills?
>half of them choose to reenact males. All tents and camp furniture were to
I'm curious, having seen the controversies in other countries about
this. Do all Oz groups you know of accept women as men? What
requirements do they have?
I prefer the SCA version of being quite ahistorical in dress and action
cos I like my snuggling too much to give it up :) Besides I most
certainly do not have the figure to pass well as a man, although I do
have some of the walk and mannerisms. I dress male, do male things like
fight and keep company with men on equal terms (including snuggling)
but people give me female honorifics. How important do the various
groups find look and action compared to clothes?
>correct patterns, and the cooking equipment was as close as is possible at
>the moment (some dutch ovens were about 50 years too late). Eating utensils
>and drinking equipment are 90%ish, with a lot of orders pending. The Pike
What kind of drinking equipment? I found an interesting book on pewter
which described Tudor and earlier metal tankards in words but no pictures
dammit! No pictures till the late 1700s, as it was a book on collecting
pewter. And $90 s I didn't buy it. It described the early ones as
being the type that's bulbous at the bottom. I was surprised because
I'd assumed the early metal ones would be more like the way leather jacks
look, and I'd also thought a more cylindrical one would be easier to make.
Does appear that lids were earlier than I'd thought, dating back
to pre1600.
I think I'll have to get act together with that leather jack now I seem
to have mislaid my wooden one.
>ranks have swollen over the last few years, but the musket ranks haven't,
Feeling in Oz about guns do you think? And the difficulty of getting
and storing them considering the various laws?
Be more expensive to have a musket than a pike I suspect.
>which leaves a shortfall at the moment. The clothing is getting more and
>more accurate, but a lot is still showing a little too much machine
>stitching (eg button holes). Didn't see any glaring mistakes with the food
>cooked at the emcampment, even at the pot luck dinner the night before the
>official catering started.
*grin* I can see why.. button holes are one of those things that you
look at after the thing is done and go "I don't want to know about
handsewing those!".
Maybe everyone takes their jackets off around the fire at night,
passes them one to the left and unpicks and resews a button hole :)
How visible is machine sewn buttonholes at a distance? Not having
seen handsewn ones. My recollection of museum pieces is that the
thread is coarser and stitches further apart.
Oh, and apropos of another thread... what are you using for lighting
and lamp oil? Any tips on period lighting?
Silfren
Glenda Robinson
Zebee Johnstone wrote in her Magnum Opus ...
>In rec.org.sca on Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:26:47 +1000
>Glenda Robinson <gle...@antispam.compassnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>Where do I point people for info about the various multi
>group events?
The ARLHO site has a calendar, which seems to be fairly complete
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~adjutant/arlho/arlho.html
>
>Well done! 90 is decent number given the facilities. I've seen bigger
>but usually with the help of gas stoves....
If you've got enought pots, spits, knives and cuttng boards, nothing's
impossible (especially when Jackie's organising!)
>
>How do you judge a drill competition with such different drills?
I'm not sure. The judges were from other groups. Two groups tied for second,
one point behind, and another was on third another point behind them. Very
nice set of displays (even as seen through the video camera)
>
>>half of them choose to reenact males. All tents and camp furniture were to
>
>I'm curious, having seen the controversies in other countries about
>this. Do all Oz groups you know of accept women as men? What
>requirements do they have?
All medieval reenactment groups do, as far as I know, though some make them
take on male personas. Some later period ones don't, and there's a few
people's noses out of joint there!
>
>>and drinking equipment are 90%ish, with a lot of orders pending. The Pike
>
>What kind of drinking equipment? I found an interesting book on pewter
>which described Tudor and earlier metal tankards in words but no pictures
>dammit! No pictures till the late 1700s, as it was a book on collecting
>pewter. And $90 s I didn't buy it. It described the early ones as
>being the type that's bulbous at the bottom. I was surprised because
>I'd assumed the early metal ones would be more like the way leather jacks
>look, and I'd also thought a more cylindrical one would be easier to make.
>
There are a lot of 17th century woodcuts that show drinking scenes (and even
a few originals in various museums) There are also a few good books out on
household items.There were horn cups (seen in the tavern in Shakespeare in
Love), pewter, silver and glass vessels, wooden stave-built tankards,
ceramic mugs (sometimes there are amazingly large) etc etc etc. There's also
a huge range of jugs, out of leather, pewter, ceramics, etc.
WAY too many to go into in this format (more like thesis material)
>I think I'll have to get act together with that leather jack now I seem
>to have mislaid my wooden one.
If you want some help, Wayne's doing a lot of research on these.Should be
publishing them within a few months.
>>ranks have swollen over the last few years, but the musket ranks haven't,
>
>Feeling in Oz about guns do you think? And the difficulty of getting
>and storing them considering the various laws?
>
>Be more expensive to have a musket than a pike I suspect.
Definitely more expensive, and licenses aren't that easy to get, as most
states of Australia don't consider reenactment to be a good enough reason to
own a 'gun'. Black powder weapons don't seem to be as dangerous as the
modern styles, as they require a lot of skill to use, and a loser off the
street can't pinch one and fire it easily. Mind you, they still have the
same storage rules as any other 'gun'.
>
>
>
>*grin* I can see why.. button holes are one of those things that you
>look at after the thing is done and go "I don't want to know about
>handsewing those!".
Actually, they're not that hard in the early 17th century and beforehand.
Buttonhold stitching was invented later. Seems they just whipped them over
the edges, 2-3 mm apart. I've done it with our family's Routier clothing,
and will have to do 154 of them for Wayne's Casaque!!! They take a couple of
minutes each.
>
>Maybe everyone takes their jackets off around the fire at night,
>passes them one to the left and unpicks and resews a button hole :)
I wish! Only a handful of Routier men sew.
>
>How visible is machine sewn buttonholes at a distance? Not having
>seen handsewn ones. My recollection of museum pieces is that the
>thread is coarser and stitches further apart.
They're not visible at a distance, really, but I'm an authenticity fascist!
>
>Oh, and apropos of another thread... what are you using for lighting
>and lamp oil? Any tips on period lighting?
Routiers tend to use candle light and fire light (we've got a few nifty
candle lanterns, too). We can also use tallow lamps (you can rend your own
from fat, or buy beef dripping or lard from the supermarket (and let someone
else do all the hard and smelly stuff), which were in use from time
immemorial. In the Ancient period reenactment, we use tallow and olive oil
lamps.
Glenda.
SKyuzo
part) go to great pains to do things 'as they were' as opposed to 'how they
should have been'. For instance, comparing the level of authenticity between
SCAers and, say, Civil War reenactors is ludicrous; the CW guys- and gals- have
us beat hands-down. Granted, their average age is a little higher, I think,
than ours which weeds out the kids who just want to drink and get laid (pardon
my bluntness, ladies)- you have all seen them, so don't deny it. But on the
other hand, we are a bit closer and more of a fun-loving, freewheeling crowd
than they are, I believe. I won't get into the area of SCA peerage, where I
have observed that the most popular folks seem to get the titles and rank- not
necessarily the most knowledgable. I know this will draw LOTS of fire from
current peers, but there you have it.
I have rambled off of the original subject, but once I get going it's hard to
stop! Y'all have a great day!
Yamagawa no Kyuzo
Bronwynmgn
(SKyuzo) writes:
>I don't consider the SCA to be re-enactment per se, as we don't (for the most
>part) go to great pains to do things 'as they were' as opposed to 'how they
>should have been'. For instance, comparing the level of authenticity between
>SCAers and, say, Civil War reenactors is ludicrous; the CW guys- and gals-
>have us beat hands-down.>>
Not intending to flame, just to state that this really is a regional and group
variation, and is fostered by the SCA's rules. The "as they should have been"
thing just doesn't really show up that often in my area. A lot of people do
things "because I think they did it that way", with little research to back it
up, but I rarely if ever hear "because they should have done it this way".
Sometimes "they would have done it this way if they could have".
As far as comparing authenticity levels between SCA and *serious* Civil War
re-enactors (and there are less serious ones out there), there's no point.
Their organizations exist to provide an in-depth view of a specific group of
people within a specific culture within a five year time frame. Our
organization exists to provide a place where people can explore, to the level
they want to, any of a thousand years or more of history and hundreds of
cultures. In our situation, some people will do as good a job or better than
the CW folks, most will do somewhat less, and a few will make no attempt at all
at authenticity but still be permitted to play. The CW groups rules don't
allow that, so on a whole, their levels are higher. The rules, purpose, and
structure are so different that comparing the two is meaningless.
> Granted, their average age is a little higher, I think, than ours which weeds
out the >kids who just want to drink and get laid (pardon my bluntness,
ladies)- you have all >seen them, so don't deny it.>>
I don't think this makes as much as a difference as many people think. I've
seen 40 year olds come into the SCA wanting to play King Arthur and have a
party, and I've seen 18 year olds show up to their first events with documented
names, properly cut and constructed clothing, and a determination to eat
nothing but period food for the weekend, and cook it themselves. Again, the
structure of the SCA makes it easier for the party crowd to be able to stay
active - the CW people would require them to reach a minimal level or not play,
and we don't, so they can stay with us where they can't stay with the CW
groups. I think it's a structure/purpose/rules difference, not an age
difference.
> But on the other hand, we are a bit closer and more of a fun-loving,
freewheeling >crowd than they are, I believe.>>
How do you know this? Have you been involved with a CW group for a while to
see how closely-knit they are, and how much fun they have? Or are you
automatically assuming that because they have more and stricter rules, they
must automaticaly have less fun? I rather doubt that's the case, but it seems
to be a common assumption amidst the section of the SCA that insists that any
attempt to raise the authenticity level (even at a personal level) will ruin
the fun, and that anything that can be called authentic cannot possibly be fun
as well..
> I won't get into the area of SCA peerage, where I have observed that the most
>popular folks seem to get the titles and rank- not necessarily the most
>knowledgable. I know this will draw LOTS of fire from current peers, but there
you >have it.
Again, how do you know? Are the folks popular because they get the work done
and make the SCA a fun place to be? That could be worthy of a Pelican. Are
they popular because they know a lot about something and make it fun to learn
and to do at events? That could be worthy of a Laurel. Really, the only
peerage that REQUIRES knowledge of historical practices is the Laurel - the
others have other requirements. Also, this varies from area to area as well,
and from time to time; I know in my kingdom right now, you can't get a Kingdom
level Arts award, much less a peerage, without having documentation for your
work strewn all over the place, and the subject of how "period" one tries to be
routinely comes up as a factor in discussing candidates for the kingdom level
service award.
You just can't make blanket statements about anything. Not how the SCA chooses
it's peers, not why we have the levels of authenticity that we do, not how or
why the Civil War groups manage what they do.
Lady Brangwayna Morgan
Pafra & Scott Catledge
(usually)culture in history, usually dealing with a war. SCAdians as
individuals recreate a specific time, place, and culture or documentable
combination of cultures as part of a group that strives to recreate the
Middle Ages as they should have been. In many parts of the SCA you may find
people spinning thread, weaving cloth, hammering iron, illuminating
manuscripts, making herbal remedies, making lace, singing madrigals,
barding, playing period instruments, working with
gold/silver/copper/bronze/horn to make jewelery and utensils, making leather
belts/shoes/scabbards, and so on. The actual fighting takes very little of
the time spent in everyone in the SCA. Only at wars, does the time spent
fighting come close to that spent on arts, sciences, music, dance, and
medieval recreation in general. In fairness to all reenactors, there are at
least two sizeable groups with which I am familiar that center on the
Scottish invasion of Alba/Caledonia, who stress fighting less than the SCA
or reenactors and stress medieval recreation even more than the SCA--but
they limit themselves to Dalriata at the time of the invasion.
SKyuzo <sky...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991009083801...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> I don't consider the SCA to be re-enactment per se, as we don't (for the
most
> part) go to great pains to do things 'as they were' as opposed to 'how
they
> should have been'. For instance, comparing the level of authenticity
between
> SCAers and, say, Civil War reenactors is ludicrous; the CW guys- and gals-
have
think,
> than ours which weeds out the kids who just want to drink and get laid
(pardon
the
> other hand, we are a bit closer and more of a fun-loving, freewheeling
crowd
I
> have observed that the most popular folks seem to get the titles and rank-
not
> necessarily the most knowledgable. I know this will draw LOTS of fire from
> current peers, but there you have it.
Bonnie
should respond to this thread since I have done both. I have been involved
in the SCA for about 4 years now, the same length of time I had as a Civil
War re-enactor. My experiences take place in the area of South Georgia
where I lived for both my living history experiences.
SKyuzo wrote in message:
>I don't consider the SCA to be re-enactment per se, as we don't (for the
most
>part) go to great pains to do things 'as they were' as opposed to 'how they
>should have been'. For instance, comparing the level of authenticity
between
>SCAers and, say, Civil War reenactors is ludicrous; the CW guys- and gals-
have
>us beat hands-down.
This may be true in many instances but not in as many as you may think. For
instance, not much effort is made into understanding the situation's "back
home" during the Civil War. Most Civ-War re-enactors spend thier time
learning about various general or how the common soldier lived or something
else directly relating to thier particular situation. As another general
rule that I encountered, the ladies tend to be more into the basic dress of
a lady of the 1860's instead of necessarily learning how to do many of the
tasks that they would have preformed. I also have to note that most of the
ladies that get dressed up and play tend to portray the typical "southern
Belle" which is usually characterized with the hoop skirt that only the
wealthy actually wore (and MOST of the soldiers were NOT wealthy.)
Granted, their average age is a little higher, I think,
>than ours which weeds out the kids who just want to drink and get laid
(pardon
>my bluntness, ladies)- you have all seen them, so don't deny it. But on the
>other hand, we are a bit closer and more of a fun-loving, freewheeling
crowd
>than they are, I believe.
Actually I got drunk the first time in my life at the 125th Anniversary of
the Battle of Atlanta on my 16th birthday. There is PLENTY of partying and
freewheeling going on at Civ-War Re-enactments...it's just that it waits
until the spectators go home.
Civ-War Re-enactors do things differently than us. We can't really say that
they are even 100% authentic. They take many short-cuts that are not
advertised such as most of teh "authentic campsites" have their modern
coolers and cooking equipment hidden away (usually though, the cooking gear
IS authentic). Also, ALL re-enactors do not camp in authentic campsites.
Behind the scenes are the non-period encampments, well hidden from mundane
view.
<bunches of snippage>
I should also mention that the people with the rank tend to have been
selected due to politics, not necessarily because they are the best people
for the job. Within our unit (I fought with the 4th GA Infantry and the 2nd
GA Artillery which were both part of the same corporate entity) the officers
were elected. The Lieutenant was selected because he was the guy who owned
the cannon. The other officers were selected for various reasons. In the
SCA, we have our fair share of politics, but as a whole the right people get
recognized for their hard work.
I assume the reason for this thread as well as the one before it was to
compare the two organizations. I have to think that it is a case of apples
and oranges. various re-enactor groups have a specific target area as well
as a limitation on where a person can take their interests. Re-enactors
tend to not worry so much on the Arts and Sciences of a time and focus on
the conflict. Those who don't want to fight tend to get bored on many
occasions (from personal experience).
In the SCA, we give people free range on where they choose to take their
interests. After 4 years doing Civ-War, I got burned out. After 4 years
doing SCA, I'm just getting started. But I am only one person and it may
not be that way for everyone.
<now getting off of my pedestal :o)>
In Service,
Lord Piers de Mowbray
caer...@tfs.net
That being understood, I do take small exception to a matter or two in
your post:
On 09 Oct 1999 12:38:01 GMT, sky...@aol.com (SKyuzo) wrote:
>I don't consider the SCA to be re-enactment per se, as we don't (for the most
>part) go to great pains to do things 'as they were' as opposed to 'how they
>should have been'.
I really think that the Society is too complex to reduce to
this simple a definition. In my Kindom at Lillies War on a given
evening I can walk down a stretch of the road and pass a drunken
group of Fyrdmen wandering forth to find a suitable location for a
fighter bonding ritual referred to locally as a "Fyrd pee", Master
Alan of Darkdale who is a master of so many facets of our version of
recreation that I dispair of encapsulating them in this post, I can
walk past the period tourney gallery where the very authentic 14th
period tourney is fought, past the roman fort we are building on site
(and fought in the first time this year!!!!) Yes, there are some very
inauthentic touches ... Like Maalak's tacky pants party, but
Even here, something in the spirit of dressing up for fun existed
quite universally in Medieval Euopean and Eastern cultures.
Here, I've wandered into it. Yep, we do have the drunken Fyrdmen.
Yep, we have my grandsquire in hareem pants with a neon squid print on
them, but the spirt that propells this seems to me at times to embody
the medieval spirit, even down to the bardic circle with filk, folk,
and every rare once and a while, people trying to foist a little 16th
century music on an unwitting, long suffering group of revelers under
the guise of guitar picking. It is a group entertaining themselves,
celebrating their living culture. To these aged eyes, that looks like
the best kind of reinactment.
>which weeds out the kids who just want to drink and get laid (pardon
>my bluntness, ladies)- you have all seen them, so don't deny it.
Who would deny it. But, on the other hand, why censure it. I've seen
kids who started fresh from RenFest wench garb doing authentic Comedia
d'ell Arte with a pretty good grasp of the form
in their first year. They learned some pretty cool things. And yes,
I'm sure they probably got laid too. Wow, I love this group.
They were young, and I have it on personal authority that young people
do this.
>But on the
>other hand, we are a bit closer and more of a fun-loving, freewheeling crowd
>than they are, I believe. I won't get into the area of SCA peerage, where I
>have observed that the most popular folks seem to get the titles and rank- not
>necessarily the most knowledgable. I know this will draw LOTS of fire from
>current peers, but there you have it.
No Kingdom is without its un-peerlike peers. No process is infallable.
For those souls who must endure the inner conflict of knowing that
they cannot (for any of several reasons) live up to the demands of
their rank, I have unbounded pity. What a sad thing. When that
happened to me, I disolved my household and went inactive to two
years. It was a painful two years. I hope you agree that surely the
majority of peers are merely peers for reasons of conviviality.
I know that there are Kingdoms in the Society where peerage orders
have problems. Again I do urge you to consider that a knowledgible
person sharing that knowledge freely is a treasure, a thing more
precious than any outward expression of rank.
Again, I don't think that you were wrong, but I think that here or
there you seem to reflect the emotional sting of someone slighted. To
whomever you refer to above I say: follow your bliss, you are in a
group that will appreciate it, even when it occasionally does not
reward it.
Respectfully,
Ternon de Caerleon.
Greg Lindahl
> and every rare once and a while, people trying to foist a little 16th
> century music on an unwitting, long suffering group of revelers under
> the guise of guitar picking.
Sssssh! Don't give them away!
-- gb
Trevor Barker
>(SKyuzo) writes:
>
>>I don't consider the SCA to be re-enactment per se, as we don't (for the
most
>>part) go to great pains to do things 'as they were' as opposed to 'how
they
between
>>SCAers and, say, Civil War reenactors is ludicrous; the CW guys- and gals-
>>have us beat hands-down.>>
>> But on the other hand, we are a bit closer and more of a fun-loving,
>freewheeling >crowd than they are, I believe.>>
>
to
>see how closely-knit they are, and how much fun they have? Or are you
>automatically assuming that because they have more and stricter rules, they
>must automaticaly have less fun? I rather doubt that's the case, but it
seems
>to be a common assumption amidst the section of the SCA that insists that
any
>attempt to raise the authenticity level (even at a personal level) will
ruin
>the fun, and that anything that can be called authentic cannot possibly be
fun
>as well..
English Civil War re-enactors (I'm thinking of the Sealed Knot and the ECWS)
certainly have lots of fun doing what they do (and drinking in the beer tent
afterwards).
I believe there's the same range of interest in historical detail in their
groups as in the SCA. Some just buy or borrow the costume, turn up and have
fun. Others go to great lengths to research and understand the things they
re-enact.
The reason they look more authentic is that they're only re-enacting a
single time and place, so it's relatively easy to get hold of the right
costume and accessories, and to control what people wear to events. You
won't necessarily find that their clothes and equipment are really authentic
if you look beneath the exterior appearance.
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. Looks good fun, though. If I didn't
have small kids I'd give it a try.
Trevor.
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily Logica's.
sheriff (at) weylea (dot) demon.co.uk
Sheridan
Trevor Barker wrote:
English Civil War re-enactors (I'm thinking of the Sealed Knot and the ECWS)
> certainly have lots of fun doing what they do (and drinking in the beer tent
> afterwards).
>
> I believe there's the same range of interest in historical detail in their
> groups as in the SCA. Some just buy or borrow the costume, turn up and have
> fun. Others go to great lengths to research and understand the things they
> re-enact.
>
> The reason they look more authentic is that they're only re-enacting a
> single time and place, so it's relatively easy to get hold of the right
> costume and accessories, and to control what people wear to events. You
> won't necessarily find that their clothes and equipment are really authentic
> if you look beneath the exterior appearance.
>
> Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. Looks good fun, though. If I didn't
> have small kids I'd give it a try.
>
> Trevor.
As a Roman reenactor (as well as an SCA fighter) we see similar things. The
premier Roman reenactment club, ESG (Ermine Street Guard), located in the UK,
use helmets that have been welded, shields made from modern plywood, lorica
segmentatas made from 20g and 22g stainlees steel (originals were 16g-18g
hardened iron), store bought cloth for tunics etc. etc. Like you said: "look
underneath".
One of the reason we picked Roman to do as members of the SCA was the extensive
documentation. In comparison to say 16th C Irish (which we also do) doing Roman
is easy to support and in southern CA the lighter clothing is great.
We have a saying: "It's just as easy to it right as it is to do it wrong."
I believe that the SCA fails her members and participants by not providing
pamphlets or booklets as "guides" about the various cultures possible within
the SCA. It'd go a long way towards directing newcomers towards a more
historic look.
Though without chainmail bikinis and barbarian hordes it just wouldn't be the
SCA!
Sheridan
Caid
Greg Lindahl
> The reason they look more authentic is that they're only re-enacting a
> single time and place, so it's relatively easy to get hold of the right
> costume and accessories, and to control what people wear to events. You
> won't necessarily find that their clothes and equipment are really authentic
> if you look beneath the exterior appearance.
No, the reason they're more authentic is that they're playing a
completely different game, with completely different goals. You could
re-enact a bunch of times and places and still look really authentic.
-- g
Sheridan
> >
> >How do you know this? Have you been involved with a CW group for a while
> to
> >see how closely-knit they are, and how much fun they have? Or are you
> >automatically assuming that because they have more and stricter rules, they
> >must automaticaly have less fun? I rather doubt that's the case, but it
> seems
> >to be a common assumption amidst the section of the SCA that insists that
> any
> >attempt to raise the authenticity level (even at a personal level) will
> ruin
> >the fun, and that anything that can be called authentic cannot possibly be
> fun
> >as well..
We do a couple of events per year that also involve ACW. A couple of the
soldiers in our warband also play ACW. They sing all the same songs we sing.
Party just as hearty.
Nothing quite as fun as a bunch of Romans, some Celts, Federals, 16th C
Highlanders and a handful of Frasier Highlanders sitting around a fire singing
"The Moose Song"
Sheridan
Caid
Sheridan
Greg Lindahl wrote:
I agree. We do 1st C Celt, 2nd C Roman, 16th C Irish, and 20th C Eduardian.
We're still working on our ACW kit. If we build another closet I'm sure we'll
find another culture to do!
Sheridan
Caid
Greg Lindahl
> I believe that the SCA fails her members and participants by not providing
> pamphlets or booklets as "guides" about the various cultures possible within
> the SCA. It'd go a long way towards directing newcomers towards a more
> historic look.
You're right -- most "living history" or "re-enactment groups" are
really good about having an introductory guide which gives good
information about basic clothes, etc etc, for their specific time and
place.
If anyone listening has written or would like to write such a thing
for some time and place within the SCA period, I'd love to publish it.
-- Gregory Blount
Cynthia Virtue
> You're right -- most "living history" or "re-enactment groups" are
> really good about having an introductory guide which gives good
> information about basic clothes, etc etc, for their specific time and
> place.
Ya; instead, we have a bunch of folks who publish their own info on the
web, which can be difficult to find sometimes. And it is of varying
levels of research.
On the other hand, covering a narrow focus in one pamphlet is relatively
easy for those groups with very concentrated time periods, and since
many of them have a structure that allows them to say "wear stuff
exactly like this, or don't play" there is a lot of incentive to have a
clear guide at an official level.
--
Cynthia du Pre Argent
October 12 is the day the UN figures that Earth's population will hit 6
Billion (6,000,000,000)
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> Nothing quite as fun as a bunch of Romans, some Celts, Federals, 16th C
> Highlanders and a handful of Frasier Highlanders sitting around a fire singing
> "The Moose Song"
I may regret this, but...
The Moose Song?
Effingham
RLobinske
>pamphlets or booklets as "guides" about the various cultures possible within
>the SCA. It'd go a long way towards directing newcomers towards a more
>historic look.
Try looking through previous issues of "Complete Anachronist", there have a
number of issues on basic costuming for a range of cultures. As for a more
direct publication, what cultures, what time periods, who is going to research
and write them? You could easily produce six pamphlets just for England (for
example: Early Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Dane, Anglo-Norman, 13th, 14th, 15th
and 16th centuries). While this is a good idea, I think it would involve a
rather large amount of work.
Remember, we can all do our part to help newcomers look better through
friendship and support.
Victor Hildebrand vonn Koln
Trimaris
Death before dishonor,
Nothing before coffee
Shameless website Plug: Military Life on Saipan, 1944-1945
http://members.aol.com/RLobinske/Saipan.html
Bryan J. Maloney
> I may regret this, but...
>
> The Moose Song?
You really don't want to know.
"When I was a young man I used to like girls..."
Michael Hofer
<ta...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>"Anthony J. Bryant" wrote:
>>
>> Sheridan wrote:
>> >
>> > Nothing quite as fun as a bunch of Romans, some Celts, Federals, 16th C
>> > Highlanders and a handful of Frasier Highlanders sitting around a fire singing
>> > "The Moose Song"
>>
>> I may regret this, but...
>>
>> The Moose Song?
>>
>> Effingham
>
>"Moose, moose, I love a moose...."
>
"I've never had anything quite like a moose..."
--
Cian ua'Lochain m/k/a Michael D. Hofer
/o)\ I'm not a medievalist - I just play one on weekends!
\(o/ http://www.ancientpond.com/
*BB*
David Friedman
> I believe that the SCA fails her members and participants by not providing
> pamphlets or booklets as "guides" about the various cultures possible within
> the SCA. It'd go a long way towards directing newcomers towards a more
> historic look.
My first reaction to this proposal was negative, and while I am not sure
it was correct, I think the reason for it is interesting.
The SCA basically expects people to do their own research. If we had
"official guides to" pamphlets, people would be "doing" Elizabethan or
whatever without having to read any costume books, any histories, anything
that would let them form their own opinion about the culture. Ultimately
it would be "how to fake knowing about Elizabethan England in one easy
lesson"--because there is no way a pamphlet can get beyond that. It can
cite sources--but providing the pamphlet with all the information you need
eliminates the need to read the sources.
In a way, this is the same issue as whether being able to buy costumes,
and jewelery, and ... instead of having to make it all yourself (and do
the research for making it) represents progress or regress. It certainly
leads to more authentic costumes. Potentially, it can lead to people
specializing in one area, and so going deeper than they could have if
everyone had to learn everything. But at the same time, it eliminates what
was an attractive feature of the society--the way in which it pushed
everyone into exploring at least some of everything for himself, in order
to be able to do it. Similarly here.
In both cases, one possible answer is that I am proposing an unrealistic
alternative--that, absent the pamphlet, people won't go to the costume
books or the history, they will just ask someone else in their group how
to "do Elizabethan," and end up with less information and more
misinformation than they would get from a well down pamphlet. Whether that
actually happens might depend a lot on the group.
David/Cariadoc (who is suspicious of systems for establishing official truth)
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
Dr. Tiomoid M. of Angle
>
> Sheridan wrote:
> >
> > Nothing quite as fun as a bunch of Romans, some Celts, Federals, 16th C
> > Highlanders and a handful of Frasier Highlanders sitting around a fire singing
> > "The Moose Song"
>
> I may regret this, but...
>
> The Moose Song?
>
> Effingham
"Moose, moose, I love a moose...."
You can imagine what it's about. (Or maybe you can't.)
Tadhg
Sheridan
wish to delve deeper can!
There certainly is no need for newcomers to reinvent the wheel. It also makes it
easier for other folk to do other cultures or periods.
Maybe it'll free the newcomer up to spend more time on the other things that
round out a persona ... accoutrements, shoes, furniture, tentage, cooking,...
Makes their assimilation happen faster. Less resistence, which is afterall...
feudal.
Sheridan
Caid
Bredin Zierd
> David/Cariadoc (who is suspicious of systems for establishing official truth)
Hear, hear! and I happen to agree with the body of the post as well...
--
Nunc lusum imus novum ludum
Lord Zierd, Cynic of the Inner Circle
Heath Barlin
>>being worn at court or a Knight of the Society wearing bluejeans on the
eric
>>as part of his garb?
I noticed a Knight in training just recently wearing blue jeans,
sunglassess, a cotton tabard, joggers and a bandana. This Rock and Roll
Wrestling Viking (or whatever it was supposed to be) would have obviously
benefitted from a small amount of help in regards to his outfit.
But we can't complain can we? After all 'as long as you make an attempt at
pre sixteen century clothng you can come and play'.
It's hardly a wonder some of the re-enactment clubs use the Society as a
point in case. Some of them go even as far as saying, 'at least they can
serve as a bad example'. I'm not saying that the Society is the worst of the
bunch (there are certainly reenactment groups that should be tarred with the
'there's a lesson for all of us' brush) but the Society seems to be gaining
a rep as a bit of a joke.
When I first looked at the Society (about twelve years ago) it seemed to be
a good bit of fun (I didn't like the gaffa taped sticks, but you can't have
everything), but it doesn't seem the same now. Maybe the enthusiastic
visions of my DnD elf running through and slaying all the little goblins
(and their little feet) have been tempered with with the wisdom of age (as
if).
Maybe it's just because I've seen re-enactors as well and notice how well
they look.
'It's a different ballgame', comes the cry, 'They're doing a narrow period
whilst we do not".
I thought a body was to choose a persona and recreate (creatively) that
fictional person. I'd assumed (in my ignorance) that that would narrow the
period down a tad. Not many people then (or now) lived for hundres of years,
(except people like Noah but he had some Very Powerful Friends). With a
period of adult life being effectively less than half a century (in most
cases) that's not too bad a time period and should allow for a reasonable
person to produce an outfit that fits within those parameters.
I wouldn't expect people to have everything right away, but starting on the
right path is easier than trying to change the avalanche halfway down the
mountain. Sometimes it can be done, but it can be extremely difficult.
Surely it would be easier to push the rocks down the right slope on the
beginning.
H
The Story Girl
> My first reaction to this proposal was negative, and while I am not sure
> it was correct, I think the reason for it is interesting.
Actually, I agree with you. I imagine many other people do as well. :)
> The SCA basically expects people to do their own research. If we had
> "official guides to" pamphlets, people would be "doing" Elizabethan or
> whatever without having to read any costume books, any histories, anything
> that would let them form their own opinion about the culture. Ultimately
> it would be "how to fake knowing about Elizabethan England in one easy
> lesson"--because there is no way a pamphlet can get beyond that. It can
> cite sources--but providing the pamphlet with all the information you need
> eliminates the need to read the sources.
This is exactly why I think a better compromise would be a list of good
resources and a list of resources that contain blatant inaccuracies.
The pamphlets might improve a beginner's "authenticity" by a VERY slight
amount, but more beginners might be that much more likely to get stuck
there. The other problem I have with this suggestion is the whole issue of
choosing a persona based on the garb, which is one of those things I think
is a bad idea. Unless the beginner (as I was) is extremely certain of
persona choice from the start, I think it's far better to show up to a few
events in some sort of generic/simple garb, talk to people, and get a good
handle on the sort of persona you might actually stick with. :)
Not everyone has the time to do as thorough research as we would like, but
I'd imagine that most if not all of us in the Society have access to a) the
Internet and/or b) a public library. It should be possible to at least get
started that way. And of course, we also have c) other scadians who share
our interests -- a great way for a newcomer to get to know an old-timer.
> In a way, this is the same issue as whether being able to buy costumes,
> and jewelery, and ... instead of having to make it all yourself (and do
> the research for making it) represents progress or regress. It certainly
> leads to more authentic costumes. Potentially, it can lead to people
> specializing in one area, and so going deeper than they could have if
> everyone had to learn everything. But at the same time, it eliminates what
> was an attractive feature of the society--the way in which it pushed
> everyone into exploring at least some of everything for himself, in order
> to be able to do it. Similarly here.
Exactly. The other thing that bothers ME, personally, about this is that a
persona should ideally (IMHO) be much more than the garb one wears at
events. Too much of "what makes you into your persona" focuses on clothing,
and not enough on any kind of actual knowledge. This is most emphatically
NOT to say that my 10th Century Icelandic persona shouldn't learn to a)
fence, b) dance, c) cook late-period dishes, or d) do anything else that
isn't strictly available to a (fairly well-traveled, but still) pre-1000
Viking woman. Astrid's a fairly adaptable character, but in persona there
is a subtle distinction between the interests original to my persona and
those things she has "picked up" from living in the Known World for the past
two years, whether or not I've been (out of persona) doing the same things
for longer than I've been in the SCA. (This is also known as "What the heck
is a Viking doing teaching a class on late-period poetry?")
> In both cases, one possible answer is that I am proposing an unrealistic
> alternative--that, absent the pamphlet, people won't go to the costume
> books or the history, they will just ask someone else in their group how
> to "do Elizabethan," and end up with less information and more
> misinformation than they would get from a well down pamphlet. Whether that
> actually happens might depend a lot on the group.
Good point. My home Barony has a sufficient variety of personae and
expertise to steer most persona choices away from the really obvious
mistakes, which is a very good thing IMHO. Newer, smaller, or less-diverse
groups might not have that ability. If everyone else is playing early
Celtic and someone wants to do Elizabethan (or vice versa), there could be
problems. But Thescorre seems to have all the "standard" persona choices
wandering around already (Celtic, Viking, Mongol, Middle Eastern,
Elizabethan, Italian Ren), including at least one person who is fairly
knowledgable, and we also have many less-standard choices wandering around
(Slavic personae from various centuries, one from mid-period France, and
probably a few others that I'm forgetting right now). Generally, there will
be someone who can point people in the right direction.
One thing Thescorre has discussed, that I would like to see happen, and that
I think other groups could benefit from is compiling a list of local
"experts" on various topics (not just persona, either; we have, for
instance, been known to get folks in desperate need of a Camping 101
refresher course). I do think that being responsible for gaining the
necessary knowledge to develop beyond the basics, however, is firmly the
responsibility of each individual. Others can help, but the motivation has
to be there on the part of the individual to learn. :)
> David/Cariadoc (who is suspicious of systems for establishing official truth)
Astrid Brandsdottir
Barony of Thescorre, Kingdom of AEthelmearc
--
----,---'---<@ The Story Girl (fable at servtech dot com) @>---,---'----
"The bats are doing just fine. There are hundreds of them. I have a
terrible feeling we're in trouble." -Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_
----,--'--<@ http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7723/ @>--,--'----
The Story Girl
> I noticed a Knight in training just recently wearing blue jeans,
> sunglassess, a cotton tabard, joggers and a bandana. This Rock and Roll
> Wrestling Viking (or whatever it was supposed to be) would have obviously
> benefitted from a small amount of help in regards to his outfit.
*grits teeth and tries to be polite* As many people on this list can tell
you, it's possible to re-create a carefully-researched Scandanavian
persona. Several people near me do a very good job of it (Their
Excellencies of Thescorre being my favorite example *waves to Her
Excellency, if she is reading this*), and I'm trying to get better at it.
And unfailingly, every time I think I'm getting somewhere, I read a post
like this one that makes me wonder if people's brains shut off as soon as
they think that I might be a Viking "barbarian." Cultural prejudice at
its most irritating, I say.
> But we can't complain can we? After all 'as long as you make an attempt at
> pre sixteen century clothng you can come and play'.
Not everyone is a wannabe costume Laurel. Admittedly, I'd rather not see
blue jeans on the listfield or anywhere else (at the very least, minimally
faded black jeans are much less obtrusive, and quite popular among the local
fencers). Sunglasses, however, are another matter. I used to wear contact
lenses. The main reason I don't currently wear them is that my eyes became
so insanely light-sensitive with them in that I frequently had to wear
sunglasses *in a normally-lit office building* or be in severe pain and
unable to see anything because my eyes were so watery. I've considered
wandering around events minus my (normal) eyeglasses, and decided against it
because the headache I get after a few hours of straining my good eye is
Just Not Worth It. Sorry, there is only so far I'm willing to go for the
sake of authenticity, and physical pain isn't on the list.
> It's hardly a wonder some of the re-enactment clubs use the Society as a
> point in case. Some of them go even as far as saying, 'at least they can
> serve as a bad example'. I'm not saying that the Society is the worst of the
> bunch (there are certainly reenactment groups that should be tarred with the
> 'there's a lesson for all of us' brush) but the Society seems to be gaining
> a rep as a bit of a joke.
And why precisely is it a big deal what anyone else thinks of us, short of
"Satanic Church of America" or "Society of Consenting Adults" or similar
things that run a risk of giving us a bad reputation in the community at
large? This is a HOBBY. It is something we do because we ENJOY it. If you
don't enjoy it, you shouldn't be here. If you would like to see something
changed, find a group of people who agree with you and either work within
the larger structure of the Society (as Duke Cariadoc does with the
Enchanted Ground), or start a splinter group. Telling other people how to
play, short of stopping actual health and safety risks, is Not Period and
furthermore, it is not courteous.
> When I first looked at the Society (about twelve years ago) it seemed to be
> a good bit of fun (I didn't like the gaffa taped sticks, but you can't have
> everything), but it doesn't seem the same now. Maybe the enthusiastic
> visions of my DnD elf running through and slaying all the little goblins
> (and their little feet) have been tempered with with the wisdom of age (as
> if).
Some of us, even those of us who played D&D for years before joining the
Society, never HAD those visions. And if you had never had that sort of
vision, would you have joined the Society in the first place and "grown up"
enough to be making these objections? :)
> Maybe it's just because I've seen re-enactors as well and notice how well
> they look.
*shrug* I've seen some amazingly well-dressed scadians as well. And I
don't think that the Civil War reenactors (for example) really do that
wonderful of a job of representing reality, either. They may on average
look spiffier, but that proves little to nothing about whether their clothes
are based on reality or on _Gone With the Wind_. Also, it's much easier to
document clothing from 150 years ago than 400+ years ago.
> 'It's a different ballgame', comes the cry, 'They're doing a narrow period
> whilst we do not".
> I thought a body was to choose a persona and recreate (creatively) that
> fictional person. I'd assumed (in my ignorance) that that would narrow the
> period down a tad. Not many people then (or now) lived for hundres of years,
> (except people like Noah but he had some Very Powerful Friends). With a
> period of adult life being effectively less than half a century (in most
> cases) that's not too bad a time period and should allow for a reasonable
> person to produce an outfit that fits within those parameters.
How precisely does it need to fit? No synthetic fabric? Wool, linen, and
(maybe) silk only? Hand-sewn? Hand-woven? As I've posted before, some
people who have little money or knowledge of sewing need to start with
Wal-Mart's $1/yard table and very simple garb that might not fit their
eventual persona. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, one should not
choose a persona based on garb, or vice-versa. MOST of my garb is, or tries
to be, appropriate to my persona, but every now and then my persona decides
to adopt one of the other local styles for a bit. I don't think this is
necessarily a bad thing. :)
[Warning: extreme sarcasm follows]
And does this mean that because I have a 10th-Century Icelandic persona, I
should not a) fence, b) go dancing in the barn, or c) teach my class on
period form poetry? After all, I should be sticking to things within my
persona's lifetime, right? And I shouldn't appreciate my AoA scroll at all,
of course, because that's "not a period way to recognize nobility" and
because my persona would probably be unable to read anything other than
runes. While we're at it, perhaps we should get rid of the chirurgeonate
and water-bearers -- modern first aid and plastic Gatorade bottles are as
unperiod as it gets, after all.
</sarcasm>
> I wouldn't expect people to have everything right away, but starting on the
> right path is easier than trying to change the avalanche halfway down the
> mountain. Sometimes it can be done, but it can be extremely difficult.
> Surely it would be easier to push the rocks down the right slope on the
> beginning.
There *is* that, but (as I posted a few months back on a similar thread), I
spent a sleepless night making my first set of garb and being terrified that
some snark was going to get on my case for making a chemise out of cotton
instead of linen (when I couldn't find ANY linen in the fabric store) and an
overdress out of a poly/wool blend (when I didn't quite have the courage to
use pure wool at $15/yard). Also, I don't see "generic Viking," "generic
Elizabethan," etc. as being much improvement over "generic T-tunic,"
"generic RennWench," "generic bellydancer," etc. *shrug*
-Astrid, who seems to have a lot to say on this subject :)
Cumhail
>
> <snip>
>
> I wouldn't expect people to have everything right away, but starting on the
> right path is easier than trying to change the avalanche halfway down the
> mountain. Sometimes it can be done, but it can be extremely difficult.
> Surely it would be easier to push the rocks down the right slope on the
> beginning.
>
The path that the SCA is on is just fine for the SCA. If it's not
right for you, play somewhere else. As an added bonus, I promise not to
critique how you play D&D.
Cumhail
Greg Lindahl
> I thought a body was to choose a persona and recreate (creatively) that
> fictional person.
No, most people do what they like. In my case, I like music and dance,
so I do things from the 11th century to the 16th century. The
*advantage* of the SCA over traditional re-enactment groups in my case
is that I can do things from the 11th century to the 16th century.
I also do re-enactment. It's different. You seem to be assuming the
SCA should aspire to be like something that it isn't. The SCA could be
more authentic without becoming re-enactment.
-- gb
Greg Lindahl
> The SCA basically expects people to do their own research. If we had
> "official guides to" pamphlets, people would be "doing" Elizabethan or
> whatever without having to read any costume books, any histories, anything
> that would let them form their own opinion about the culture.
The suggestion was for guides, not OFFICIAL guides. You're right that
most re-enactment groups have a big problem with this official
approval thing; I've seen folks quit because their research conflicts
with the party line, and the organization is not flexible enough to
accomodate differing opinions. Fortunately, the SCA is an anarchy.
> In a way, this is the same issue as whether being able to buy costumes,
> and jewelery, and ... instead of having to make it all yourself (and do
> the research for making it) represents progress or regress.
I don't like making musical instruments, and I have no talent for
it. Is it progress or regress that I can buy authentic instruments?
It's just the way life is, because I wouldn't make them if I could not
buy them.
You publish a cookbook. Is that progress or regress?
My clothes have mostly been made by my girlfriends, instead of me
making them myself. Is that progress or regress?
-- gb
WeeLadyE
>>>being worn at court or a Knight of the Society wearing bluejeans on the
>eric
Being from Trimaris I see sunglasses being worn at court alot. Sometimes
safety and health have to be the priority.
Elizabeth Blackrose
WeeLadyE
>making them myself. Is that progress or regress?
My garb has been mostly made by my boyfriends. I say that's progress!
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: But a series of booklets would/could/should be fully bibliographed. Those that
: wish to delve deeper can!
: There certainly is no need for newcomers to reinvent the wheel. It also makes it
: easier for other folk to do other cultures or periods.
I find I have a great ambivalence about this. I have to agree that, in
terms of "starting curve", focussed booklets on "how to get started in
culture X" could be an excellant resource and a way of getting people
jump-started towards further avenues of research. But, like Cariadoc, I
have a bad feeling about something like this being done "officially".
For one thing, who's going to do the quality control? From past
experience, there would be a lot of people out there who want to write up
these booklets who don't know anywhere near as much as they think they do.
Or, for that matter, what happens when the push to get a booklet out _now_
on culture X outstrips the availability of people qualified to write it?
I've seen this happen frequently in the field of names -- and I've even
been guilty of it myself. So what do you do when the "official guide to
doing culture X", for whatever reason, is badly enough flawed that it is
serving as dis-information rather than information?
If the booklet's being put out by a private individual, there's less of a
problem because there isn't the same sense of official sanction. But even
having the SCA, as an organization, _selling_ such booklets puts an
imprimatur on them that makes quality control a crucial problem. Again, in
the field of names, at one point the SCA's official mail-order service was
selling a particular book on Irish names that the College of Arms had long
since determined was useless for historic names. People got rightly
annoyed to discover that the SCA, Inc. was pushing reference material that
another branch of the SCA, Inc. had determined was rubbish.
I agree that it would be great if people took booklets like the ones
proposed and used them as jumping-off points for further research. But in
the majority of cases, that's not going to happen. And what we have to
beware of is promoting a fixed and limited notion of "what is period" that
well-meaning newcomers are likely to take too literally. People who _have_
done the further research would get really tired of refuting, "But that
can't be period -- it isn't in the booklet" (or, worse, "That can't be
period -- the booklet says the opposite").
So when it comes down to it, I actually think the booklets are a good idea
-- but I think that doing them as official publications of the SCA, Inc.
is a very bad idea.
Tangwystyl
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Sheridan
>
> I agree that it would be great if people took booklets like the ones
> proposed and used them as jumping-off points for further research. But in
> the majority of cases, that's not going to happen.
I suggest a "booklet" in order to direct that vast majority who are so eager to jump,
towards a jump point that doesn't lead to Hollywood or Xenaland.
> And what we have to
> beware of is promoting a fixed and limited notion of "what is period" that
> well-meaning newcomers are likely to take too literally. People who _have_
> done the further research would get really tired of refuting, "But that
> can't be period -- it isn't in the booklet" (or, worse, "That can't be
> period -- the booklet says the opposite").
A booklet can have a disclaimer, be billed as a primer, "In no way should the
material contained herein be considered to be a complete definitive work. This
booklet should be used as a starting point."
Sheridan
Caid
David Friedman
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu () wrote:
> Again, in
> the field of names, at one point the SCA's official mail-order service was
> selling a particular book on Irish names that the College of Arms had long
> since determined was useless for historic names. People got rightly
> annoyed to discover that the SCA, Inc. was pushing reference material that
> another branch of the SCA, Inc. had determined was rubbish.
Worse still, there is one C.A. which presents a whole lot of what it
explicitly says are medieval recipes, almost none of which are.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
David Friedman
<fa...@shell.servtech.spam-me-not.com> wrote:
> But Thescorre seems to have all the "standard" persona choices
> wandering around already (Celtic, Viking, Mongol, Middle Eastern,
> Elizabethan, Italian Ren), including at least one person who is fairly
> knowledgable, and we also have many less-standard choices wandering around
> (Slavic personae from various centuries, one from mid-period France, and
> probably a few others that I'm forgetting right now).
Khwarismian?
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
David Friedman
> You publish a cookbook. Is that progress or regress?
A better question is whether the worked out recipes in the _Miscellany_
represent progress or regress (perhaps that is what you meant). I'm not
entirely sure. On the one hand, they mean that people can do medieval
cooking in the SCA instead of modern cooking much more easily. But they
also encourage people to do my worked out versions, perhaps perpetuating
my mistakes, rather than going to the primary sources and working out
recipes for themselves.
The cookbook collections I publish are an easier case, since they are
simply collections of primary sources. While searching for things in
libraries can be fun, I don't think of it as "one of the important things
that the SCA gives you an opportunity to do" in the same sense as I think
of getting the information out of what you find in the libraries as that.
The cookbook collections make it much easier for people who want to work
from primary sources to do so--and the period cookbooks that have now been
webbed make it easier still.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
Craig Levin
David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
>Worse still, there is one C.A. which presents a whole lot of what it
>explicitly says are medieval recipes, almost none of which are.
In the name of Barganax, which one?! My lady wife has been
interested in doing some cookery from our collection for a local
cooking circle.
That just strikes me as a sign that the editor of CA in those
days needed to get ousted from office.
Pedro de Alcazar
--
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html
cle...@rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin
Greg Lindahl
Touche'!
Actually, I'm not as bad as I sound: I've made some girlfriends some
clothes, too. I'm just not up to making complicated stuff.
-- gb
Greg Lindahl
> A better question is whether the worked out recipes in the _Miscellany_
> represent progress or regress (perhaps that is what you meant). I'm not
> entirely sure. On the one hand, they mean that people can do medieval
> cooking in the SCA instead of modern cooking much more easily. But they
> also encourage people to do my worked out versions, perhaps perpetuating
> my mistakes, rather than going to the primary sources and working out
> recipes for themselves.
I believe that worked-out recipes represent progress, especially when
you have done a good job of also presenting the primary source. Some
people are more interested in the act of cooking than they are in
primary sources. I'm happy that I can point them to resources such as
your worked out recipes. And if they do get interested in working out
their own recipes, they have an idea of how to do it.
The dance community has certainly witnessed this. The number of people
doing 15th century dances is far, far larger than the number of people
interested in reconstructing them.
-- Gregory Blount
Zebee Johnstone
Greg Lindahl <lin...@pbm.com> wrote:
>"Heath Barlin" <Roe...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> I thought a body was to choose a persona and recreate (creatively) that
>> fictional person.
>
>No, most people do what they like. In my case, I like music and dance,
>so I do things from the 11th century to the 16th century. The
>*advantage* of the SCA over traditional re-enactment groups in my case
>is that I can do things from the 11th century to the 16th century.
And you don't have to do waht you don't like.
I am not interested in clothing - it's what I wear to keep the sun off
or the rain out or swords from bruising my delicate bod. It's not
an interest beyond that.
I have a decent archer's jack for fencing gear because someone who
*is* into clothing made it for me. If she hadn't I'd probably have
bodged up a th-shirt shaped bit of gear and thrown one of my grotty
old tunics someone made for me years ago over it. And been quite
happy.
I make an attempt at pre17th-C clothing because that's all I care
to do when it comes to clothing. The SCA allows me to concentrate on
all sorts of other things rather than spending a lot of time, effort,
and money on being a fashion victim :)
There are people who enjoy doing the clothing thing, and events would
be different without them. But I had as much fun at events 15 years
ago when we were all in slapped together T tunics and sharing grotty
barrel helms and wonky WIsby coats of plate as I have now when there
are no many more speccy looking people.
Silfren
Greg Lindahl
> That just strikes me as a sign that the editor of CA in those
> days needed to get ousted from office.
The current editor of CA is using peer reviewers for all CAs.
-- g
Arval d'Espas Nord
Greetings from Arval! Bredin replied to me:
> Isnt there a rule floating around that states [paraphrase] obviously
> modern items must be avoided or otherwise hidden on the list field?
No where I live. Your kingdom may have such a law; if so, it is a dumb law
because it is obviously impractical and unenforceable. Consider
wheel-chairs, for instance. Authenticity not only shouldn't be legislated,
it cannot be. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a desirable
goal.
> > No sane person would ever suggest that the desire for re-creation be
> > taken to the point of personal injury.
> Speaking of strawmen...
Your own posting, Bredin, assumed that someone would object to your wearing
sunglasses at events on grounds of authenticity. It was therefore entirely
relevent to refute that idea.
> > > Authenticity is a standard that can only be applied to oneself.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but that's untrue. Authenticity is an objective standard.
> > Only you can decide which bits and pieces you want to re-create, but anyone
> > can look at you and observe your choices.
>
> An objective standard applied subjectivly.
That's is a contradiction. A subjective test, by definition, cannot use an
objective standard. It's not at all unusual for people to claim to be
using an objective standard when they are really applying a subjective one;
but that problem has nothing to do with the objective standard.
Authenticity, in itself, is an objective criterion. Deciding what bits of
medieval culture appeal to you is subjective, but that is not a judgement
based on authenticity.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com
Dennis O'Connor
> >
> >Why does everyone have to wear clothing? Ancient celts tended to fight naked
> >(except for a spot of woad), as far as all the histories say, anyway.
>
> Most of us would still be historically inaccurate due to a lack of foreskins.
Not true. "Most of us" are likely women, if the SCA population
is at least as female as the general U.S population is.
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
Greycat Sharpclaw
wrote:
>
>Greetings from Arval! Bredin replied to me:
>
>> > No sane person would ever suggest that the desire for re-creation be
>> > taken to the point of personal injury.
>
>> Speaking of strawmen...
>
>Your own posting, Bredin, assumed that someone would object to your wearing
>sunglasses at events on grounds of authenticity. It was therefore entirely
>relevent to refute that idea.
To step in here, I've seen objections to "neccessities" that were much
less jarring than sunglasses. Example, I've seen a public objection
(by a pointy hat) (CRITISM - NOT NICE ADVICE) to modern fale-leather
footware. The Authenticity Police *do* exist, though thankfully, they
are rather rare.
--
Lord Emrys Cador
Barony of Settmour Swamp
East Kingdom
Remove "nospam" in the address to reply
david maclagan
>
> Greetings from Arval! Bredin replied to me:
>
> > modern items must be avoided or otherwise hidden on the list field?
>
> No where I live. Your kingdom may have such a law; if so, it is a dumb law
> because it is obviously impractical and unenforceable. Consider
> wheel-chairs, for instance. Authenticity not only shouldn't be legislated,
> it cannot be. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a desirable
> goal.
Caid has as a rule of the Lists that states that undisguised sports gear
and mundane clothing is unacceptable on the list fields. Admittedly I've
only hung out in Caid's most southern reaches, and so can't comment on
what goes on in California, but down here it means that even the most
ardently fighting centred stick-jocks tend to look, if not authentic,
then at least as if they haven't walked off the street and thrown on a
helm. Hence it would appear to be somewhat practical and enforced.
With regards to the use of wheelchairs or similar useful mundanities on
the field, I hope that people would be sensible enough to work to the
spirit of the rules, rather than the letter, in such a case. Of course,
given the love of humans for petty beaurocracy, I may be being
excessively optimistic.
Llewelyn
Southern Reaches
Bredin Zierd
> Bredin Zierd wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > There arent a lot of confusions from the US speech patterns, we get used to them
> > thru the TV media (tho The Nannys use of 'fanny' in its title theme caused a few
> > doubletakes).
>
> You use it in the British sense?
very much so <g>. What you guys call a 'fanny pack' we call a 'bum bag'.
Bredin Zierd
>
> Greetings from Arval! Bredin replied to me:
>
> > Isnt there a rule floating around that states [paraphrase] obviously
> > modern items must be avoided or otherwise hidden on the list field?
>
> No where I live. Your kingdom may have such a law; if so, it is a dumb law
> because it is obviously impractical and unenforceable. Consider
> wheel-chairs, for instance. Authenticity not only shouldn't be legislated,
> it cannot be. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a desirable
> goal.
So you have guys in uncovered blue plastic armour fighting on the list field?
You seem to be saying that this is ok and that nothing should 'officially' be
done to change this?
A ever increasing level of authenticity is desirable (you have my agreement on
that, at least), but a large number of people really cant be bothered going to
any great lengths in this regard. Some level is required as a minumum at
preserve SOME atmosphere: otherwise we might as well watch Galdiators on TV,
rather than medieval fighters at a medieval tourney.
Im not demanding a high minimum, the rule in Caid is great (now that Ive
actually looked it up):
Rule 19: Uncovered carpet armour, [more examples].. and all other undisguised
equipment clearly modern in nature are explicitly banned from the field.
> > > No sane person would ever suggest that the desire for re-creation be
> > > taken to the point of personal injury.
>
> > Speaking of strawmen...
>
> Your own posting, Bredin, assumed that someone would object to your wearing
> sunglasses at events on grounds of authenticity. It was therefore entirely
> relevent to refute that idea.
Ive reread my posting, and I can see where youre getting that assumption from. I
stated that I would be wearing sunnies regardless, in order to protect what is
left of my vision. I cant imagine anyone in this country telling someone to
remove sunnies for any reason (except mabee for ultra formal stuff). I called it
a stawman cos you attacked something that I didnt say.
> > > > Authenticity is a standard that can only be applied to oneself.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but that's untrue. Authenticity is an objective standard.
> > > Only you can decide which bits and pieces you want to re-create, but anyone
> > > can look at you and observe your choices.
> >
> > An objective standard applied subjectivly.
>
> That's is a contradiction.
Yes, Its called irony.
> A subjective test, by definition, cannot use an
> objective standard. It's not at all unusual for people to claim to be
> using an objective standard when they are really applying a subjective one;
> but that problem has nothing to do with the objective standard.
You have an objective standard which is applied. Then you add people to the
equasion, who view everything subjectivly, who essentially 'filter' the
objective thru the subjective giving you (hopefully) something that is close to
the original.
You get the same thing in law (objective) which is taken into a courtroom
(subjective). This is what Ive been meaning.
Bredin Zierd
> Ive reread my posting, and I can see where youre getting that assumption from. I
now theres an irritation typo... that should be '..I cant see..'
alwin
> >When was the last time you saw sneakers or sunglasses
> >>being worn at court or a Knight of the Society wearing bluejeans on the
> eric
Since this quote was part of a response I posted on this thread, I would
like to clarify my intent.
At our coronet this past weekend, I posed some questions to a few gentles
with many more years in the society than my meager seven. My questions were
based on my own observations reflecting the changes in the society during
that time. I understand that we do not re-create history nor do we truly
live in authentic period style at events. I understand that people are in
this game to have fun and that the SCA prides itself on being inclusive
rather than exclusive (..this is in theory, of course..) and that there are
mundane necessities we can not or will not do without. All of these things
I accept, however it is my assertion that the level of the QUALITY of the
experience seems to have declined due to the level of MUNDANITY at events.
Point 1. When I began my life as a minor medieval noble seven years ago, it
was considered a cardinal sin here in the West to put a plastic or otherwise
obviously mundane camp/sunshade structure on the perimeter of the lists
field. It just WAS NOT done! Furthermore it was considered ideal that
mundane tents not be visible from the "eric". For years I dreamed of having
a period style pavilion so that I could have the honor of being on the
"eric" at a Kingdom event...but guess what, now it hardly matters as there
are overtly mundane structures of plastic prominently displayed right next
to the Royal pavilion.
Point 2. There has always been frivolity at court. That is what makes it
fun. In my recollection, there was always reverence for the royals ("Always
respect the position if not the man", a wise peer once told me) and amidst
the entertainment of the court happenings there was an underlying tone of
respect and decorum...now, people yell and banter with the royals as if they
were in the car together on the way to the event as opposed to residing in a
Royal Court. And not a few people...but every Thomas, Richard and Henry with
a quip, no matter how lame or rude, will let it burst forth as if they were
a drunken fan at a hockey game.
Point 3. I recall, in those days...some seven years ago, when I came into
the Society that people would gently remind others that they had their watch
on with their garb and that it should be concealed. I remember when people
would arrive at a late, after the event was under way and would throw on a
t-tunic over their "civvies" so they could wander around looking for their
companions already on site. Now...seeing someone on a cell phone next to
the "eric", or a pager hanging on the outside of their fighter belt is all
too common...as is a group of late arrivals trudging around the lists field
on Saturday afternoon in jeans and t-shirts greeting and chatting with their
friends for an hour before dawning garb.
I asked of these things to my acquaintances all of whom had many more than
my seven years. I asked if my vision was skewed. Was this my perception?
Had it always been the way it is now, with such disregard for the game and
only now was I realizing it? My answers were resounding and definite. It
was not my imagination, it was not my perception...things have changed just
as I had noticed and they have became mundane in so many ways newcomers may
wonder why we go through all the trouble to drive fours hours to an event to
dress in costumes.
It's all in the name of fun. It's just a game. But games have rules. One
doesn't omit the rules in chess because one doesn't feel like using them
that day. The structure is what holds the game together and what makes it
fun. Without rules, is it still a game or is just it a bunch of people
(some less than others) in funny clothes?
It's as simple as this title from an early society essay for newbies, "If
you're going to play, PLAY!"
Arval d'Espas Nord
Greetings from Arval! Bredin asked me to clarify.
> So you have guys in uncovered blue plastic armour fighting on the list
> field?
Occasionally. Not many, and their friends usually convince them to cover
it.
> You seem to be saying that this is ok and that nothing should 'officially' be
> done to change this?
We were discussing a theoretical rule banning sunglasses. You've changed
the subject. That's OK, I just want it to be clear that the subject _has_
changed. Authenticity requirements for fighting equipment aren't really
comparable to a rule forbidding sunglasses at events, and requiring someone
to cover up his blue plastic armor doesn't impose a danger to his health.
To answer your question: I am very leery of rules requiring authenticity.
Unless very narrowly and carefully crafted, they have as many negative
consequences as positive ones. Requiring blue plastic armor to be covered
by a surcoat _might_ be narrow enough to work. I think that friendly
peer-pressure will probably work better.
Requiring authenticity is essentially foreign to our game, and I have never
seen it work well, even on a small scale. The essence of our game is
encouraging authenticity while recognizing that we will never have more
than a little bit here and there.
Tanya Guptill
sunglasses. I am also very sun-sensitive, but I have to wonder, what
did past cultures due to block sun glare? There are/were many desert
cultures, and certainly many that existed in great heat, so perhaps we
should consider their solutions are options. (veils, hats, ...anyone
know of other alternatives?)
Mira
Arval d'Espas Nord wrote:
>
Dorothy J Heydt
Tanya Guptill <tgup...@teleport.com> wrote:
>.....what
>did past cultures due to block sun glare? There are/were many desert
>cultures, and certainly many that existed in great heat, so perhaps we
>should consider their solutions are options. (veils, hats, ...anyone
>know of other alternatives?)
I know of a few.
The trouble, of course, is that anything you do to reduce the
amount of light entering the eye will also obscure what you're
trying to look at. (My middle-aged eyes can't read small print
with sunglasses on.)
Up around the Arctic Circle they made goggles that were mostly
opaque, being made of bone or ivory or what not, but had a thin
horizontal slit cut in front of each eye. This allowed very
little light in, and gave you a view of just the horizon, which
is what you were interested in (when out on a seal hunt or
whatever).
In parts of North Africa they rub charcoal, or kohl, or other
dark pigments on the skin under the eye, to reduce glare from
that source.
Other than that, veils and hats and headdresses that block out
part of the light--and part of the visibility.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Zebee Johnstone
Arval d'Espas Nord <mit...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>comparable to a rule forbidding sunglasses at events, and requiring someone
>to cover up his blue plastic armor doesn't impose a danger to his health.
>
Agreed. And I alos am leery of requiring more authenticity.
The current PRince and Princess of Lochac have made it a requirement
of entry to the Coronet lists that there is to be no visible
plastic armour (not a usual problem here) and no visble jeans
either. I think there was something about the only visible duct tape
being on the swords too :)
There was a bit of grumbling at first, but people did agree that a
Coronet was a bit different to a usual tourney and that it wasn't
that great a hardship. Worth noting that the "real contenders"
had all been doing this anyway...
Silfren
Zebee Johnstone
Tanya Guptill <tgup...@teleport.com> wrote:
>I've been interested in this thread, dealing with the necessity of
>sunglasses. I am also very sun-sensitive, but I have to wonder, what
>cultures, and certainly many that existed in great heat, so perhaps we
>should consider their solutions are options. (veils, hats, ...anyone
>know of other alternatives?)
Blindness?
We know that coloured glasses were available in the renaissance.
I suspect the old dodge of looking out through a narrow slit
was used too.
But you can bet that a lot of people went blind....
Silfren
Jay Rudin
> That's OK, I just want it to be clear that the subject _has_
> changed. Authenticity requirements for fighting equipment aren't
> really comparable to a rule forbidding sunglasses at events, and
> requiring someone to cover up his blue plastic armor doesn't impose a
> danger to his health.
While I agree with most of what you're saying here, I'd like to point
out that diluting a marshall's attention to include other things than
safety *can* impose a danger to someone's health.
I've seen Crowns add such a rule for cerain tourneys. I have no
immediate objection to that, just as I have no objection to any other
specific rule for a given tourney. I just wish they wouldn't ask the
marshals to enforce it. We're too busy already.
(What's really annoying is that some marshals are willing to be lax with
explicit safety issues like the total coverage of a gorget, while
authenticity rules are enforced strictly.)
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
marianr
Tanya Guptill wrote:
> I've been interested in this thread, dealing with the necessity of
> sunglasses. I am also very sun-sensitive, but I have to wonder, what
> did past cultures due to block sun glare? There are/were many desert
> cultures, and certainly many that existed in great heat, so perhaps we
> should consider their solutions are options. (veils, hats, ...anyone
> know of other alternatives?)
Speaking of sunglasses and health reasons and all . . .
By mid-War Week of Pennsic, the air pollution was bad enough that I needed to wear a
dust mask to breathe. It didn't help that I also got a sinus infection while I was
there. I plan to go from the start next year as well but I will have a proposal to
present to land-grabbers in my block about fire pits, torches, stoves, cigarettes,
and candles for the reduction of smoke in that one block. People who breathe fine
just don't notice it sometimes. And I have a gripe with a certain inconsiderate
smoker who extinguished the citronella candle because it was making me cough and
then lit a cigarette and since she was standing and I sitting held it at face level.
A bright blue dust mask looks silly with modern clothing. It looks even sillier
with garb. Any suggestions?
Susan Carroll-Clark
David Friedman wrote in message ...
>In article <7u7roe$e4a$1...@gail.ripco.com>, cle...@ripco.com (Craig Levin)
wrote:
>C.A. 79. I wrote the C.A. editor at the time, pointing out that of 24
>recipes given, all described as medieval, only three are based on pre-1600
>recipes. One more is based on a 17th century recipe.
As I recall, that one was published at a point when the CAs were *way*
behind schedule and they were quite literally desperate, and came off as
being something it really wasn't. The stories are quite fun--it's too bad
the recipes aren't more authentic.
Nicolaa
Nils K Hammer
When I started in the SCA, the guy with uncovered blue plastic
armour was considered one of the most authentic ones there.
nils
David Friedman
<bruc...@washcoll.edu> wrote:
> A bright blue dust mask looks silly with modern clothing. It looks even
sillier
> with garb. Any suggestions?
You could wear a veil--especially if you had an Islamic persona.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
David Friedman
<nicola...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
The serious problem is not that the recipes are not authentic but that
they claimed to be. Low levels of authenticity are tolerable, even if
unfortunate; dishonesty (probably by the CA editor not the author of the
pamphlet, at least so far as was able to disentangle what had happened) is
not.
David/Cariadoc
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> How can I complain about someone else's plastic armour if I'm
> unwilling to cover my ice chest and soda can?
The logical question must follow:
WHY are you unwilling to cover your ice chest and soda can? You can throw a cloth
over the chest, and put the soda in a cup.
Effingham
Susan Carroll-Clark
David Friedman wrote in message ...
>The serious problem is not that the recipes are not authentic but that
>they claimed to be. Low levels of authenticity are tolerable, even if
>unfortunate; dishonesty (probably by the CA editor not the author of the
>pamphlet, at least so far as was able to disentangle what had happened) is
>not.
Precisely. This is what I meant by "came off as something they weren't." I
believe the stories and recipes originally ran as a fun series in a local
newsletter.
Nicolaa
House Of WALKER
I have been playing less that ten years, and in only one kingdom, so
I'm certain there are many different views to this topic. I see an
improvement in the "less mundanity" fight. But then, it is an ongoing
battle. Everytime someone new shows up, it's our responsibility to
Show By Example.
How can I complain about someone else's plastic armour if I'm
unwilling to cover my ice chest and soda can?
Of course, I'm talking about those folks that play in a local group.
There, we can help each other out, and gently chide them about the
duck tape holding on every bit of their armour. We can make contests
out of the most original way to hide the mundanity. And we can
encourage and inspire each other to make the game better.
Britta the Red
--
"Knocked; you weren't in." -- Opportunity