Curious about laurels
Alliekatt
I have never been more than peripherally involved with the SCA, having a
number of friends involved, however as an artist and musician, I have had
plenty of experience in a) playing traditional Irish music, which may not be
an issue since it's fairly contemporary, and b) making illuminated
manuscripts and portraits, which may be more up the alley of what outlets
that the SCA provides.
I have heard that a laurel requires the equivalent effort of a doctorate in
a chosen field of traditional study, for example in cheesemaking or brewing
or masonry etcetera, and my special field of interest lies in calligraphy,
illumination, and portraiture. I have been a portrait artist for over ten
years and my skills are laudable, but I have not yet studied under an
experienced oil painter. The same applies to illuminated manuscripts, I
have been painting and drawing traditional original illuminations and doing
calligraphy for some time, but not to any serious in-depth (business) level.
Having recently returned from a grassroots tour of Ireland, and having been
to see the Books of Durrow and Kells, I would find it wonderful if
eventually I can go back to Ireland, or even work locally, as someone paid
to research, work on, or design traditional art, or teach art history.
Although college provides somewhat qualifiable certification, I am looking
for in-depth training and more specialized study under guild members who are
successful at making their love for traditional art also their livelihood.
From what I have heard of laurels, especially in what I have heard of
laurels who have had the opportunity to work on research and restoration
teams, I am under the impression that a laurel provides a recognized
certification of highly developed skill.
If anyone can provide their point of view on the requirements and
commitments necessary in the acquisitions of their laurels, I certainly
thank in advance for, and appreciate, any replies which would shed light on
my situation.
Thanks,
AR Carter
PS. Are there any minstrels experienced in playing the 5 course cittern?
After hearing one in Galway, I have purchased one and love the sound, but I
dislike the tuning, as I am a guitarist, and if there is someone in the
Aethelmearc area who can play one and provide lessons, I would be quite
grateful. AC
Arval d'Espas Nord
Greetings from Arval! allie...@hotmail.com asked:
> I have heard that a laurel requires the equivalent effort of a doctorate in
> a chosen field of traditional study
Not even close. On one hand, the two aren't comparable in nature; and on
the other hand, the work required for a Laurel doesn't come close to that
required for a doctorate, at least in my experience of both the Society and
academia.
The formal standard for the Laurel is very vague and the decision is left
to the Crown acting with input from other members of the Order of the
Laurel; so the actual standard varies from one kingdom to another, from one
reign to the next, from one field of study to the next, and from one award
to the next. In some cases, the variations are extreme.
The formal standards for the Laurel are:
The candidate must have attained the standard of excellence in skill
and/or knowledge equal to that of his or her prospective peers in some
area of the Arts or Sciences.
The candidate must have applied this skill and/or knowledge for the
instruction of members and service to the kingdom to an extent above and
beyond that normally expected of members of the Society.
These are in addition to the general requirements for peerage (the highest
level of award in the Society, of which the Laurel is one example):
a. They shall have been obedient to the governing documents of the
Society and the laws of the kingdom.
b. They shall have consistently shown respect for the Crown of the
kingdom.
c. They shall have set an example of courteous and noble behavior
suitable to a peer of the realm.
d. They shall have demonstrated support for the aims and ideals of
the Society by being as authentic in dress, equipment and behavior
as is within their power.
e. They shall have shared their knowledge and skills with others.
f. They shall have practiced hospitality according to their means
and as appropriate to the circumstances.
g. They shall have made every effort to learn and practice those
skills desirable at and worthy of a civilized court. To this end
they should have some knowledge of a wide range of period forms,
including but not limited to literature, dancing, music, heraldry,
and chess, and they should have some familiarity with combat as
practiced in the Society. They should also participate in Society
re-creations of several aspects of the culture of the Middle Ages
and Renaissance.
In some areas, the practical standard of artistic achievement can be
described as having made some significant new contribution to the Society's
knowledge and practice of a particular art. Note that this means that the
necessary level of achievement depends on how much we already know about an
art: In a new art, untapped by the Society, just introducing the basics
might suffice, while in a widely-practiced art like calligraphy and
illumination, some deep research into a specialized corner of the field
might be necessary.
You need to understand that the Laurel, like every other Society award, is
fundamentally an award for service to the organization. Peerage awards in
general are typically given to people who have demonstrated a deep
commitment to the organization over a period of several or many years.
> From what I have heard of laurels, especially in what I have heard of
> laurels who have had the opportunity to work on research and restoration
> teams, I am under the impression that a laurel provides a recognized
> certification of highly developed skill.
No. If you are looking for professional qualifications that will help you
get a job in the real world, then the SCA isn't right for you. The SCA is
a game. Some of us take it very seriously and a some people do take skills
learned in the game and capitalize on them in real life; but any success
they have achieved in real life is based on hard work in the real world
proving their skills. Society awards, in themselves, are meaningless
outside the Society. Anyone in the real world who accepts a Laurel as
certification of skill or knowledge is at least ignorant and mistaken.
Some Laurels are highly skilled in their fields by any objective standard.
Most are highly skilled only by comparison to the collection of amateur
hobbyists who make up the Society.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com
Janet Davis
mundane qualification, I would like to add that if a Laurel will take you as
an apprentice, you will learn a great deal, irregardless if you have an
official certificate at the end. I gather you are in Aethelmearc and
(although I'm biased) I would say there is probably no better place to learn
calligraphy and illumination. There are a large number of scribes per
capita and the standard of work is extremely high. There will be a Heralds
and Scribes Colligium in June in the Pittsburgh area; that might be an
excellent time to take a couple classes and meet other scribes.
Leah Janette
Castle Furnishings
http://medievalbookstore.com
Heather Rose Jones
<I'm going to snip a lot here, and just leave enough of a quote to put
my reply in context.>
> I have heard that a laurel requires the equivalent effort of a doctorate in
> a chosen field of traditional study, for example in cheesemaking or brewing
While I'm not at all surprised that you've heard people describe the
Laurel this way, you have to understand that it is either an _extremely_
rough analogy, or it's being said with the implication "a Laurel is as
impossible for me to get as a PhD". The analogy leaves out a great deal
of the "SCA socio-political function" aspect of the Order (as I'll
discuss below), but what the analogy is working from is an understanding
that a Laurel should require an extensive background knowledge in your
particular field, a mastery of the basics of the field, and a certain
new contribution, whether in terms of expanding the knowledge of the
field, or expanding the presence of that field in the SCA, or simply
expanding people's awareness of the field by doing really hot stuff.
But, as someone who has a Laurel and who is in the process of getting a
PhD, the absolute depth and magnitude of the knowledge and work involved
is not really comparable. While a number of Laurels have ended up with
a PhD-level mastery of their field, that's something that normally comes
afterward, not a pre-requirement for the Order.
And, as mentioned above, there's alot more to the Order than simple
knowledge and production skills.
> Although college provides somewhat qualifiable certification, I am looking
> for in-depth training and more specialized study under guild members who are
> successful at making their love for traditional art also their livelihood.
In my experience, very few Laurels make their livelihood with their
historic skills -- a fair number make the occasional pocket change with
it, but commercial production is really an entirely separate issue from
the concerns of the Order. (There's also the problem that commercial
production often finds itself in conflict with the goal of doing
historically-based work.)
> From what I have heard of laurels, especially in what I have heard of
> laurels who have had the opportunity to work on research and restoration
> teams, I am under the impression that a laurel provides a recognized
> certification of highly developed skill.
I'm glad that your experience with SCA laurels has been one that gives
you this impression -- it's not the only possible impression to get, and
it will depend a lot on what your field of interest is. As I said
previously, there _are_ Laurels who work at a very high standard in
real-world terms, but there are also a lot of Laurels who are, and will
always be, non-academic hobbyists at what they do.
One of the problems with assuming that "Laurel" = "recognized
certification of highly developed skill" is the nature and history of
the selection process for the Order. Members of the Order in each
advise and make recommendations to the royalty who then make the
decision to offer the Order or not. With the best will in the world,
that advice and those recommendations are based on the knowledge of
people who may be trying to judge work far removed from their own
specialties, or a field that is only beginning to emerge in the SCA.
The Laurel councils of different kingdoms may differ in the level or
emphasis of their standards, or simply in what fields they already have
experts in. And as the collective "group knowledge" has grown over the
years, so has the basic "starting point" standards for the Laurel, such
that someone who joined the order twenty years ago may no longer be in
step with the standards considered necessary today.
None of this is a "flaw" in the system -- it just _is_ the system. But
it does mean that it would be a mistake to believe that a Laurel is the
functional equivalent of a certification program. (And that's without
even getting into the subject of Laurels who are best known for fields
other than what they were elevated for.)
> If anyone can provide their point of view on the requirements and
> commitments necessary in the acquisitions of their laurels, I certainly
> thank in advance for, and appreciate, any replies which would shed light on
> my situation.
One of the most important things to be aware of is that, while technical
knowledge and excellence is an essential _part_ of the qualifications
for a Laurel, it isn't the only essential part. A Laurel isn't a prize
to be won, or a certificate to be achieved by doing all the right steps.
It is an important role and function in the overall structure and
society of the SCA. In that function, a Laurel will have demonstrated a
certain commitment to the SCA as an organization and to the basic
principles (much as we may argue over what they are) of the
organization. A Laurel will have an understanding what role the Order
plays in the SCA -- both on a collective level and on an individual
level -- in terms of setting standards of behavior, aspiration, and
achievement. An important part of evaluating a potential Laurel is in
looking, not simply at their individual achievement, but at how they use
their individual achievements to contribute to and improve the SCA as a whole.
Getting back to your situation, it is certainly possible that you will
be able to find a person or persons in the SCA who will have the
attributes you're looking for. And it's _possible_ that such a person
won't be a Laurel (although it's probably more likely that they will
be). But there will also be a lot of Laurels working in your field who
-- because of their particular interests, experiences, or focuses --
won't be doing the sort of work you're interested in. What you'll have
to do is identify what your personal goals are and ask around until you
find someone to work with who fits those personal goals. And your
search is going to be more successful if you have a more accurate idea
of what the purpose and nature of the Order of the Laurel is.
Tangwystyl
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
xaviar
>commitments necessary in the acquisitions of their laurels,
I love this sort of question, for as there are many who earn this award and are
truly laurels, there are many who will never get the award yet have the talent.
It is more than having and doing, you must also teach others, but also you
must play the Game. That is not piss off the Political structure that is the
Group of Laurels as a whole, or the presant and future Royality.
I have argueed many times in the past over the aspect of money involved.
You must show off your works be they food, music or writings. If not done in
volume, it often, but not always will be overlooked by those whose VOTE you
will need to become one of the chosen. It does take a little sucking up as
well, though not always, but gifts to the crown dont hurt either.
Do not however let this deter you in enjoying arts that you engage in. I
know of many who dont enter there talents in the contests that would bring
notice to them. They dont wish the notice. They are quite happy to have their
friends enjoy the fruits of their research and talent.
lord Xaviar
watch the flames, velvet burns easy..lol
ruadh
Too many places require that more than the Craft.
Just do your craft, enjoy the praise of honest people who speak to you.
Maybe a laurel be could happening in the background. But once a Peer, you
will be required to . . . play in their game. I chose to be true to my
crafts, and my personal attitude and altitude.
Ru, all things woolly
"xaviar" <lord...@aol.comohwell> wrote in message
news:20010419024614...@ng-ci1.aol.com... clipped....
> >If anyone can provide their point of view on the requirements and
> >commitments necessary in the acquisitions of their laurels,
>
>..... must play the Game. That is not piss off the Political structure
that is the
> Group of Laurels as a whole, or the presant and future Royality.
> ....It does take a little sucking up as
> well, though not always, but gifts to the crown dont hurt either.
>
Cynthia Virtue
> Is there a Laurel for Sucking up?
> Too many places require that more than the Craft.
Since "one place that requires Sucking Up" is far 'too many,' I'm
wondering how many you've encountered so far?
Trouble is, if one decides to try the Sucking Up route, there are so
*many* people one must do it to. A succession of Crowns over several
years, and the entire Laurel circle -- easily 50 to 100 people at a
minimum. That's a lot of effort, when just being good at what you do
could get you there; sucking up is not the lazyman's option.
--
Cynthia du Pré Argent (Hartshorn-dale, East)
Not a Laurel
It takes less time to do a thing right than it does to explain why you
did it wrong. -- H.W. Longfellow
james rich
"Cynthia Virtue" <cvi...@thibault.org> wrote in message
news:3ADEE0BD...@thibault.org...
>
> > Is there a Laurel for Sucking up?
> > Too many places require that more than the Craft.
>
> Since "one place that requires Sucking Up" is far 'too many,' I'm
> wondering how many you've encountered so far?
>
> Trouble is, if one decides to try the Sucking Up route, there are so
> *many* people one must do it to. A succession of Crowns over several
> years, and the entire Laurel circle -- easily 50 to 100 people at a
> minimum. That's a lot of effort, when just being good at what you do
> could get you there; sucking up is not the lazyman's option.
>
AElfwenna
"Learn from themistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them
all yourself."
Brian Ferguson
> *many* people one must do it to. A succession of Crowns over several
> years, and the entire Laurel circle -- easily 50 to 100 people at a
> minimum. That's a lot of effort, when just being good at what you do
> could get you there; sucking up is not the lazyman's option.
I generally have doubts about this sort of tactic... From what I've seen
in my mere year in the society, once someone becomes noticed by a
particular peer or group of peers as a candidate for elevation, they are
watched fairly closely. Not only by the peers, but by those close to them
in a sort of proxy fashion. Piss off a peer's lord or lady, or a member
of their household, and the peer will certainly hear about it. Extend
that a few levels to other friends and acquaintances, and you have 90% of
the population in a given group. So instead of trying to "suck up" to all
of these people, one might actually try being genuinely "peer like" and
improve ones self, it probably more effective, and (IMHO) is a more noble
thing.
Best regards,
Donasian de Suscinio
Barony of the Cleftlands
Middle Kingdom
Dennis O'Connor
> So instead of trying to "suck up" to all of these people,
> one might actually try being genuinely "peer like" and
> improve ones self, it probably more effective, and
> (IMHO) is a more noble thing.
I'd say you're almost right. My disagreement is with
being "genuinely peer like". Far better, in my opinion,
is to just try and be who you think you should and
want to be, and do what you think you should and
want to do, and then if people decide that who you
are and what you do makes you a Peer, well, let
them make you one, since it being a Peer doesn't
do you any real harm, and it makes other people
happy to have Peers created.
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
Vanity Web Page http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/
Mira (Tanya Guptill)
> If anyone can provide their point of view on the requirements and
> commitments necessary in the acquisitions of their laurels, I certainly
> thank in advance for, and appreciate, any replies which would shed light on
> my situation.
>
Noble friend,
This varies from situation to situation (I know--how vague is THAT?). I'm being
elevated in July (I'm currently on vigil) and the closest bit of an
answer/opinion that I could possibly provide is:
--Do what you LOVE, something you are truly passionate about. If you find
someone else who shares your interest, can you both talk about your common
interest in such detail that you will glaze over the eyes of everyone else in
the room? :) (My friend Master Sunjan and I can clear a room quickly, just by
talking about tents...)
--If you're enthusiastic about what something, that's contagious! Don't be
afraid to teach or do demos about your skill.
--Don't worry about recognition--if you are doing what you like to do, it is its
own reward. No foolin'....
Warmly,
Mira Silverlock
--
http://www.teleport.com/~tguptill/tent.html
Rest not--life is sweeping by
Go and dare before you die
Something noble and sublime
Leave behind to conquer time
JE Anderson
> > Too many places require that more than the Craft.
>
> Since "one place that requires Sucking Up" is far 'too many,' I'm
> wondering how many you've encountered so far?
>
> Trouble is, if one decides to try the Sucking Up route, there are so
> *many* people one must do it to. A succession of Crowns over several
> years, and the entire Laurel circle -- easily 50 to 100 people at a
> minimum. That's a lot of effort, when just being good at what you do
> could get you there; sucking up is not the lazyman's option.
Well said <grin> may I quote you?...it works for the Pelican circle
too.....!
Eirika
Dr JP Hrisoulas
As someone who has both a Laurel and a PhD (in the same field in fact,
metals...) I must say that getting a Laurel is a cakewalk compared to the
Doctorate. Neither one is "easy as pie" however, but a "peerage" is alot
easier than the PhD.
You do not need to "suck up" or do anything other than what you are interested
in. (Besides meeting the other requirements set down by the BOD as far as
peerages go).
You don't "need" to study "under a Master" or anything, no apprentice
labour/time is "required". I didn't do that, and look at where I wound up (on
second thought..don't take me as an example..My situation is unique in the
SCA..)
Seriously, just do what you enjoy, delve into it as deeply as you wish and
explore all you want in your chosen art form/field..
There is no "set" proceedure, no "ticket punching" to being elevated into the
Laurel. It's all really subjective. I know this doesn't help much but the
requirements are rather open to interpetation.
As for the "real world"...A Laurel isn't recognized outside the SCA and in some
instances, I know it has been looked "down" on by some members of Academia.
BUT....Within the SCA, that's another thing. It's not an award that is to be
"won", like a contest prize, it's one that is given out for doing your best in
an art form.
Wanting to become "good" at what you do is one thing..it can be very rewarding,
stimulating and damn interesting. Wanting to become "good" enough to get an
award? I don't look at that as a good way to think about things (I am NOT
saying that you are thinking this, but there are some folks who do) as doing so
is rather mercenary if you ask me.
When I started out in "metals" I was (and still am) VERY interested in
metallography and metallurgy. This interest grew and grew and to be frank the
thought of any SCA related awards was the farthest thing from my train of
thought. Now some 20 years, three (soon to be four) books and a PhD later I am
still digging around looking at old sword blades. Why is this?? Because I love
doing this!! Any awards I get are incedental, it's the research, the "doing"
that is the most important.
What this all boils down to is this: Do what you enjoy, share what you learn.
If you get an award, great!! If not, what's the difference really? Is the
knowledge and skills you aquired in any way "less" than if you don't have this
or that award??
I have heard it said many times before: "Laurels aren't "made"..they are
recognized".
If I never of gotten elevated I would of still went on with my studies and
research, regardless of the SCA (now lucky for this child, my chosen field of
study fits rather nicely into the SCA but that's just the way things worked
out) awards/peerage.
Enjoy what you do...THAT's the most inportant part, if you ask me..
Atar
Dr JP Hrisoulas
Metallographer, Lecturer
Author: The Complete Bladesmith
The Master Bladesmith
The Pattern Welded Blade
HCI: Dedicated to seeing a woman dead, rather than alive, legally carrying a
handgun.
LtC NVDoM
http://www.Atar.com
JE Anderson
Eirika
"Dr JP Hrisoulas" <jhris...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010419182544...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> Hello:
<snip>
Morgan E. Smith
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Dennis O'Connor wrote:
> "Brian Ferguson" <bj...@po.cwru.edu> wrote ...
> > So instead of trying to "suck up" to all of these people,
> > one might actually try being genuinely "peer like" and
> > improve ones self, it probably more effective, and
> > (IMHO) is a more noble thing.
>
> I'd say you're almost right. My disagreement is with
> being "genuinely peer like". Far better, in my opinion,
> is to just try and be who you think you should and
> want to be, and do what you think you should and
> want to do, and then if people decide that who you
> are and what you do makes you a Peer, well, let
> them make you one, since it being a Peer doesn't
> do you any real harm, and it makes other people
> happy to have Peers created.
If sucking up were a requirement for becoming a Laurel - I would not be
one. I managed, in the course of the first twenty years on SCA
involvement, to piss off *everybody* at one time or another. I'm
extroverted, opinionated and not at all afraid of direct confrontation.
In talking to other Laurels, both locally and outside my own
Principality, after my elevation, most of them said that at least they
knew what they were getting. (One person actually said "Well, the thing
is, you NEVER insulted me behind my back: it was always to my face!")
Frankly, I am unsure about this entire discussion:
1) a Laurel is not necessarily the *epitome* of excellence in a particular
craft: the artistic merits range all over the place, due to factors like
when they received the elevation, where they lived when they received it
and what area they were recognized for. If it was thirty years ago, the
level of expertise required may not fit the criteria used today for a
similar craft - we've grown, we've learned - and much of that impetus
towards change came from those who were elevated early and saw out on the
horizon all the places that particular craft could go. Someone living in a
more isolated area with fewer resources might be elevated at an earlier
stage of expertise: we can also recognize the distance of personal travel
on the artistic journey, rather than an absolute level of achievement.
2) Laurels are recognized for having put in the time and effort in a
number of areas: they have achieved a certain expertise in one or several
craft areas, they have contributed to the general knowledge and expertise
of others, either through teaching or by making research and resources
available to others, and they have enriched our lives by donating things
they've made or things they do, or by inspiring others to achieve more
themselves. All areas count, but they do not necessarily count equally in
every place or for every Laurel.
3) Some Laurels are better teachers and provide stronger inspiration than
others do. Like any other random collection of beings, we all have
individual strengths and weaknesses. Some people are better at being
social beings than others: it is not a mandate thet we all have to be
flashy and "on" all the time, and luckily so. Some Laurels inspire through
their work alone: the work *is* the inspiration. Others encourage and
foster attitudes that help others to achieve more, as well as being at a
high level of expertise and accomplishment.
There isn't a "checklist" - so many items gifted to the Crown, so many
classes taught, so many contests won. It is the person, taken as a whole,
as an individual, at a particular time and place, in the context of their
chosen area of interest, that is looked at. Sometimes, a person might work
in a wholly new and unforeseen area that no one else we know of has
explored: the criteria there might vary from that applied to someone who
is working in an area where much is already known and practised.
And frankly, I can tell a toady a mile off - and I don't like them. I
want to advise my King and Queen as regards to people, not
flattery-generators. I want to sit in a Laurel Council with people with
thoughts and opinions, not a bunch of fluffers.
Morgan the Unknown
JE Anderson
"Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101041...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
> And frankly, I can tell a toady a mile off - and I don't like them. I
> want to advise my King and Queen as regards to people, not
> flattery-generators. I want to sit in a Laurel Council with people with
> thoughts and opinions, not a bunch of fluffers.
But Missy Morgan....you are so skilled and talented and pretty and
resourceful - how could anyone help but gaze at you with adoration and maybe
stammer out a "Hello".
Eirika
PS you are right about all of the above - the range of skills, personality
types and interests varies hugely in just our kingdom - let alone across the
knowne world...
> Morgan the Unknown
>
Nerak
studies in order for it to occur.
A Laurel is something that happens during your enjoyment of the SCA. If you
set out with the peerage as your goal, you will not enjoy the experience.
Why do you want a Peerage?
How would it change what you do in the SCA on a routine basis?
JE Anderson
"Nerak" <ne...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010420081349...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> A PhD is something that you set out to accomplish. You must focus your
> studies in order for it to occur.
> A Laurel is something that happens during your enjoyment of the SCA. If
you
> set out with the peerage as your goal, you will not enjoy the experience.
Exactly....you will stress over what people think instead of whether YOU are
happy with your work and progress. You may find yourself doing a project
to please "them" instead of doing what you wanted etc.... A Laurel is
recognition of achievement but so much more. I like to see it as
recognition of achievement in doing something you LOVE!
> Why do you want a Peerage?
> How would it change what you do in the SCA on a routine basis?
Tons, but not for the better always. It adds meetings to your schedule, it
adds the stress of people looking to you as inspiration (nice sometimes but
not all the time), it adds the stress of people telling you that you should
do or have done something because You are a Peer.... Positive side it gives
you an entre into some venues you may have been too intimidated to enter
before and sometimes adds to you overall confidence in dealing with
situations. Basically though it is a recognition of what you are...not what
you will/could be.
Eirika, OP
Morgan E. Smith
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, JE Anderson wrote:
>
> "Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:Pine.A41.4.05.101041...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
>
> > And frankly, I can tell a toady a mile off - and I don't like them. I
> > want to advise my King and Queen as regards to people, not
> > flattery-generators. I want to sit in a Laurel Council with people with
> > thoughts and opinions, not a bunch of fluffers.
>
> But Missy Morgan....you are so skilled and talented and pretty and
> resourceful - how could anyone help but gaze at you with adoration and maybe
> stammer out a "Hello".
>
> Eirika
I keep telling you, Eirika, it won't work. You actually have to MAKE
something to be a Laurel.
Morgan
JE Anderson
<sniff, sniff> you are soooo cruel....... I made something - once, didn't
I????? How about if I just make your day by telling the world about
you???????
Eirika
> Morgan
>
>
Anthony J. Bryant
The thing I've never understood is this: Why is it "okay" to have a goal of being a
knight, and working toward that, and achieving that, while so many people think it's
wrong to aspire and aim to be a Laurel or Pelican? What's the bloody difference?
Effingham (Pelican, not Laurel)
Dr JP Hrisoulas
It will focus on alot of metallurgy, various alloy compositions, along with a
ton of thermal treatment information such as hoit slat bath heat treating,
Mar-tempering, alloy banding, diferential thermal treatments and a whole bunch
more stuff like building a guillotine fullering device, hydraulic press work
and then there's the finishing and incedental information on cyanoacrylate and
catalyst adhesives along with information on annaline and metallic dyes..
Susan Carroll-Clark
> The thing I've never understood is this: Why is it "okay" to have a goal
of being a
> knight, and working toward that, and achieving that, while so many people
think it's
> wrong to aspire and aim to be a Laurel or Pelican? What's the bloody
difference?
I suspect it's in the philosophical or political vs. physical nature of the
activities. Becoming a knight seems to be viewed as wanting to improve your
physical skills enough to be thought worthy (along with enough "peer
qualities" to be considered acceptable)--a little like aspiring to be a
black belt in one of the martial arts. Becoming a Laurel or Pelican,
unfortunately, seems to be viewed often as wanting the rank or honors of the
title (the "cookie"), rather than aspiring to be considered a master in
one's craft or to have done great service. People seem to be able to
separate the pure skill part better when it comes to knighthood than they
can with the other two peerages.
Overall, I try to advise people whatever their area to have fun and to keep
reaching to do their best because that's just a good goal overall in life.
That might mean a peerage some day will come, but if they don't get the
peerage hopefully they won't get cynical and bitter about it.
Nicolaa
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> I suspect it's in the philosophical or political vs. physical nature of the
> activities. Becoming a knight seems to be viewed as wanting to improve your
> physical skills enough to be thought worthy (along with enough "peer
> qualities" to be considered acceptable)--a little like aspiring to be a
> black belt in one of the martial arts. Becoming a Laurel or Pelican,
> unfortunately, seems to be viewed often as wanting the rank or honors of the
> title (the "cookie"), rather than aspiring to be considered a master in
> one's craft or to have done great service.
But the two motives are exactly the same, no? Wanting to become the "best" at
what you do, is okay, but I just don't understand why (to convert these to
knighthoods) why it's socially acceptable to want to be a Knight of the Sword
rather than a Knight of Service or Knight of Arts. In academic terms, what's
the difference with wanting a PhD in history or PhD in psychotherapy? Why can't
both be called "doctor" without people saying one is being presumptuous? <G>
> People seem to be able to
> separate the pure skill part better when it comes to knighthood than they
> can with the other two peerages.
>
This makes sense. In less charitable moments, I consider it another example of
the peerages being equal but some peerages are more equal than others. <G>
>
> Overall, I try to advise people whatever their area to have fun and to keep
> reaching to do their best because that's just a good goal overall in life.
> That might mean a peerage some day will come, but if they don't get the
> peerage hopefully they won't get cynical and bitter about it.
That's pretty much my philosophy as well.
You have to enjoy what you do, and do it because you like to. If you're only
doing something for recognition, not for the fun of it, you get tired of it
really quickly, and that frustration will show; and ultimately, what's the
point of doing it?
Then again, there are insane ones like us who make our hobby into academic
careers (although after PhDdom you managed to escape that ratrace and get a
real job.... With my field, OTOH... <g>).
Effingham
ruadh
"Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:3AE09FD6...@indiana.edu...
> Susan Carroll-Clark wrote:
> ................In academic terms, what's
> the difference with wanting a PhD in history or PhD in psychotherapy? Why
can't
> both be called "doctor" without people saying one is being presumptuous?
<G>
Ru: got two Ed.d [CBT & Industrial] and PhD.d in Micro-magnetic [physics].
I don't care to be called "doctor", Implies I know medicine, { I did teach
EMT-P courses for many years } . My SCA fun is to teach Spin/Weave/Dye
skills to the children, sometimes to adults.
>
> > People seem to be able to
> > separate the pure skill part better when it comes to knighthood than
they
> > can with the other two peerages.
Ru: If only the Peers would keep up to date with their [so-called] skill ..
.. .. Several times I showed a Peer, my documentation, only to listen to
them put mine down and believe in *only* what they found. After all, they
were the peer, and I won't be if they can .....
> .........
> > That might mean a peerage some day will come, but if they don't get the
> > peerage hopefully they won't get cynical and bitter about it.
Ru: One nasty Peer tried to upset a Dyestuff class with 'Her' superior
knowledge . . . I suggested we make Copper Penny Blue . . .
If she would put her Brass/Copper circlet in "the Pot, ... I'm too poor to
have ...", I would add ammonia. [Pee-fermented] . And in days, we would
have the dye juice to make a nice bronze statue Bluish colour.
I guess I have given up on a Peerage, and would rather taunt them; and then
go play with the children.
Life long learning, for them, should also be a requirement to keep your
Peerage. After all us Por' folk are expected to look to them for proper &
correct guidance.
> .........
> Effingham
>
William Underhill
>
> Tons, but not for the better always. It adds meetings to your schedule, it
Huh? Since when does Corpora require attendance at meetings as
one of the duties of a peer?
> adds the stress of people looking to you as inspiration (nice sometimes but
> not all the time), it adds the stress of people telling you that you should
> do or have done something because You are a Peer.... Positive side it gives
> you an entre into some venues you may have been too intimidated to enter
> before and sometimes adds to you overall confidence in dealing with
On the other hand, if you are already a loud-mouthed, opinionated
individual (exempli gratia my own self), you may not need extra
confidence...
> situations. Basically though it is a recognition of what you are...not what
> you will/could be.
WARNING: If you are a peer, and you don't want a non-peer's
opinion about the peerage, go to the next message. Now.
5
4
3
2
1
<PEERAGE RANT=ON>
Peerage in the Society can be a wonderful thing, or it can be
deathly. I've been active for fifteen years, and I've seen Good
Peers (tm) and Bad Peers (tm). Perhaps my view of the peerages is
coloured by the fact that the very first (non-royal) peer I ever
met was at Pennsic XVI(? 1987, anyway) - a knight who, after the
woods battle was over, was trying to commandeer a golf cart to
transport his armour back to his camp. It was hot, he was tired
and sweaty. The golf cart was down there to transport water
bearer's equipment back to Water Bearer's Point (or whatever it
was called then). The knight went on about how he was a knight
and would get the two ladies driving the golf cart into so much
trouble, and so on and so forth. In short, acting as un-peerlike
as it is possible to do.
I've also seen peers (fortunately, rather more of these type than
that knight) who work themselves into the ground for the gentles
in their group, in their region and in their kingdom. I've no
doubt there's many who work themselves into the ground for the
whole Society; I just haven't met them. Yet.
Where I have a problem with the Whole Peerage Thing (tm) is the
perception of a large number of people about peers and peerage.
They may be summarized as follows, in no particular order:
1) You have to suck up to Royalty/peers to get a peerage.
2) There's a checklist of things you have to do to get a peerage.
3) You have to be a squire/apprentice/protogé to a peer to get a
peerage.
4) Peers are stuck-up and won't talk to newbies.
5) Newbies shouldn't bother peers as they (peers) are much too
important.
6) Once someone gets a peerage, all they're going to do is sit
around and tell other people what to do.
There's more, but you get the general idea.
Question: Where are these ideas coming from? They are completely
wrong, but also very, very prevalent. Other nobility suffer from
some of these misconceptions as well, but so far as I have been
able to determine, not to anywhere near the same extent as the
Great Orders of the Society.
Anyway, there's a problem here. The only real, long-term solution
I see is education. Any other ideas?
<PEERAGE RANT=OFF>
Yours aye,
Uilliam
Loud-Mouthed Opinionated Retired Baron
(than which there are few things more useless :-O)
--
-----------------===========<\ />============-----------------
William Underhill Uilliam mac Aillén vhic Séamus
Royal Canadian Navy Society for Creative Anachronism
Ready, aye, ready Vivite ad clamandum, clamate ad vivendum
tr...@home.com http://members.home.net/trode/
-----------------===========</ \>============-----------------
The usual government employee disclaimer, blah blah blah...
Ester Mendes
Magistra Nicolaa wrote:
> Becoming a knight seems to be viewed as wanting to improve your
> physical skills enough to be thought worthy (along with enough "peer
> qualities" to be considered acceptable)--a little like aspiring to be a
> black belt in one of the martial arts. Becoming a Laurel or Pelican,
> unfortunately, seems to be viewed often as wanting the rank or honors of the
> title (the "cookie"), rather than aspiring to be considered a master in
> one's craft or to have done great service. People seem to be able to
> separate the pure skill part better when it comes to knighthood than they
> can with the other two peerages.
Perhaps part of that may have to do with the more focused activities
and skills required for knighthood. You know that in order to achieve
the goal of knighthood, you need to practice a specific set of skills
(fighting). In the case of the Orders of the Laurel and Pelican,
there are no specific and discrete sets of skills to focus on. It's
kind of fuzzy and open to wide variation. I know if I want to be a
knight, I have to fight. What specifically do I focus on if I want
to be a Laurel? (that was a rhetorical question)
On top of that, I think that the history of the orders may also have
something to do with it. The concept of knighthood is well
established in literature as goal-oriented, that is, it was a social
prize that one actively strove to achieve (Squires were in training
to become knights one day, etc.). The other orders don't have the
same kind of historical background (at least not one that resonates
with the common concepts of medieval chivalry), and, from what I can
tell, were pretty much conceived as a way of recognizing the work that
people were already doing.
The first Laurels and Pelicans were not doing what they were doing to
achieve the goal of being awarded a social prize. They were having
fun doing something, and everyone else said, "Hey, we should let them
know that we think they're doing something cool." I think this
created a philosophical precedent for those orders to become process
oriented, rather than goal oriented. (I'm not saying that's a bad
thing, mind you).
In my own personal case, since I have a pretty pragmatic streak, I
tend to be a bit bemused by the striving for any of the SCA peerages,
since it seems to be a lot of work for something that yields very
little in the outside world. Last summer, after listening to some
knights talking about the number of broken bones they had, and the
permanent physical damage they'd suffered, I said to my husband, "It's
not like they have to defend their families against Viking raids."
That's become one of my stock phrases now.
Senhora Ester Mendes
(Kirsti Thomas)
ce...@drizzle.com
Todd Rich
> Greetings--
>> The thing I've never understood is this: Why is it "okay" to have a goal
> of being a
>> knight, and working toward that, and achieving that, while so many people
> think it's
>> wrong to aspire and aim to be a Laurel or Pelican? What's the bloody
> difference?
> I suspect it's in the philosophical or political vs. physical nature of the
> activities. Becoming a knight seems to be viewed as wanting to improve your
> physical skills enough to be thought worthy (along with enough "peer
> qualities" to be considered acceptable)--a little like aspiring to be a
> black belt in one of the martial arts. Becoming a Laurel or Pelican,
> unfortunately, seems to be viewed often as wanting the rank or honors of the
> title (the "cookie"), rather than aspiring to be considered a master in
> one's craft or to have done great service. People seem to be able to
> separate the pure skill part better when it comes to knighthood than they
> can with the other two peerages.
I have a friend who is a laurel who has asked in the past something to the
effect of, "Hey, what is wrong with my peerage that you can't want to get
it?"
> Overall, I try to advise people whatever their area to have fun and to keep
> reaching to do their best because that's just a good goal overall in life.
> That might mean a peerage some day will come, but if they don't get the
> peerage hopefully they won't get cynical and bitter about it.
> Nicolaa
I would like to get a laurel. However, I don't think I'll ever do
anything with a specific intent to get a laurel. I am involved in several
arts, but I do them because I ENJOY them, not because I think they might
help me get a laurel. I try and teach people what I know because it is
FUN! I may never get a laurel, but I will not regret the things I do if I
don't. Sorry if this isn't coming across very well, but for some reason
I'm having a hard time getting the right words out about how I feel on
this issue. But I do agree, do stuff because you like it, not because you
are trying to get an award. Hey, it was 13 years before I got an AoA. It
means a lot to me, but if I didn't get it, I would still be where I am
today, and enjoying the same things I do.
Torin
JE Anderson
"William Underhill" <tr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AE0D552...@home.com...
> JE Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Tons, but not for the better always. It adds meetings to your schedule,
it
>
> Huh? Since when does Corpora require attendance at meetings as
> one of the duties of a peer?
Corpora doesn't but I think if I'm gonna beak off about stuff I should
attend the meetings and hear what my fellows have to say about the same
issues. Don't get me wrong I've been known to not go, but is a part of the
job, at least to me (and I hate meetings <grin>)
Eirika
JE Anderson
I think, that to aspire to a Laurel or a Knighthood is an easy to understand
goal - I want to be good enough to be the peer (small 'p' peer) of those
individuals over there. I would like to improve my skills to reach X level.
I can not understand how it can be considered tacky to wish to reach an
artistic goal.
But I do question how one strives to be a Pelican....to me either service is
something that is in a person or not (no value judgement on that either) it
is not something you can learn. I mean you can learn how to serve
effectively (be a good officer, retinue or autocrat) but how do you learn,
or teach for that matter, service as a goal? On the few occasions I've been
asked why I got a Pel - the only answer I had for them was "I helped where I
saw a need". There is this pushy broad in my head that says "ooh look,
something isn't being done - how inefficient, go do it" and off I go. <grin>
How do I teach that? I don't know.
I know this is kinda unfocused but I guess what I would ask a person who
said they wanted to be a Pelican one question "why?".
Eirika
> Effingham (Pelican, not Laurel)
>
JE Anderson
"Todd Rich" <to...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9bqsdv$e2j$1...@news.panix.com...
> I have a friend who is a laurel who has asked in the past something to the
> effect of, "Hey, what is wrong with my peerage that you can't want to get
> it?"
>
> > Overall, I try to advise people whatever their area to have fun and to
keep
> > reaching to do their best because that's just a good goal overall in
life.
> > That might mean a peerage some day will come, but if they don't get the
> > peerage hopefully they won't get cynical and bitter about it.
>
> > Nicolaa
>
> I would like to get a laurel. However, I don't think I'll ever do
> anything with a specific intent to get a laurel. I am involved in several
> arts, but I do them because I ENJOY them, not because I think they might
> help me get a laurel. I try and teach people what I know because it is
> FUN! I may never get a laurel, but I will not regret the things I do if I
> don't. Sorry if this isn't coming across very well, but for some reason
> I'm having a hard time getting the right words out about how I feel on
It's a tough issue for anyone to wrap their brain around, let alone try and
articulate their feelings when there is a subconcious fear they will be
misintrepreted into "I deserve a Laurel" <smile> I know I've fought with
that one myself. I think go forth and continue what you do as you seem to
be doing it for all the right reasons. What you said makes perfect sense to
me and it is much of why I do the various arts I do. If I wished to
feverently pursue the goal of Laurel (one day I will too <smile>) I would
stop drifting from "cool project to cool project" and concentrate on one
thing and perfect it. Right now I have the artistic attention span of a
gopher and keep seeing something new and cool to try on the horizon. It
makes me happy.
Eirika
JE Anderson
books but it is very high on my "beloved" list <grin>
Eirika
"Dr JP Hrisoulas" <jhris...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010420145357...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
Jean le Bleu
> But the two motives are exactly the same, no? Wanting to become the
> "best" at what you do, is okay, but I just don't understand why (to
> convert these to knighthoods) why it's socially acceptable to want
> to be a Knight of the Sword rather than a Knight of Service or
> Knight of Arts.
Both make sense. I think the difference is in the unstated assumption
behind the question.
The person who wants to be a Knight generally assumes that success in
battle and chivalrous behavior are necessary, and cultivates those
skills and patterns, and expects they will be met. Saying "What do I
need to do to become a Knight" is met with advice about fighting and
advice about chivalry.
The person who wants to be a Laurel and says "what do I need to do"
seems to be asking with a different background. The obvious answer is
"cultivate success in the arts and chivalrous behavior". But the
question comes across, for some reason, as saying "what is the minimum
I need to do", or "whose butt do I need to kiss".
Now, it's not that the people asking are really so mercenary as all
that. Their motives are not that at all, but are really wondering, I
suppose, what level of achievement is being recognized by being
promoted to a Laurel. The answer is, of course, "it varies". And as
for petty politics, they shouldn't matter at all, and regrettably,
they do matter to some degree.
A similar question might happen with respect to a Pelican. "What do I
need to do" sounds like "please tell me how many offices I must
volunteer for, exactly what hoops to jump through". The problem is
that first, of course, "it varies". And second, the Pelican is
supposed to be someone who can be expected to *continue* to volunteer
and work. If they only volunteered and work so they would wear a
little medallion, then they shouldn't be given the recognition.
Again, when people really ask, I don't think they're being so
mercenary. Maybe some are, but more commonly, it really is just
wondering what kind of service is being recognized, and not someone
trying to figure out the bare minimum.
So what accounts for this difference in perception between the
prospective Knight on the one hand, and the Laurel/Pelican on the
other?
I think two things. First, there is still a common and lingering
feeling, an ethos, than Knights are the real peers, and Laurels and
Pelicans are a kind-of also ran for people who don't fight well. This
is officially not the attitude, and those who should do their best to
work against it. But there is still a kind-of lingering feeling in
the SCA that this is so. We all know these people, who think Knights
are the "real" peers: and we know they are wrong. But nobody knows
anybody who thinks that only Pelicans are "real" peers, or only
Laurels. It is that disparity which partly accounts for a secondary
feeling that aspiring to Knighthood is more worthy.
Second, there is a perception that Knighthood is a matter of acquired
skill, and Pelican and Laurel are a matter of performing tasks. Skill
doesn't go away; if you acquire the skill, you keep it. But
performing tasks, well, if you do them only to get a Patent, then the
hoped-for underlying motives might be missing. Now this is also not
real; it's a kind of mistaken perception. Fighting skill wanes with
inattention or age, and you can't perform the tasks of an artisan or
organizational wizard without having skill. But we usually describe a
fighter in terms of skill, and an artisan/volunteer in terms of tasks
accomplished.
Thomas
Bruce Dagel
be posted.
We have all seen too many in our game that want to be the King or Queen (of
something) at any cost. Some of those who aren't into martial arts set
their sights on a laurel because they won't become royalty. They also don't
risk being beaten about the head and shoulders as an overly arrogant knght
might be in the crown tourney. These are the ones who also are too elevated
to more than scorn the raffraff. These also stand out in memory more than
those who simply are particulary skilled at what they do. It takes but one
bad apple to spoil a whole barrel.
Charles Bender
Living in the ruins of Cloistered Sun
"ruadh" <ru...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Bw2E6.20160$JV1.2...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
Dennis O'Connor
> The thing I've never understood is this: Why is it "okay" to have
> a goal of being a knight, and working toward that, and achieving
> that, while so many people think it's wrong to aspire and aim to
> be a Laurel or Pelican? What's the bloody difference?
Skill at stickjockery is more objectively and publicly perceived
than skill at the arts or most people's service. It is also more
"uniquely SCAdian" than the arts or service: armored stickjockery
is not like much else in the mundane world, but organizing
events, cooking, sewing, writing singing, calligraphy,
etcetera all have common mundane analogues.
But it's more than that., I think. I note that there are have
been about 50% more people admitted to the Chivalry in
Atenvedlt than to the Pelican or to the Laurel. So
perhaps the answer to your question is as simple as:
Hypothesis:
"The standards for admission for the Chivalry
are lower than those for the other Peerages."
Certainly, the statistics for Atenveldt support that.
As do my own experiences.
Zebee Johnstone
Dennis O'Connor <dm...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>But it's more than that., I think. I note that there are have
>been about 50% more people admitted to the Chivalry in
>Atenvedlt than to the Pelican or to the Laurel. So
>perhaps the answer to your question is as simple as:
>
>Hypothesis:
> "The standards for admission for the Chivalry
> are lower than those for the other Peerages."
>
>Certainly, the statistics for Atenveldt support that.
>As do my own experiences.
Do they?
how many people are doing serious work in A&S compared to those doing
it in fighting?
I'm not sure how to compare the level of work, but those who are
"midlevel and above" in fighting tend to do a lot of it, do it
visibly, and produce markers - wins - often.
Are there more midlevel and above fighters than midlevel and above
produces of A&S?
Maybe Laurels are the wrong thing, maybe look at Pels.
For one thing, it's easier to work out markers for Pels. Things done
is more concrete.
The people who are producing the most pel-things - events, offices,
etc, are there as many of them as there are fighters who are midlevel
and above?
SilverOz
Dennis O'Connor
> Dennis O'Connor <dm...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> >But it's more than that., I think. I note that there are have
> >been about 50% more people admitted to the Chivalry in
> >Atenvedlt than to the Pelican or to the Laurel. So
> >perhaps the answer to your question is as simple as:
> >
> >Hypothesis:
> > "The standards for admission for the Chivalry
> > are lower than those for the other Peerages."
> >
> >Certainly, the statistics for Atenveldt support that.
> >As do my own experiences.
>
> Do they?
Maybe on the stats, but my experiences certainly do.
> how many people are doing serious work in A&S compared
> to those doing it in fighting?
Quite a few, but it is a difficult thing to judge. So leaving
it for the moment at least ..
> Maybe Laurels are the wrong thing, maybe look at Pels.
> For one thing, it's easier to work out markers for Pels. Things
> done is more concrete.
Though not as public or as flashy as fighting.
> The people who are producing the most pel-things - events, offices,
... battle pits ... ;-)
> etc, are there as many of them as there are fighters who
> are midlevel and above?
I don't see why the number of people doing "midlevel and above"
work matters. For example, imagine a small core group each
do a _lot_ of work, while most outside that group just "pay the
fee and show up". Would this situation warrant more Pels, because
all those people working their butts of deserve to be Pels, or
less, since the number "doing midlevel and above work is lower ?
Therefor, I don't think the approach you are taking to analyzing
the issue is a valid one. But you may convince me otherwise. :-)
Zebee Johnstone
You were the one who brought up stats :)
IF we go on "more are knighted than pelled or laurelled" (all nouns can
be verbed) then the base population of candidates of each must be
determined to know if standards are lower.
If there are 100 fighters above midlevel and only 20 pels, then one
would expect 5 knights to every pel.
So we have to work out what is "midlevel" and that's when it gets
weird.
Are the knight's standards lower? It's only a meaningful question if
we can quantify standards and compare.
I think it might be easier to determine if someone is of knightly
level. This is because the base skills are not only easier to
quantify, but everyone who is a knight knows what they are and is
competent to judge them.
This is, I think, true of the Pels, but not of the Laurels.
(Some Laurel skills, yes - reasearch and teaching for example.)
Pels have the advantage in that what they do is obvious and almost
quantifiable in the way that knightly skills are. This many things
done. And the skills of a Pel are the same for all Pels, it's all
organisation and management and paperwork and producing things that
happen to a standard that can be agreed on more or less. About the
same as fighting.
While most tourneys have one winner, there are many competing. most
events have fewer serious workers than serious fighters. Do most
groups?
I am not sure about "lower" standards. I do think it's *easier* for
knights to decide someone else is of their standard because the
achievements are clearer, and the skills are the same in all respects
as the people judging those skills.
One place where it might be "lower" is in the infamous "peerage
qualities". Seeing as those are supposedly common to all peerages and
shuold be the same for all, then the 3 peerages can be compared. Are
the standards of the Chivalry lower in that regard than the others?
Or is it that the others are higher, maybe needlessly so? In Lochac,
some have the impression (including some Laurels) that "peer qualities"
is a way to exclude people. The "dictation test"[1] of the Laurellate.
Whereas there is an impression that "peerage qualities" are very low on
the list as far as the Knights are concerned.
Given that most people's feelig about *any* peer is the "peerage
quality" as they don't usually have the skills to judge the peerage
specialty (except maybe of the Pels) could this be where the
impression of lower standards comes from, rather than from anby kind
of numbers/stats?
Silfren
[1] In the dreadful days of the "White Australia" policy, it was
decreed that potential migrants might have to prove literacy. Those
who were undesirable politically or racially were given dictation
tests in a language they didn't speak. Gaelic was a favourite.
ruadh
And those that I have meet, that are 'good', are the ones I send referrals
to. New members who are 'Curious about Laurels' need the proper guidance of
the pure of heart and deed, not the 'just' with a mouth full of words.
My new Baron recently gave me a service award for all the Demo's I've been
part of. I bring a full Sheep to Shawl show, with Hands-On. Touch the fuzzy
things. I like to do schools, and work with Handicapped children. It is the
clique that travels about doing this level of work, I believe in most. They
have their hearts in it. 6 to 10 showing to do a demo, during the day time,
at a school for emotional problem children, no hope of a "Membership Drive",
just for the Love of it all. That's genuine.
Ru
"Bruce Dagel" <webm...@schmarje.com> wrote in message
news:te267tl...@corp.supernews.com...
Cynthia Virtue
> Hypothesis:
> "The standards for admission for the Chivalry
> are lower than those for the other Peerages."
Alternate hypothesis:
"The Chivalry benefits by America's fascination and reverence for
"sports" whereas the Laurels suffer by its disdain of academics, and the
Pels suffer by the country's disdain of selfless work, such as is seen
in teaching, nursing, etc."
--
Cynthia du Pré Argent (Hartshorn-dale, East)
One should also be careful about making blanket statements about
historical events. Even statements about making blanket statements. --
Alban and others
Morgan E. Smith
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, JE Anderson wrote:
>
> "Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:Pine.A41.4.05.101042...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, JE Anderson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But Missy Morgan....you are so skilled and talented and pretty and
> > > resourceful - how could anyone help but gaze at you with adoration and
> maybe
> > > stammer out a "Hello".
> > >
> > > Eirika
> >
> > I keep telling you, Eirika, it won't work. You actually have to MAKE
> > something to be a Laurel.
>
> <sniff, sniff> you are soooo cruel....... I made something - once, didn't
> I????? How about if I just make your day by telling the world about
> you???????
You are quite right: I stand corrected.
For all of you, a correction. Eirika has made things. She has made time,
made book and made a spectacle of herself. :-)
Morgan the Unknown
JE Anderson
"Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101042...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
> > <sniff, sniff> you are soooo cruel....... I made something - once,
didn't
> > I????? How about if I just make your day by telling the world about
> > you???????
>
> You are quite right: I stand corrected.
>
> For all of you, a correction. Eirika has made things. She has made time,
> made book and made a spectacle of herself. :-)
>
> Morgan the Unknown
YEAH - she approves of me (happy dance) <grin> Hey at least I'm not bitter
just cause I lost a ton of money on the question of whether you would get a
Laurel <huge smile>.......okay how about this - a Lauerl for whining?????
Hey I want siiiiiilk for my dress, why can't I find siiiiilk for my
dress....or the classic I wanna go to Miiiiiiami <sniff, sniff>
Eirika, the unrepentant (and friend of Morgan's in case any one is taking
this seriously!)
Morgan E. Smith
I have often wondered this myself: I wasn't at all shy about my aims,
and it did me no particular harm, but I suspect there are two problems
encountered here.
1) It is possibly a sexist holdover: that A&S is somehow still seen as a
primarily "feminine" area of interest, and women are not supposed to be
aggressive about these kinds of goals, but decently modest and self
effacing, and look dumbfounded and humble when approached on the subject
(Oh, I'm not nearly good enough at poetic basket-weaving to merit any
attention, much less a Peerage for this! Excuse me while I change my
crinoline and eat a caraway biscuit - this is all so sudden!)
2) It is the way in which some people have/might present themselves in
regards to this: Someone did ask me, at one point, whether I wanted to be
a Laurel. I said, after some reflection, that I did want to be good enough
at what I did, and in my own heart know that I had achieved the things *I*
thought a Laurel ought to have achieved, and behaved as I wished I could,
and that if I did that, and was offered the elevation, I'd feel good about
that. OTOH, I have *heard* horror stories about people buttonholing
Laurels and asking aggressively why weren't they elevated yet since they
were so obviously much better artisans than any of the current Order
members. I've never witnessed anything like this, nor have I ever met
anyone who personally has, so that may be apocryphal, which pretty much
begs the question.
If any aspiring Avacalians are reading this - I've said it before but it
bears repeating. You can talk to me about being a Laurel. I have no
problem at all with people voicing their aspirations, and getting some
real feedback on what they need to do to improve their chances. Goals are
GOOD for people.
Someone else would have to speak to the Pelican issue, but I suspect
it's much the same.
Morgan the Unknown
Morgan E. Smith
Shall I tell them all about what you said to me five minuted after my
elevation - or do you think people would be shocked?
Morgan the Unknown
JE Anderson
to tell em that I was honestly happy for you <huge grin>
Eirika
Jean le Bleu
> Alternate hypothesis:
> "The Chivalry benefits by America's fascination and reverence for
> "sports" whereas the Laurels suffer by its disdain of academics, and the
> Pels suffer by the country's disdain of selfless work, such as is seen
> in teaching, nursing, etc."
Oy. Sadly I suspect you are on to something here. I wish it weren't
true, but I fear that it is.
Jean
Lady PDC
> You are quite right: I stand corrected.
>
> For all of you, a correction. Eirika has made things. She has made time,
>made book and made a spectacle of herself. :-)
>
> Morgan the Unknown
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But was it a period spectacle. After all you do have to make something
"authentic" to be considered laurel material. <eg>
Constance
lad...@aol.com
Debbie Snyder
"Never say a thing's impossible, chances are you'll rue it
Because some fool who doesn't know, will come along
and do it"
ruadh
I believe this too ....
> > > A PhD is something that you set out to accomplish. You must
focus your
> > > studies in order for it to occur.
> > > A Laurel is something that happens during your enjoyment of
the SCA. If you
> > > set out with the peerage as your goal, you will not enjoy the
experience.
> > >
.......................
> I have often wondered this myself: I wasn't at all shy about my aims,
> and it did me no particular harm, but I suspect there are two problems
> encountered here.
>
Ru: 9 years ago I saw my skills exceeded the [few] cloth weavers I met,
mundanely and SCAdian, mostly because the cloth I displayed was also made
with MY handspun and dyed threads. The local "Ladies" of SCA were so put
out and quite disbelieving. I did several projects while camping with SCA.
Taught the dye classes, did enough for a big project that weekend. Spinning
threads for two months with my mundane guilds. Finally, to weave a project
on a vertical loom hung from the rafters of my pavilion. Walked over to a
Friendly Laurel, "Now you saw me do it live".
>
> 1) It is possibly a sexist holdover: that A&S is somehow still seen as a
> primarily "feminine" area of interest
>
Ru: Then the next herd of turtles to overcome.... a *GUY* [me] is doing this
so called Feminine skill. I had to remind the "Ladies" that spinning might
be, but the men had to know how to use the equipment in order to
repair/build it [ woodwrights] ! And men were generally the weavers because
they had the strength of wrist to shoot the shuttle across a 60" warp.
[Silas M. & the little blond girl story, who's the weaver?]
> 2) It is the way in which some people have/might present themselves in
> regards to this: .....................
Ru: I have a problem with a needle work laurel trying to tell me my weave is
"All wrong". The closest I have found out that this person has done weaving
is an Inkel. Gee ! Compare that to my Italian styled brocades in a
velveteen cloth, or corduroy cloth in period style by trimmed pickups. I
have one last project I've talked myself into. If it doesn't even get my AoA
[duh], then I would *refuse* a later Laurel.
> ...........
> Goals are GOOD for people.
>
Ru: My goal now is a Pearl. I have been teaching the children textile A&S
since my second outing, nine years ago, with the SCA. Some adults do show
up for more reasons then to monitor the kids. But then almost no one sees
that little bit of service, because they're busy on the list field or
kitchen, and I [& my Lady] have the children busy elsewhere.
Oh, if the Pied Piper wanted me to weave him a new harlequin suit, so he
could lead the children [ and the young of heart/mind] to a happier
experience. And as a woodwright in a different historical re-enactment
group, I would carve the finest wooden recorder. . . .
>
> Someone else would have to speak to the Pelican issue, but I suspect
> it's much the same.
>
> Morgan the Unknown
>
Ru: yes, Morgan I do like what you wrote !
Barbara Nostrand
Greetings from Solveig!
With respect to doctorates someone wrote:
> Ru: got two Ed.d [CBT & Industrial] and PhD.d in Micro-magnetic [physics].
> I don't care to be called "doctor", Implies I know medicine, { I did teach
> EMT-P courses for many years } . My SCA fun is to teach Spin/Weave/Dye
> skills to the children, sometimes to adults.
Stuff an nonsense. Doctor is from Latin and means "teacher". Most North
American physicians and surgeons didn't even get doctorates of any sort
until after publication of the Flexner (sp) Report about one hundred
years ago. If anyone is being presumptuous it is all those folks in
licensed professions who have gotten doctorate envy. The most recent of
this bunch are the pharmacists with their newly minted Pharm. D. degrees.
(A friend of mine who is a pharmacist was snorting about this inovation
just a couple of years ago.)
Your Humble Servant
Solveig Throndardottir
Amateur Scholar
Barbara Nostrand
Greetings from Solveig!
If I am not sorely mistaken, historical "masters" of various arts
deliberately set about becoming masters and might often pass through
formal systems of examination to receive licenses which proclaimed
them masters of their craft. Some of these crafts such as medicine
became subjects taught at universities but also remained part of
the apprentice system. Until very recently, you could be admitted to
the bar soley by serving an apprenticeship and the medical profession
continues to enforce an apprentice system through a system of rotations
during the third and forth years of medical school and subsequent
internships and residencies. This notion that you should not want to
be a master is the most ahistorical aspect attached to the Order of
the Laurel.
> The first Laurels and Pelicans were not doing what they were doing to
> achieve the goal of being awarded a social prize. They were having
> fun doing something, and everyone else said, "Hey, we should let them
> know that we think they're doing something cool." I think this
> created a philosophical precedent for those orders to become process
> oriented, rather than goal oriented. (I'm not saying that's a bad
> thing, mind you).
Supposeably, all of the guys at the First Party save one showed up
claiming to be knights. This sort of makes being a knight a normative
guy type thing. So any guy in the early days of the Society was expected
to want to be one.
Barbara Nostrand
Greetings from Solveig!
> > Why do you want a Peerage?
> > How would it change what you do in the SCA on a routine basis?
This is an interesting question. Last Summer, two of us
were discussing this specifically with regard to the Order of
the Laurel. One answer to this question is the "problem of
credentialism". The Society (like much of the surrounding
culture) sometimes pays more attention to credentials than
to real knowledge or ability. The Order of the Laurel is the
big deal A&S credential in the Society. While attaining one
is no panacea, it does mean that some people who would otherwise
not listen to you will listen to you. This also puts greater
responsibility on you.
Another reason for wanting to be part of any order in the Society
is because you are then in a better position to help recognize
others in the Society who should be encouraged and recognized.
Saddly, we often fail to recognize people who should be recognized
and at the same occasionally pour out honours upon people for
trivialities. The consequence is that dedicated hard working people
may become embittered.
Finally, some kingdoms enforce a caste system. Unless you hold
a major title or award, you may even have diffulty registering
at the gate. This can be especially akward for people who are
attending major interkingdom scholae as teachers. While locals
may be adapted to the caste system, such a caste system may
prove difficult to visiting foreigners.
Morgan E. Smith
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, JE Anderson wrote:
> ahhh go ahead - like they haven't figured it out yet <grin> Just remember
> to tell em that I was honestly happy for you <huge grin>
>
Okay, folks, here it is.
It's the end (finally) of court, and I'm now "Mistress Morgan" and
people are hugging me, and saying all the things that people say when
there's a surprise elevation, and I manage to wend my way to the bottom
end of the hall, where I see a knot of people. Some are people I barely
know, but some are people I do know, and Eirika's one of them.
I head towards the group, because I've been pretty much stuck at the
retinue end of court for the last two hours and I want to talk to my buds,
right?I'm happy, and proud (and dead tired too, but that's another part of
a different story).
People in the group start in on the hugs and the compliments and the
congrats.
Eirika is standing just a little apart. I look at her. She throws her
arms wide. The crowd falls back a bit - she's a Viscountess and known to
be a friend of mine...
She says "Morgan, I just have one thing to say to you, now."
The group is tuned like a lyre: this is an important person, right? What
words of wisdom will they be the witnesses for?
"Morgan," she says. "It should have been me!"
I have never, in all my life, heard so many collective jaws hit the
floor at once.
I've also never laughed so hard. Except of course, for the time when
Eirika stepped down as princess and tried to strangle me, because she had
been SO-O-O-O god for SO-O-O-O long, she just couldn't help herself.
Even the people who know us were pretty shocked, both times. I'm not
sure that the King, who walked by as she tried to strangle me (and I her)
doesn't think we're a pair of loonies. I've never, ever heard the
"should-a been me" story repeated by anyone except us (we tell it to
anyone who thinks "Peers" are all stuck-up) which tells me people are
still a bit freaked by the episode.
Morgan the Unknown
JE Anderson
"Barbara Nostrand" <nost...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:nostrand-220...@hermod.mathcs.wilkes.edu...
<snips>
> Finally, some kingdoms enforce a caste system. Unless you hold
> a major title or award, you may even have diffulty registering
> at the gate. This can be especially akward for people who are
> attending major interkingdom scholae as teachers. While locals
> may be adapted to the caste system, such a caste system may
> prove difficult to visiting foreigners.
May I ask where you have encountered that kind of segregation? Wow, that
really weirds me out that that kind of things happen....I don't I've even
been asked my rank when signing in at an event in An Tir or Artemesia. Talk
about IKA :-)
Eirika
JE Anderson
"Barbara Nostrand" <nost...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:nostrand-220...@hermod.mathcs.wilkes.edu...
>
> Greetings from Solveig!
>
> With respect to doctorates someone wrote:
>
> > Ru: got two Ed.d [CBT & Industrial] and PhD.d in Micro-magnetic
[physics].
> > I don't care to be called "doctor", Implies I know medicine, { I did
teach
> > EMT-P courses for many years } . My SCA fun is to teach Spin/Weave/Dye
> > skills to the children, sometimes to adults.
>
> Stuff an nonsense. Doctor is from Latin and means "teacher". Most North
> American physicians and surgeons didn't even get doctorates of any sort
> until after publication of the Flexner (sp) Report about one hundred
Ahhh but the problem is not the actual meaning of the word but what it
implies to the public. This person choses not to use the honorific "Dr."
because to the average joe on the street it means someone they can ask about
their tennis elbow <grin>. I did not know it meant teacher...that is
interesting. I don't automatically associate Dr. with medical doctor but
many, many people do.... So I can understand his reluctance to assume the
title.
Eirika
JE Anderson
> Ruadh adds to the good stuff below:
>
> mundanely and SCAdian, mostly because the cloth I displayed was also made
> with MY handspun and dyed threads. The local "Ladies" of SCA were so put
> out and quite disbelieving. I did several projects while camping with SCA.
You are not alone....I remember a friend of mine being quite put out
(rightly I thought) when the comment sheet on her handspun yarn entry
contained the comment "Suspiciously finely spun". As if it were impossible
to produce a fine yarn without a machine <head shake>. I admire that you
have produced cloth from teh ground up.....
> Ru: Then the next herd of turtles to overcome.... a *GUY* [me] is doing
this
> so called Feminine skill. I had to remind the "Ladies" that spinning might
> be, but the men had to know how to use the equipment in order to
> repair/build it [ woodwrights] ! And men were generally the weavers
because
> they had the strength of wrist to shoot the shuttle across a 60" warp.
> [Silas M. & the little blond girl story, who's the weaver?]
I believe there are still cultures where spinning is unisex or male work -
does someone know for sure, it may just be a National Geographic flashback
<grin>.
> > 2) It is the way in which some people have/might present themselves in
> > regards to this: .....................
>
> Ru: I have a problem with a needle work laurel trying to tell me my weave
is
> "All wrong". The closest I have found out that this person has done
weaving
> is an Inkel. Gee ! Compare that to my Italian styled brocades in a
> velveteen cloth, or corduroy cloth in period style by trimmed pickups. I
> have one last project I've talked myself into. If it doesn't even get my
AoA
> [duh], then I would *refuse* a later Laurel.
Are you saying that you don't have an AoA? If so it sounds like an
oversight! Time in the society + the work and the teaching and so forth you
describe would have you at a Grant Level A&S status in An Tir. This is a
generalized comment as I haven't seen your work, of course. By using the
phrase "time in the society" I am not implying that awards trickle down
based on length of membership but rather as a gage of how long a person has
been around and how much of the span includes active participation in the
arts...
> Ru: My goal now is a Pearl. I have been teaching the children textile A&S
> since my second outing, nine years ago, with the SCA. Some adults do show
> up for more reasons then to monitor the kids. But then almost no one sees
> that little bit of service, because they're busy on the list field or
> kitchen, and I [& my Lady] have the children busy elsewhere.
I found to my surprise that the "little bits" of service are indeed
noticed....they may not be commented on (note to all us Pels out there -
comment on good little things we see....morale is a good thing <grin>) but
they are often noticed.
Eirika
Gene Wirchenko
I quite agree. Sometimes, there is recognition for academics and
volunteers, but it tends to be rare and certainly so in comparison to
sports. Newspapers have sports pages, etc..
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
JE Anderson
"Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101042...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
> I've also never laughed so hard. Except of course, for the time when
> Eirika stepped down as princess and tried to strangle me, because she had
> been SO-O-O-O god for SO-O-O-O long, she just couldn't help herself.
Poor Morgan had been stuck trailing around after me as Champion/Retinue for
the whole reign (holding my drinks and trying to keep well wishers from
following me into the bathroom <smile>) and at that point I was exhausted
and totally excited about the fact that I finally got to relax and hang out
at the back of the hall again. After receiving my Viscounty I walked to the
end of the hall, saw her and said "I've been dying to do this for months"
and playfully grabbed her about the shoulders in a mock strangle. Her
response was the best - "I've been dying to do the same thing" and grabbed
me about the neck....the sight of the 2 of us bowing to the king as he
passed was probably what made him look so bemused.....
>
> Even the people who know us were pretty shocked, both times. I'm not
> sure that the King, who walked by as she tried to strangle me (and I her)
> doesn't think we're a pair of loonies. I've never, ever heard the
> "should-a been me" story repeated by anyone except us (we tell it to
> anyone who thinks "Peers" are all stuck-up) which tells me people are
> still a bit freaked by the episode.
What can I say - I was so excited and happy about her elevation and we've
been friends for so long now I couldn't think of anything to say. And at
that point she looked so shocked and tense I just wanted to make her
laugh.....it was an excellent side effect though......
Eirika
> Morgan the Unknown
>
Andrea Gideon
> have one last project I've talked myself into. If it doesn't even get my AoA
> [duh], then I would *refuse* a later Laurel.
>
> > ...........
> > Goals are GOOD for people.
> >
> Ru: My goal now is a Pearl.
> >
> >
Just a little note, here. Since you mention trying to get a Pearl, I assume
you are from Atlantia. I, too, am in Atlantia. I had been very active in the
SCA in Atlantia for over 10 years before I got my AoA. In Atlantia, it really
is about who you know. Don't count on this ONE project to get you anything.
Giovanna
Alianora Munro
<and...@gideonfamily.org> writes:
>Just a little note, here. Since you mention trying to get a Pearl, I assume
>you are from Atlantia. I, too, am in Atlantia. I had been very active in
>the
>SCA in Atlantia for over 10 years before I got my AoA. In Atlantia, it
>really
>is about who you know. Don't count on this ONE project to get you anything.
Giovanna, speaking as an Atlantian who was active 3 years before I received an
AoA, and a total of 10.5 years before I received a Pearl, I disagree very
strongly with your assertion that it's who you know in this kingdom. Now, let
me say at the outset that I'm speaking as just one member of the order, my
opinions are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any other
member much less the order as a whole, but what I am about to say is based on
the general discussions of "what are we looking for in a Pearl anyway?" which
occur fairly regularly in order meetings and on our mailing list.
The Pearl, for those who don't know, is the Atlantian order for the arts and
sciences and is a polling order, like the Laurel. To receive a Pearl, as with
the peerage, you need to come to the attention of the order as a whole, so we
can say "Have you seen what Lord Olaf does? His Viking baseball caps are just
incredible! Hey, Your Majesties, we'd like to recommend Olaf be inducted into
our order." Also like the Laurel, the Companions of the Pearl do not
ultimately decide who gets in and who doesn't. The King and Queen do.
You do not impress the order by trying to cultivate the friendship of members
of the Pearl, any more than you would try to win a Laurel this way. (OK, some
people do try, and it amuses the heck out of us, for the same reasons it amuses
the Laurels. Earlier in this thread Cynthia du Pre Argent gave a splendid
accounting of why sucking up is an inefficient way of getting a Laurel). You
do it by hauling yourself and your gear to events, often, especially the
kingdom-level events like Arts and Sciences Festival, University sessions, and
Twelfth Night where the largest number of Pearls will be at any given time so
we can see you and your stuff. You put your work on display consistently. You
include well-researched, thoughtful documentation with your displays. You
teach classes -- at local collegia, at Universities, at your shire's A&S Night.
Teaching is important to the Pearl; it's one of the few specific things built
into the very vague criteria of the order. The whole point of orders like the
Pearl is to recognise and encourage good re-creation, and teaching is the
single most important way of encouraging and improving recreation.
What it amounts to is: no one but you can show us how good you are. If you
want the attention of an arts order, you need to get out there and do arts
stuff so we can see you doing it.
You are right that just one project will not get anyone a Pearl -- like the
Laurels, we like to see a consistent body of work. We are slowly breaking out
of the idea that the Pearl needs to be awarded for something in particular; in
the last few years there have been a larger number of "stuff" Pearls given out
to the people who do a variety of things well. In fact I am one of the "stuff"
Pearls, and I'm told there was a fair amount of handwringing about mine before
they decided to go with it. It's getting better, we are trying to improve our
procedures. We aren't perfect, and it's neither fair nor reasonable to expect
us to be, but we do try to do better when we can.
Is it possible that in those 10 years before you got your AoA, you simply
blended in to the life of your group so well that people didn't realise you
didn't have one? I've heard an estimate that the average SCA "generation" is
about 3 years; in 10 years you would have outlasted 3 such generations, and
people who'd arrived in the Society after you did may not have known you didn't
have the AoA.
Let me just put in a plug here for letters of recommendation, too. In Atlantia
and doubtless elsewhere, anyone can recommend anyone else for any award,
provided they live within the bounds of our kingdom. If you see someone you
think is deserving of an award, write a letter to the King and Queen telling
them about that person and why you think they deserve the award. If the award
in question is an order, like the Pearl, send a copy of that letter to the
order principal so the order can discuss the candidate and either recommend to
Their Majesties that the award be given immediately or at least that the order
watch the person for recommendation later.
I repeat: I'm speaking only for myself, and if any other companion of the
Pearl out there wants to add to or correct my comments here, I welcome his or
her input.
Regards,
Alianora Munro, Bright Hills, Atlantia
No path of flowers leads to glory -- J. de La Fontaine
http://hometown.aol.com/noramunro/Chateau/index.htm
clear up the clutter to reply
Richard
"Andrea Gideon" <and...@gideonfamily.org> wrote in message
news:3AE2B312...@gideonfamily.org...
> > I
> > have one last project I've talked myself into. If it doesn't even get my
AoA
> > [duh], then I would *refuse* a later Laurel.
> >
> > >
> > Ru: My goal now is a Pearl.
> > >
> > Ru:
>
> Just a little note, here. Since you mention trying to get a Pearl, I
assume
> you are from Atlantia. I, too, am in Atlantia. I had been very active in
the
> SCA in Atlantia for over 10 years before I got my AoA. In Atlantia, it
really
> is about who you know. Don't count on this ONE project to get you
anything.
Don't you think this says more about the person making the comment, than the
item or person being commented on? Have we really become so cynical or is
it jealousy? Are there really that many people trying to get recognition
(in the SCA) by lying and cheating?
--
Yours In Service of the Dream and The Kingdom of AnTir.
Richard Falconer,
of The Barony of Stromgard, in The Kingdom of AnTir...
Morgan E. Smith
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Richard wrote:
>
> "Andrea Gideon" <and...@gideonfamily.org> wrote in message
> news:3AE2B312...@gideonfamily.org...
> > > I
> > > have one last project I've talked myself into. If it doesn't even get my
> AoA
> > > [duh], then I would *refuse* a later Laurel.
> > >
> > > > Goals are GOOD for people.
> > > >
> > > Ru: My goal now is a Pearl.
> > > >
> > > Ru:
> >
> > Just a little note, here. Since you mention trying to get a Pearl, I
> assume
> > you are from Atlantia. I, too, am in Atlantia. I had been very active in
> the
> > SCA in Atlantia for over 10 years before I got my AoA. In Atlantia, it
> really
> > is about who you know. Don't count on this ONE project to get you
> anything.
>
> Don't you think this says more about the person making the comment, than the
> item or person being commented on? Have we really become so cynical or is
> it jealousy? Are there really that many people trying to get recognition
> (in the SCA) by lying and cheating?
Sadly, I think as the SCA has gotten bigger, the potential for
occasional incidents of this kind becomes larger. (The actual percentage
of people trying things like this probably remains the same, but the
absolute number of incidents might rise.) With more people involved as a
whole in the SCA, the chances of "getting away with it" rises, because we
know a smaller percentage of the people involved less well.
Unfortunately, that means that one might be more likely to *hear* about
someone attempting, or even "succeeding" at the hoax, which then colours
one's perspective. People are then more inclined to believe the
accusation, even an implied one or a veiled hint that "perhaps" this may
have occurred. That means that the perception that this is occurring
regularly is more easily believed, and the hinter needs even less fact or
evidence to go on to make the suspicion believable, and so on.
Ru's more proactive stance, in this instance, would reflect very badly
on someone who hinted that perhaps Ru hadn't done this work himself -
and that could engender - perversely - the impression in some people's
minds that somehow, this is *Ru's* fault. People do, unconsciously,
rationalize this kind of stuff to afford themselves the least possible
disruption of their own views, illusions and emotions.
I think that Ru's best course is to get to know some of the A&S people
in his Kingdom - not necessarily in his own area - not for the purpose of
"sucking up" but to better understand where some of the A&S attitudes in
his Kingdom spring from, and to make his own scope and frame of reference
in A&S larger. I know that meeting and getting to know Laurels from
outside my own Principality really helped me a lot: I learned that there
were a lot of avenues and attitudes about my own craft that I had not yet
considered. I got some really great feedback, felt less isolated - because
I met other people interested in fabric and weaving and research and
scholarship, with new ideas about the crafts I was interested in. Plus I
got support, emotionally, because I met people (not necessarily Laurels)
who thought that I was doing good stuff, and who encouraged me to do more,
and I stopped feeling that I was some kind of freak.
In a sense it is who you know: it's knowing people who will feed your
own addictions (in a nice way!), who get to know you and will keep you on
track and working, who will pick you up and dust you off when you
stumble and fall, and who will support your attempts to improve your own
work.
Morgan the Unknown
Andrea Gideon
>
> Is it possible that in those 10 years before you got your AoA, you simply
> blended in to the life of your group so well that people didn't realise you
> didn't have one? I've heard an estimate that the average SCA "generation" is
> about 3 years; in 10 years you would have outlasted 3 such generations, and
> people who'd arrived in the Society after you did may not have known you didn't
> have the AoA.
>
> Alianora Munro, Bright Hills, Atlantia
That's a very valid point and probably is what happened in my case. I had lived
in one area and helped it become a shire, then moved to another barony. Then,
recently moved back to my original shire after a 5 year abscence. Everyone there
assumed I was a newbie until we got to talking about who was involved in the
founding and people were able to connect the name with the face. I did get my AoA
shortly after that. I didn't realize that the average SCA generation was only 3
years. Is our turnover that large or are we growing that fast?
Giovanna
ruadh
>
> Giovanna
>
Ru:"...Don't count on this ONE project ...."
but you closed Your eyes to my other work, or even the possibility that more
has been done.
I've been in the dye pot over 46 years. My mom was a 'Hooker", doing
Oriental rug repairs. Growing up on a veggies farm, and the oldest of seven,
guess who got to stir the vegetable dye brew pot ...ME . And then to card
and spin the matching thread sizes [Mom and me and my first sister]. Mom's
idea of 'Time Out' was to sit in the corner and fill in x by y inches of her
latest projects rugs. Or turn the cutting wheels to make the sized materials
she wanted for her hook projects. With Grand-paw, as his first grandson, I
learned woodwright skills in repairing wheels, looms, cabinets, etc. True
apprenticeship from the young age up.
Even in today's job requirements my spinning wheel helped. I needed a
certain impedance of twisted pair wire for a robotic sonar sensor wiring
harness. Time to delivery when ordered was 3 months. 18 twists per inch of a
certain 36 gauge wire would do the trick. I do 22 tpi for my sewing threads
plied to ~28 wire ga. Two days later I had the quantity of wire needed for
the harness.
While teaching an undergrad course [AI in Robotic Vehicles] at U of Tel Avi
in '92. I visited the textiles group, and ended up doing a demo in Egyptian
cotton of a shear 3 oz/yd tartan during my stay at the school. The students
*did* do the spinning for that project. But I did the Weaving, in return for
their techniques in Synagogue/Church Vestments weaving styles. Even the
'woven' fibreglass fabric used to make the special printed circuit boards I
used for my satellite guidance PC designs was held dear to me.
Dear Giovanna, one does not "get good", or expert, by doing "ONE project". I
do agree. I've seen Laurels who would rather sit back on 'em, then continue
with the passion. My very personal A&S was a part of my family life before
SCA had a life. I was a judge for the children's Sheep to Shawl contest for
several years at a state show, I judged 4H for many years after I grew out
if their age group. I was part of the "jury" for the League of Craftsmen. I
belonged to Spinning and/or Dyeing and/or Weaving guilds where ever I lived
in UK, Northern Europe, Eastern Med, or the US.
To the Rialto:
sorry for the rant. pls. flame one is if the issues that lite me up.
..........one does not get good, or expert, by doing "ONE project".
..........seen Laurels who would rather sit back on 'em, then continue with
the passion.
Ruadh
I live in the past. I live in the future. I have No time for the here and
now.
Cynthia Virtue
> I didn't realize that the average SCA generation was only 3
> years. Is our turnover that large or are we growing that fast?
What is meant by "generation?" Average stay in the SCA? Average time
before someone starts teaching someone else what they know? And could
you tell us more about the source of the number; I've not heard this one before.
Regards,
cv
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Andrea Gideon wrote:
> > I didn't realize that the average SCA generation was only 3
> > years. Is our turnover that large or are we growing that fast?
>
> What is meant by "generation?" Average stay in the SCA? Average time
> before someone starts teaching someone else what they know? And could
> you tell us more about the source of the number; I've not heard this one before.
As I understand it, it means "average amount of continuous time that an
individual is involved in the SCA". Or, put another way, the "long
timers" are the high end of a bell curve that is centered around the
three-year mark (with the "only ever went to one or two events" people
being the low end of the bell curve). This means that if you stick
around for the average plus a couple standard deviations of the
"generation" time, there's a high chance that there will be almost
nobody left in your local group who was there when you joined -- as far
as everyone else in your group is concerned, you've "always been there".
I suppose that 'generation" could also be interpreted as "the average
amount of time spent in the SCA among the people one hangs out with and
learns from when one first joins" -- more in the sense of "how much
accumulated 'experience' does an SCA 'newborn' have available to them?"
The number would be slightly different (and the point of view is
certainly different), but the basic premise is the same: on the average,
there's a lot of turnover in the SCA and it doesn't take that long to
become perceived as "an oldtimer" by your immediate community.
I suspect that most "long timers" in the SCA (like me) don't grasp this
on a gut level without a bit of thought, because there's a natural
tendency for long-timers to end up spending a disproportionate amount of
their time with other long-timers. It's an illuminating exercise to
draw up a list of the "generation" you entered the SCA with in your
local branch and do a "where are they now?" analysis. (I don't think
it's entirely an aberration that, when I do it for my own "entering
class", pretty much everyone who is still in the SCA is a peer, and most
of them a multiple peer. But keep in mind that my "entering class" was
back in '77.)
Tangwystyl
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Zebee Johnstone
Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>their time with other long-timers. It's an illuminating exercise to
>draw up a list of the "generation" you entered the SCA with in your
>local branch and do a "where are they now?" analysis. (I don't think
youch!
The group I helped to found back in 1982 had 7 people to start with.
Of those, only 2 are active, 2 have pretty much retired. One I saw
the other day, she came to Festival but doesn't come to other events.
OF the ones from other groups I remember, there are not many around,
no.
But then nearly 20 years is a long time in any hobby :)
3 years seems a little short though, locally I'd say more like 4-5.
Silfren
Dennis O'Connor
news:slrn9e2a1j...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
> Dennis O'Connor <dm...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >"Zebee Johnstone" <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote...
> >> Dennis O'Connor <dm...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> etc, are there as many of them as there are fighters who
> >> are midlevel and above?
> >
> >I don't see why the number of people doing "midlevel and above"
> >work matters. For example, imagine a small core group each
> >do a _lot_ of work, while most outside that group just "pay the
> >fee and show up". Would this situation warrant more Pels, because
> >all those people working their butts of deserve to be Pels, or
> >less, since the number "doing midlevel and above work is lower ?
> >
> >Therefor, I don't think the approach you are taking to analyzing
> >the issue is a valid one. But you may convince me otherwise. :-)
>
> You were the one who brought up stats :)
>
> IF we go on "more are knighted than pelled or laurelled" (all nouns can
> be verbed) then the base population of candidates of each must be
> determined to know if standards are lower.
Not necessarily. One might argue directly that the mere fact
that a larger percentage of people can qualify for the
Chivalry indicates that the standards for it are "lower";
that it is less "elite" than the other two Peerages. In this
model, one considers _everyone_ in the SCA as a
potential candidate, as in fact they mostly are.
Of course, if one wants to differentiate "potential
candidates for <Peerage X>", why look only at midlevel ?
Now, the obvious differentiation for Chivalry candidates
is hardsuit fighters. And maybe this is a larger pool
of candidates than for the Laurel, but how can it
compare with the Pelican, for which everyone who plays
is a candidate, since "playing (above-and-beyond)" is one
of the possible reasons to give someone a Pelican ?
> If there are 100 fighters above midlevel and only 20 pels, then one
> would expect 5 knights to every pel.
> So we have to work out what is "midlevel" and that's when it gets
> weird.
But why look only at midlevel ? Why not look at the entire
"eligible population" ? Then we have no such issue to work out.
> Are the knight's standards lower? It's only a meaningful question if
> we can quantify standards and compare.
>
> I think it might be easier to determine if someone is of knightly
> level. This is because the base skills are not only easier to
> quantify, but everyone who is a knight knows what they are and is
> competent to judge them.
>
> This is, I think, true of the Pels, but not of the Laurels.
It is a lot easier to make a case that the standards for
a Pel are higher than a similar case for the Laurel, I admit.
Partly because of the subject nature of Art of course.
> Pels have the advantage in that what they do is obvious and almost
> quantifiable in the way that knightly skills are.
Obvious perhaps; as well known by as many people,
often not. A lot of the work is done out of public sight.
> While most tourneys have one winner, there are many competing. most
> events have fewer serious workers than serious fighters. Do most
> groups?
But should this mean more people get Pels or less, since a
smaller group is carrying the entire burden of running the event ?
> I am not sure about "lower" standards. I do think it's *easier* for
> knights to decide someone else is of their standard because the
> achievements are clearer, and the skills are the same in all respects
> as the people judging those skills.
I don't think you can claim that when comparing
the Chivalry to the Pelicans.
> One place where it might be "lower" is in the infamous "peerage
> qualities". Seeing as those are supposedly common to all peerages and
> should be the same for all, then the 3 peerages can be compared. Are
> the standards of the Chivalry lower in that regard than the others?
I'd say so.
> Or is it that the others are higher, maybe needlessly so?
Well, for purpose of comparing the two, the others being
higher is the same as the Chivalry's being lower. Whether
it one is too high or the other too low, I don't know.
> In Lochac, some have the impression (including some Laurels)
> that "peer qualities" is a way to exclude people. [...]
> Whereas there is an impression that "peerage qualities" are very
> low on the list as far as the Knights are concerned.
>
> Given that most people's feeling about *any* peer is the "peerage
> quality" as they don't usually have the skills to judge the peerage
> specialty (except maybe of the Pels) could this be where the
> impression of lower standards comes from, rather than from
> anby kind of numbers/stats?
I tend to agree, and alluded to it in my original post on the matter.
The Chivalry has indeed created, here in Atenveldt, a common
perception that "the other Peer-like qualities" are less important
when determining if someone is ready to join the Chivalry than
when determining if they are ready for another Order.
Unfortunately, it is as usual the _worst_ of the Chivalry that
create this impression, and their does not seem to be much
the best of the Chivalry can do about it. This is partly because
the real determiner of who joins the Chivalry is the Crown,
and our method of choosing the Crown allows any hot-stick
to become the Crown, even if they are a complete lout,
and loutish Kings do more often loutish Knights appoint.
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
Vanity Web Page http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/
Dennis O'Connor
news:3AE18DA1...@thibault.org...
> > Hypothesis:
> > "The standards for admission for the Chivalry
> > are lower than those for the other Peerages."
>
> Alternate hypothesis:
> "The Chivalry benefits by America's fascination and reverence for
> "sports" whereas the Laurels suffer by its disdain of academics, and the
> Pels suffer by the country's disdain of selfless work, such as is seen
> in teaching, nursing, etc."
This isn't necessarily an alternative to the original hypothesis.
It may, in fact, be an explanation for it. If one looks in the
papers, one often sees stories of sports "heroes" being caught
beating their wives or doing drugs or DUI or worse, and
getting away with it, whereas the same behavior in a college
professor would do serious damage to their lives and career.
Obviously, sports "heroes" are held to a lower standard of
behavior than other people (excepting politicians of course).
So perhaps your hypothesis supports mine. ?
Dennis O'Connor
> > > Why do you want a Peerage?
> > > How would it change what you do in the SCA on a routine basis?
>
> This is an interesting question. Last Summer, two of us
> were discussing this specifically with regard to the Order of
> the Laurel. One answer to this question is the "problem of
> credentialism".
True. Of course, some people have achieved enough
visibility in what they do that this is no longer relevant,
since everyone already knows who they are and what
they do or have done. For people like that, the "credentialling"
quality of the Peerages is irrelevant.
'Course, there aren't many people like that.
> Another reason for wanting to be part of any order in the Society
> is because you are then in a better position to help recognize
> others in the Society who should be encouraged and recognized.
Being a Peer might make that easier, but it doesn't make
it impossible. I recall Cariodoc's armbands, for example.
> Saddly, we often fail to recognize people who should be recognized
> and at the same occasionally pour out honours upon people for
> trivialities. The consequence is that dedicated hard working people
> may become embittered.
And the value of a Peerage becomes diluted, reducing it's
utility in recognizing people. Eventually, more and more people
will think "so they are a Peer: so what ? Doesn't mean anything."
> Finally, some kingdoms enforce a caste system. Unless you hold
> a major title or award, you may even have diffulty registering
> at the gate. [...]
One just has to be philosophic about other people
cutting off their own nose to spite their face, I think.
And find some other venue to do what you want.
james rich
"Alianora Munro" <nora...@aol.comclutter> wrote in message
news:20010422103219...@nso-cp.aol.com...
> In article <3AE2B312...@gideonfamily.org>, Andrea Gideon
> <and...@gideonfamily.org> writes:
>
> >Just a little note, here. Since you mention trying to get a Pearl,
>
> Is it possible that in those 10 years before you got your AoA, you simply
> blended in to the life of your group so well that people didn't realise
you
> didn't have one?
I don't know about in Atlantia, but I"ve seen *that* happen here (
Meridies ) and more than once. Typical conversation: Person A " You know, I
really like so-and-so. He/she is a hard worker. Did you notice at the last
event how he/she (insert whatever particular skill or service was done) ?"
Person B " Yes. In fact, I just wrote a letter of commendation to the Crown
for him/her to receive an AoA." Person A:" You're kidding! No AoA? But
he/she has been in the SCA for ages!" Person B:"I know. I was surprised
too, but I certainly think it's about time, don't you?" Person A: " I sure
do. I'll write a letter, too!" And so then the deserving soul *finally*
gets an AoA, when it's realized that he/she didn't have it to begin with;
but sometimes it's hard to ferret these things out. If an order of
precedence hasn't been recently published, you don't just go around asking
people what awards they have--it doesn't often come up in casual
conversation.
AElfwenna
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them
all yourself."
JE Anderson
"james rich" <71...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:te6f342...@corp.supernews.com...
>
<Snip>
> too, but I certainly think it's about time, don't you?" Person A: " I
sure
> do. I'll write a letter, too!" And so then the deserving soul *finally*
> gets an AoA, when it's realized that he/she didn't have it to begin with;
> but sometimes it's hard to ferret these things out. If an order of
> precedence hasn't been recently published, you don't just go around asking
> people what awards they have--it doesn't often come up in casual
> conversation.
It is a toughie - I developed a gambit of doing the "no shit there I was
when I got my AoA" stories in a group that includes the person we're unsure
of....either they will say "I don't have one", contribute their own story or
if they say nothing someone can turn and say "what about you...who gave you
your AoA?" It usually works...
Eirika
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> This is an interesting question. Last Summer, two of us
> were discussing this specifically with regard to the Order of
> the Laurel. One answer to this question is the "problem of
> credentialism". The Society (like much of the surrounding
> culture) sometimes pays more attention to credentials than
> to real knowledge or ability. The Order of the Laurel is the
> big deal A&S credential in the Society. While attaining one
> is no panacea, it does mean that some people who would otherwise
> not listen to you will listen to you. This also puts greater
> responsibility on you.
>
This is, to an extent, true. On a smaller picture, it shouldn't be. For
example, people who know things Japanese will listen to me because they
know I know my stuff even though I don't have that big credential (the
Laurel). The obverse is that it is the people who *don't* do what I do
(Japanese stuff) who might not listen to "a voice of authority" <G>
because though this is mundanely What I Do, I don't have the credential
that shows to *them* that I know what I know.
>
> Another reason for wanting to be part of any order in the Society
> is because you are then in a better position to help recognize
> others in the Society who should be encouraged and recognized.
> Saddly, we often fail to recognize people who should be recognized
> and at the same occasionally pour out honours upon people for
> trivialities. The consequence is that dedicated hard working people
> may become embittered.
>
I don't know about this. Someone who becomes embittered because they
don't have an award has other problems and issues that need to be
addressed. I've been doing Japanese stuff for over 20 years in the SCA
and never gotten Laurelized. If they were to give me a Laurel tomorrow,
what would it change? Nothing (although to be honest I'd be tickled
pink). I'd still do the same things the day after tomorrow. The Laurel
is a nice recognition, but it shouldn't become a goal to the point of
obsession.
You should do what you like because you like it. Any successes you have
with your projects are the achievement. If someone else recognizes it
and gives you a dangly to wear, that's just icing on the cake; but
ultimately it has no effect on what you're doing.
>
> Finally, some kingdoms enforce a caste system. Unless you hold
> a major title or award, you may even have diffulty registering
> at the gate. This can be especially akward for people who are
> attending major interkingdom scholae as teachers. While locals
> may be adapted to the caste system, such a caste system may
> prove difficult to visiting foreigners.
This I've never seen or encountered, and I've lived in five kingdoms.
Where have you seen this? It's atrocious!
Effingham
Cynthia Virtue
> So perhaps your hypothesis supports mine. ?
It could be as you say. I'm not entirely certain that my hypothesis has
any truth to it, but I think it's interesting (and possibly edifying) to contemplate.
Anthony J. Bryant
> Of course, if one wants to differentiate "potential
> candidates for <Peerage X>", why look only at midlevel ?
> Now, the obvious differentiation for Chivalry candidates
> is hardsuit fighters. And maybe this is a larger pool
> of candidates than for the Laurel, but how can it
> compare with the Pelican, for which everyone who plays
> is a candidate, since "playing (above-and-beyond)" is one
> of the possible reasons to give someone a Pelican ?
>
I disagree with this. It assumes that being a physically present warm body
qualifies a candidate for Pelicanhood. This is not true, any more than being
a physically present warm body makes one a candidate for knighthood. If you
want to be a knight, you HAVE to get off your butt and fight. If you want to
be a Pelican, you have to get off your butt and work.
Just being there isn't qualification for anything in and of itself; one must
be doing something.
> It is a lot easier to make a case that the standards for
> a Pel are higher than a similar case for the Laurel, I admit.
> Partly because of the subject nature of Art of course.
>
I think this might be the case because at some point there are more people
running events, holding offices, doing jobs, running security, whatever
(i.e., serving), than there are fighting per se; and there are a lot more
knights than pelicans.
> > I am not sure about "lower" standards. I do think it's *easier* for
> > knights to decide someone else is of their standard because the
> > achievements are clearer, and the skills are the same in all respects
> > as the people judging those skills.
>
> I don't think you can claim that when comparing
> the Chivalry to the Pelicans.
>
I've seen a couple of cases where people have been considered for Pelicans
and when we look at the corpus of their work, it's a case of "yeah, but
he/she's been in for over 20 years." So? He/she's held lots of positions in
20 years (who wouldn't?) but nothing individually of Pelican quality output,
and I'm kind of offended that some, even in our order, consider the Pelican
to be little more than a longevity award.
Effingham
Cynthia Virtue
> As I understand it, it means "average amount of continuous time that an
> individual is involved in the SCA".
Okey, I could understand that as a defintion. Have you ever heard of
the source of the 3 year figure? It might be as much a crock as the "we
only use 10% of our brains" figure appears to be.
I have, in the past, suggested various simple demographic studies to the
Board; they always say that it would be keen, but we don't have money to
throw away on that sort of thing. This makes me suspect that the 3 year
figure is a guess on the part of someone, or a very small sample,
because for an accurate tally, the only reliable figures would be from
the corporate office for when someone appeared on the member list and
when they failed to renew.
Possibly one could poll a largeish SCA group and find the average length
of time people have been in, but that wouldn't address the "getting out
of the SCA" end of the equation, unless you also ask them when they
expect to stop participating. Possibly asking "how many years of SCA
participation do you anticipate yourself to accumulate before you stop"
would get the right sort of answer, but I know people stop suddenly sometimes.
Is there a statistician in the house?
Zebee Johnstone
Anthony J. Bryant <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>>
>
>I've seen a couple of cases where people have been considered for Pelicans
>and when we look at the corpus of their work, it's a case of "yeah, but
>he/she's been in for over 20 years." So? He/she's held lots of positions in
>20 years (who wouldn't?) but nothing individually of Pelican quality output,
>and I'm kind of offended that some, even in our order, consider the Pelican
>to be little more than a longevity award.
>
And if it is, then the standard is defintely lower than knighthood,
cos just fighting for 20 years won't get you one.
You have to have proven a certain standard, have to show you can win,
and win at a certain level.
I'd presume that you'd have a hard time getting a Pel for work in
office if it wasn't a high level office for example. Principality at
the least.
Or for running events if you haven't done one of the biggies.
So if it's a longevity award it's less than knighthood. On the other
hand, there are people who have been made knights who haven't won a
crown or a coronet. Placed consistently highly in such tourneys, but
not won. Can the two be compared?
Silfren
JE Anderson
"Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:3AE3573E...@indiana.edu...
<snips>
>
> I've seen a couple of cases where people have been considered for Pelicans
> and when we look at the corpus of their work, it's a case of "yeah, but
> he/she's been in for over 20 years." So? He/she's held lots of positions
in
> 20 years (who wouldn't?) but nothing individually of Pelican quality
output,
> and I'm kind of offended that some, even in our order, consider the
Pelican
> to be little more than a longevity award.
I don't agree 100% but that may be perspective....Think of the candidate who
has been around for about 20 years and never done anything huge or amazing
BUT they have contributed on a steady and high level for most of those
years. While I was holding a variety of offices at Kingdom on down they
were back home trolling events, setting up, taking down organizing clean up.
Bringing in new people and showing them how to be a productive member of the
society etc.....so in that case a whole bunch of "little" adds up to a lot.
As I said in a meeting once where I was trying to clarify my own thoughts on
this very issue....you can't have a strong Kingdom without its
Principalities being strong, you can't have a strong Principality unless
your baronies are strong....this kind of person is the beginning link in
that chain. They make it work at the smallest level and the effect shimmies
it's way up the ladder....
Does that work for you Effingham? :-)
Eirika
Anephedros
being a member of the chivalry and the husband of a laurel, i've seen both
machines in action.
some thoughts:
-yes, chivalry is a fast track for the able. it is public and heavy is an
integral part of the political structure.
-in some places it's easier to get a belt/baldric because, regardless of
your conduct, the other members get tired of being beaten by a non-member.
-conversely, if one asserts one's self as a laurel candidate, one is
thought to be uppity and will be thought badly of no matter the quality of
the work.
-my wife was treated like a laurel by the other members long before she got
the award. sometimes you just have to wait for the royal machine to catch
up. some of these kingdoms are pretty big.
-and just sometimes there are laurel candidates whose work noone in
qualified (because of obscurity) to judge. one of our friends is a self
proclaimed 'soup laurel' and redily admits she knows little about garb and
laughs when asked to judge a and s competitions.
be well,
rob
(Robin Wallace; Viscount & Master of Arms)
Anephedros
newsletter i read stats for 'time as a member' and 'time for getting the
award' were broken down as:
-average 4.5 years from authorization for Chivalry
-approx. 6-7 years for a Laurel
-8-10 years for a Pelican
rob
In article <3AE3568D...@thibault.org>, Cynthia Virtue
Barbara Nostrand
Greetings from Solveig!
> > > Just a little note, here. Since you mention trying to get a Pearl, I
> > assume
> > > you are from Atlantia. I, too, am in Atlantia. I had been very active in
> > the
> > > SCA in Atlantia for over 10 years before I got my AoA. In Atlantia, it
> > really
> > > is about who you know. Don't count on this ONE project to get you
> > anything.
I think that some attention should be given to the scope of projects.
Some projects are just simply bigger and take longer than others. In
mundane academia, publish or perish has engendered minimilistic
research to maximize paper production. I hope that we can avoid that
ill in our Society.
Your Humble Servant
Solveig Throndardottir
Amateur Scholar
JE Anderson
From my perspective we have taken the "SCA Generation being 3 years"
statement as being the approximate time that it takes a new member to become
aclimatized and absorbed into the structure.
On a purely personal note it seems that we get a new "wave" of members about
every 3 years up here. There is always a trickle of newpeople but it seems
that is the magic number for clusters coming into the Barony at the same
time....
Eirika
"Cynthia Virtue" <cvi...@thibault.org> wrote in message
news:3AE3568D...@thibault.org...
Barbara Nostrand
Greetings from Solveig!
> I don't know about this. Someone who becomes embittered because they
> don't have an award has other problems and issues that need to be
> addressed. I've been doing Japanese stuff for over 20 years in the SCA
> and never gotten Laurelized. If they were to give me a Laurel tomorrow,
> what would it change? Nothing (although to be honest I'd be tickled
> pink). I'd still do the same things the day after tomorrow. The Laurel
> is a nice recognition, but it shouldn't become a goal to the point of
> obsession.
I call everyone Lord Foo or Lady Bar unless I know of some spiffier title
to call them. Once several years ago, I addressed a young lady as
Lady xxx. She immediately burst into tears as she did not yet have an
AoA. She wasn't out their complaining on the Rialto, but yet her feelings
were obviously more than a bit tender at this point in her life.
As I vaguely recall, she was a group officer and was otherwise doing
her part.
Dennis O'Connor
"Anephedros" <ra...@borg.com> wrote ...
> -in some places it's easier to get a belt/baldric because, regardless
> of your conduct, the other members get tired of being beaten
> by a non-member.
>
> -conversely, if one asserts one's self as a laurel candidate, one is
> thought to be uppity and will be thought badly of no matter the
> quality of the work.
And (speaking as a non-Pelican) the Pels neither seem to mind
being out-worked by a non-Peer, nor obliged to make someone
a Peer because they did so. :-)
I like the way the Pels seem to operate the best.
Dorothy J Heydt
As far as I know, the originator of the concept that an SCA
generation is 3 years was Duke Cariadoc of the Bow. At least, he
has been saying it for longer than anyone I know (a matter of
about ten SCA generations).
Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin Dorothy J. Heydt
Mists/Mists/West Albany, California
PRO DEO ET REGE djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Cynthia Virtue
Order of Precedence for all the kingdoms that have them online, to
obtain this sort of information, and as it changes over time.
Your list was something like what I have seen him type, but it didn't
include total length of time in the SCA; did you intend to include it?
> 'time as a member' and 'time for getting the
> award' were broken down as:
>
> -average 4.5 years from authorization for Chivalry
>
> -approx. 6-7 years for a Laurel
>
> -8-10 years for a Pelican
--
Susan Carroll-Clark
Greetings--
> But I do question how one strives to be a Pelican....to me either service
is
> something that is in a person or not (no value judgement on that either)
it
> is not something you can learn. I mean you can learn how to serve
> effectively (be a good officer, retinue or autocrat) but how do you learn,
> or teach for that matter, service as a goal?
Service itself is not necessarily something that can be taught. But service
isn't necessarily the vague, definitionless thing we often think it to be.
Organizational skills can be taught, as can the skills needed for some of
our offices. More importantly, the good Pelican-protege relationships I
have seen focus on what I would call "coaching"--teaching and helping
someone to work with others effectively. A Pelican of my acquaintance says
that when looking at candidates, he weighs services rendered vs. chaos
engendered. You can have absolutely wonderful intentions, but if you do not
know how to coordinate a team, organize your time, or how to say "no"
sometimes, the results may well be chaos. You have to know where and when
to serve, as well as learn to recognize the type of service that best suits
your abilities--someone who's a terrific seneschal might not be the best
exchequer, and some people are better at coordinating and organizing while
others are better at the actual doing.
Nicolaa
(Laurel, not Pelican)
Susan Carroll-Clark
> IF we go on "more are knighted than pelled or laurelled" (all nouns can
> be verbed) then the base population of candidates of each must be
> determined to know if standards are lower.
It should also be pointed out that Your Mileage May Vary. In the Middle,
more Laurels have been created than Chiv or Pelicans. In Ealdormere,
whether you look at the pre-Kingdom days or what's happened since they
achieved Kingdom status 2 1/2 years ago, Laurels outnumber Chiv by almost
2-1 and Pelicans by 3-1.
Go figure.
Nicolaa
Susan Carroll-Clark
> As far as I know, the originator of the concept that an SCA
> generation is 3 years was Duke Cariadoc of the Bow. At least, he
> has been saying it for longer than anyone I know (a matter of
> about ten SCA generations).
It might just be based partially on gut feelings--you often consider those
who joined less than a year before you did and up to a couple of years
afterward to be "your age" in the SCA. Chances are, given similar activity
levels, you'll get AoAs and then higher-level awards around the same time;
you'll move into holding offices around the same time, you'll have all been
to a similar number of Pennsics (or other big SCA events), and so on. When
you get more than about two years out, chances are that these are the
newcomers you helped out, rather than folks you think of as being new around
the same time you were.
Nicolaa
Alianora Munro
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes:
>As I understand it, it means "average amount of continuous time that an
>individual is involved in the SCA". Or, put another way, the "long
>timers" are the high end of a bell curve that is centered around the
>three-year mark (with the "only ever went to one or two events" people
>being the low end of the bell curve). This means that if you stick
>around for the average plus a couple standard deviations of the
>"generation" time, there's a high chance that there will be almost
>nobody left in your local group who was there when you joined -- as far
>as everyone else in your group is concerned, you've "always been there".
This is my understanding of the expression. The 3-year figure was tossed out
on the Atlantian list a few years back; though I haven't done detailed analysis
of the Atlantian population and so can't back this up with hard science, my
observation has been that this is reasonably correct and there are a lot of
people who fade out after approximately 3-5 years of active involvement.
Anephedros
but i seem to remember it being intended to reflect total time in the SCA
on average.
rob
Zebee Johnstone
>> -in some places it's easier to get a belt/baldric because, regardless
>> of your conduct, the other members get tired of being beaten
>> by a non-member.
>>
>> -conversely, if one asserts one's self as a laurel candidate, one is
>> thought to be uppity and will be thought badly of no matter the
>> quality of the work.
>
>And (speaking as a non-Pelican) the Pels neither seem to mind
>being out-worked by a non-Peer, nor obliged to make someone
>a Peer because they did so. :-)
>
My guess is because you don't get to be at that level without a big
dose of both pragmatism and people skills. And the desire to find
more to share the load.
You can get ones who want status, but that doesn't often survive the
hard work. And unlike management where bullshit artists happen far
too often, you have to work your way up, so it's hard to start above
your level of incompetence.
Silfren
Brian M. Scott
<cvi...@thibault.org> wrote:
[...]
>Possibly one could poll a largeish SCA group and find the average length
>of time people have been in, but that wouldn't address the "getting out
>of the SCA" end of the equation, unless you also ask them when they
>expect to stop participating. Possibly asking "how many years of SCA
>participation do you anticipate yourself to accumulate before you stop"
>would get the right sort of answer, but I know people stop suddenly sometimes.
I've been in the same largeish group for almost 20 years, and memory
suggests that polling such a group at a fixed point in time would
probably underestimate the low end of the curve. And this isn't even
beginning to consider the difficulties of defining 'active
participation'!
From my point of view a generation has passed since X started if
newcomers now see X as an established member of the group. The actual
length of time doubtless varies from group to group and person to
person, but 3-4 years doesn't sound unreasonable. (I was amused to
realize several years ago that I was an old-timer to people who were
themselves seen by many as old-timers -- and that there are still
people whom *I* recognize as old-timers.)
Talan
Dennis O'Connor
> A Pelican of my acquaintance says that when looking at candidates,
> he weighs services rendered vs. chaos engendered.
"versus" ? Sometimes, engendering chaos _is_ a service. ;-)
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
Vanity Web Page http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/
"The Fourth SCA Peerage should be for Treason. :-)"
William Underhill
>
> "Susan Carroll-Clark" <nicola...@columbus.rr.com> wrote...
> > A Pelican of my acquaintance says that when looking at candidates,
> > he weighs services rendered vs. chaos engendered.
>
> "versus" ? Sometimes, engendering chaos _is_ a service. ;-)
Hail FNORD Eris FNORD Hail FNORD Eris FNORD Hail :-)
Yours aye,
Uilliam
Upsetter of Sacred Chao * MU *
--
-----------------===========<\ />============-----------------
William Underhill Uilliam mac Aillén vhic Séamus
Royal Canadian Navy Society for Creative Anachronism
Ready, aye, ready Vivite ad clamandum, clamate ad vivendum
tr...@home.com http://members.home.net/trode/
-----------------===========</ \>============-----------------
The usual government employee disclaimer, blah blah blah...
Rowanwald Central
> > Finally, some kingdoms enforce a caste system. Unless you hold
> > a major title or award, you may even have diffulty registering
> > at the gate. This can be especially akward for people who are
> > attending major interkingdom scholae as teachers. While locals
> > may be adapted to the caste system, such a caste system may
> > prove difficult to visiting foreigners.
>
> May I ask where you have encountered that kind of segregation?
I have run into it while attending an event in a Kingdom other than my
own. At the gate, I mentioned that I was my home Kingdom's Chatelaine - and
got treated to a fine display of disdain, with unasked-for comments about my
Kingdom's marshalling rules, calibration, and fighter's attitudes. That was
followed by a tirade about the "medieval unsuitability" of our system of
award scroll production. I'm not a fighter and I'm not a scribe, but I
surely was a target for a great deal of nastiness. When my escort (in hot
indignation) told someone that I was also a Grafin's protégé and a
territorial Baroness, suddenly it was all smiles and roses...
I only attended one more event in that Kingdom, and once again was
treated to the same derision. After that, I stopped attending events in that
area even though I regularly travelled there for two more years.
Rosine
Lady PDC
>Greetings--
>
>> But I do question how one strives to be a Pelican....to me either service
>is
>> something that is in a person or not (no value judgement on that either)
>it
>> is not something you can learn. I mean you can learn how to serve
>> effectively (be a good officer, retinue or autocrat) but how do you learn,
>> or teach for that matter, service as a goal?
>
>Service itself is not necessarily something that can be taught. But service
>isn't necessarily the vague, definitionless thing we often think it to be.
I have heard the same sort of thing spoken by local pelicans in questioning how
useful it can be to be/have a protoge'. They usually say something like "you
can't teach service" but actually mean something much more.
I would simplify what they mean as being, "You CAN'T teach having a desire to
serve. But if the desire is truely there, then you CAN teach how best to apply
it."
This same statement could apply almost directly across to the other peerages.
Constance de la Rose
lad...@aol.com
Debbie Snyder
"Never say a thing's impossible, chances are you'll rue it
Because some fool who doesn't know, will come along
and do it"
Arval d'Espas Nord
Greetings from Arval! Tanglws defined "Society generation":
> As I understand it, it means "average amount of continuous time that an
> individual is involved in the SCA".
That's not how it's used in the East, in my experience. I would define it
as "the amount of time before today's newcomers occupy the roles of the
people who recruited them". In other words, the typical time it takes a
newcomer to become a local officer. The implication is that this is also
about the time is takes for anyone to rise any single rung in our social
ladder.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com
Todd Rich
(snip)
>>Service itself is not necessarily something that can be taught. But service
>>isn't necessarily the vague, definitionless thing we often think it to be.
> I have heard the same sort of thing spoken by local pelicans in questioning how
> useful it can be to be/have a protoge'. They usually say something like "you
> can't teach service" but actually mean something much more.
> I would simplify what they mean as being, "You CAN'T teach having a desire to
> serve. But if the desire is truely there, then you CAN teach how best to apply
> it."
> This same statement could apply almost directly across to the other peerages.
> Constance de la Rose
> lad...@aol.com
> Debbie Snyder
Actually, I disagree with even this. When I first joined the SCA (Waaayyy
back in '84 when I was 16) I was not a person who was interested in
service. But over the years, and through the efforts of various people in
and out of the SCA I was taught to enjoy doing service. Looking back over
my life, I think I can honestly say that this change wouldn't have
happened if it hadn't been for the help of other people. I even did a
stint as a kingdom ossifer, and the only part of it I didn't like is I
wasn't experienced enough to do it as well as I had hoped.
Torin Ironbrow
JE Anderson
"Rowanwald Central" <rowa...@sybercom.net> wrote in message
news:te7k224...@corp.supernews.com...
<snippage>
> I have run into it while attending an event in a Kingdom other than my
> own. At the gate, I mentioned that I was my home Kingdom's Chatelaine -
and
> got treated to a fine display of disdain, with unasked-for comments about
my
> Kingdom's marshalling rules, calibration, and fighter's attitudes. That
was
> followed by a tirade about the "medieval unsuitability" of our system of
> award scroll production. I'm not a fighter and I'm not a scribe, but I
> surely was a target for a great deal of nastiness. When my escort (in hot
> indignation) told someone that I was also a Grafin's protégé and a
> territorial Baroness, suddenly it was all smiles and roses...
Wow....I have never seen the like of that. I am so sorry you were treated
that way. I have never been berated for the "sins" of my kingdom or
principality when travelling. Usually I get "You drove HOW far?" instead
<grin>.
Thanks for sharing that with us...
Eirika
Chris CII
> > As I understand it, it means "average amount of continuous time that an
> > individual is involved in the SCA".
>
>
> the corporate office for when someone appeared on the member list and
> when they failed to renew.
Isn't there a risk of heavy underevaluation because of people lapsing a few
months or even a year and coming back ?
I seem to recall in another thread that administrative problems caused quite
a few 'false lapses'.
On the other hand, is the membre list representative of the people who
really are active ?
In other terms aren't there some people who are more or less retired from
active participation but keep their membership, and aren't there some people
who never paid but are quite active on local level ?
These are absolutely naďve questions without any afterthought, just to try
to fathom the real difficulty of polling such a fluid population.
--
Salutations, Greetings,
Guiraud Belissen, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France