From: rancke@diku.dk (Hans Rancke-Madsen)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: History vs. dreams
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:53:26 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

>>>In article <1992Sep6.195201.8461@odin.diku.dk> rancke@diku.dk (Hans Rancke-Madsen) writes:

>Hans had written:

>>>>... I've been browsing on the
>>>>Rialto for the year and more we've recieved it here in Denmark, and I've
>>>>been saddened to note the vigour of the historical reenactment movement.

>In article <1992Sep8.205327.4432@odin.diku.dk> rancke@diku.dk (Hans Rancke-Madsen) writes:

>>aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (A.J.S. Nusbacher) writes:

>AJSN>>Let us re-enactors play ours.

>HR-M>If you're reproving me from expressing an opinion when I'm not directly
>HR-M>involved in the matter, then I apologize. If you are telling me that you
>HR-M>have your opinion and you don't care about mine, then I think the most
>HR-M>courteous thing would have been to just ignore me.

>No, it's door number three.  I am reproving you for being "saddened to note
>the vigour of the historical reenactment movement".

But my feelings are not really something that you have a right to reprove
me for, is it? You can tell me that I shouldn't be because the impression
of the SCA that I've gotten from browsing here is faulty, or that I
shouldn't be because that situation is really the best way for things to
be. But I have recieved a certain impression, and I do deplore it.

>There are an awful lot
>of people who enjoy it, and who think that a vigourous historical
>re-enactment community is a good thing.

I agree. Historical reenactment sounds fun. Just not as fun as what I had
the impression the SCA used to be.

>Hans had said:

>>>>If anything it seems to me that an insistence on historical correctness
>>>>will drive out the dreamers. And if things develop to a point where a
>>>>split becomes inevetable (note the if), then I think you should remember
>>>>that the dreamers were there first.

>I had replied:

>>>The split is there already, and there are dreamers on both sides, thank you.

>Then Hans said:

>>I didn't mean to imply that there weren't. I was just trying to find a
>>convenient label for the "other side" (or my side, depending on how you
>>look at it). If you'll tell me what label would be more appropiate I'll
>>use it....

>There is a distinct difference between the mainstream of the SCA and
>historical re-enactment.  A "split", a "schism", but hardly a yawning gulf
>of any description.  There are people who could be called re-enactment
>buffs who are in the SCA.  There are idealists and romantics in re-enactment
>and re-creation groups, in spite of insistence on historical accuracy.  Some-
>times they are the same people.

Accepted, accepted. So what should I call the "Current Middle Age" buffs?

>I do not disagree that many people would be driven away from the SCA if
>the SCA ever decided to undergo a transformation into a re-creation or re-
>enactment group.  Since that likelihood is very close to nil, I would
>consider that a moot point.

I'm glad to hear that.

>You (and others) have depicted a stark dichotomy which assumes that
>romanticism and historical re-creation are incompatible (or fun and
>historical
>re-creation, or good music, or good beer, etc.), and assumes that all
>mediaeval re-creation must be conducted at events sponsored by branches
>of the SCA Inc.

I've done nothing of the kind, and I'm astonished that I've expressed
myself so badly that you could possibly read that into my text. I've
mentioned an impression that I had, that a group of people inside the
SCA wanted to change it away from the way it was at first, and
expressed the opinion that that was sad (Because I liked the original
way better).

>I believe that these are false assumptions, and that
>the dichotomy is a false one.

I believe that you've misunderstood my meaning grossly.

>In fact, romanticism, fun, amusing songs, and good drink, are not in-
>compatible with historical accuracy.  Re-enactments and re-creations can
>be conducted outside the SCA, thus not depriving the elf-ear aficionado
>of a venue for self-expression.  They can be conducted within the SCA
>under certain conditions, as self-contained allocations of time and
>space.

That sounds fine. What are we arguing about?

>There is no call for strictures on re-enactors.  They are not a threat to
>the SCA.

And my impression that some re-enactors calls for strictures on "the other
types" is wrong? That's good, but you should be aware that one can get
that impression from reading what's posted here.



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
------------
"I know there are some people in the world who do not tolerate their
fellow human beings, and I just can't _stand_ people like that!"
                                (after Tom Lehrer)