From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: History vs. dreams
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:17:50 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: The Rialto

Greetings, all, from Anghard ver' Rhuawn.

Recently, in response to a posting of Hossein's, Hans Rancke wrote:

>>We hear a great deal of lip-service paid to tolerance of people's "dreams,"
>>because any other course would drive people out of the Society.  The net
>>effect of the current decision rule is to drive out the medievalists.
>
>      {stuff deleted}                                 But the Society
>described in those old Amras were unquestionably the "current middle
>ages" and not the "historical reenactment". 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.
>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 find this disturbing for a couple of reasons.  First, I dislike the use of
the term "dream" in the SCA, because it is ambiguous.  It can either mean
a fantasy with no roots in reality or an aspiration with roots in principles.
If you distinguish between those who want "historical reenactment" and
"dreamers", you imply thereby that nobody who would like to see more historical
basis in what we do has dreams in the second sense.  I think that is false,
and also intolerant and pernicious.  A less misleading (and less biased)
distinction is between those who want a stronger weight on fantasy in our
activities and those who want a stronger bias toward history.

This leads to the second problem I have with this observation.  I have seen
no trend, at any event or on the Rialto, for fantasy-based people or themes 
to be excluded.  The strongest trends "against" these things I have seen are
movements like the Enchanted Ground, which try only to hold a small corner
of an event, and movements that oppose confusing historical fantasy with 
historical reality.  (The anti-filk feeling is probably the closest thing
to this that we see; yet my impression is that the overwhelming majority of
SCAdians have no problem at all with songs that are blatantly modern in 
musical and poetic form and in sentiment, just so they don't violate some
sense of old-time-romance.)

I have, however, seen a tendency by people whose preferences are fantasy
based both to suspect that the historical-reality-based people want to drive
them off, and to retaliate very strongly.  The problem I see with this is
that if they every become serious about this, they will inevitably win, and
at that point, I suspect that the SCA will stop being a place that is
interesting to me.

The reason I believe the fanatasy element will win has to do with our rules
of engagement.  The basic rule of engagement is "So long as I don't go up
to you and try to make you stop doing your thing, I get to do my thing."
This sounds fair, equitable, and tolerant, but it has built-in biases.

There are many pairs of activities that have the property that activity A
can take place successfully in places where people are trying to do B, but
B cannot take place successfully in places where people are trying to do
A.  For instance: for A, take any very loud indoor game, and for B, take 
teaching.  The people playing A can probably ignore the class; but the class
can't work while A is going on, because the teacher can't be heard.

For another instance: sleeping and loud reveling.  The many, many people
wandering Pennsic and baying loudly at the moon at 3 and 4 AM probably did
not think of themselves as deliberately stepping on what other people were
trying to do; but the fact remained that there were nights when a relatively
light sleeper was simply screwed.

The fantasy-based people can cheerfully ignore the history-based ones.  Even
if the history-based people come up and say "but they didn't do that," you
can blow it off with ease _inside your context_.  But any attempt at feeling 
like you are in a really medieval setting is totally and utterly destroyed by 
one person wearing funny ears walking up to you, even if s/he doesn't call 
attention to them, and insisting loudly on being recognized as an elf, but
especially if/when s/he does.  (I didn't make this example up; it happened.)  

Cariadoc can put a yellow cord around his encampment, and ask people to 
behave a certain way when they come to visit, but he can do nothing about 
the folks less than 50 feet away who sing "Kill the Wabbit" at the top of 
their (drunken) voices through his bardic circles (actual example from 
Pennsic XX).

It may just be who I know.  I don't personally know anyone who has left the
SCA because the authenticity level was too high.  I have known people (and,
sadly, keep collecting cases of others) who have been driven out because they
were interested in the middle ages, and didn't want the Tolkein Society of
America without Tolkein, or live-action D&D.  

Yes, the dreamers were here first.  And perhaps they will be here last, and
alone; but I think the SCA would be a worse place for it.  I like historical-
reality-based events, because I find the real history richer, more interesting, 
and more worth my time and respect than most of the fantasies.  Also, it gives
a common basis, at least to some extent.  One person's fantasy is another's
hallucination; in any case, personal fantasies aren't shared, and unless they
are, it is impossible to maintain a level of consistency that lets one feel
as if one were anywhere (never mind where) other than 20th C home.  I know what 
medievals would do with modern technology and valus: I live with that every 
day.  What do we think the real world _is_?  What could be more mundane than 
recreating _only_ that, in funny costumes?

No, I don't want to shut other people out.  But I would like to see our rules
of engagement move more toward a "noisy hours/quiet hours" model, in which
times and places are set apart for each, and each, within its designated time
and place, has full rights of setting its own rules.  Anyone who wants to
play only historic-reality-based games can come for those hours; people who
want to play fantasy-based games can come for those hours; and I would hope
that we can all share a lot of that time.

It seems to me that something like that would be a more genuinely tolerant
model than we have now.

In Service to the Society,

-- Angharad/Terry
From: Beth.Appleton@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Beth Appleton)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet