From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Basic Courtesy
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:14:36 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: SCA

Greetings, good gentles; Angharad here.  Bertram has raised 
the question of courtesy in regard to Lord Stephen's posting 
about filks.  Once again, I fear I find myself asking, 
"courtesy in whose sense?"

First, a little background on where I'm coming from.  Filking 
completely modern words and sentiments to tunes with ineradicable 
modern associations and then bringing those songs into our 
medieval recreations bruises everyone who is trying to achieve 
a medieval-like experience, whether analogous or by "direct 
immersion".  Even those with complete tin ears will recognize 
some modern melodies, and have unfailingly modern reactions to 
them, like it or not.  Those like me who have played some with 
period music and developed more sensitive ears in the process 
are bruised even more.

Stephen could have said this, and I think it might have been 
useful had he done so.  Certainly, it would have left many 
people happier; and if either route was to have an impact, 
that might have had more of one.  Sadly, though, I doubt it 
would: I don't think that these things happen because people 
don't know things like this.  They happen because people want 
their modern anchors to help them relax.  They consider that 
the bruises they give others by destroying the medieval nature
of the experience are negligible, and those they receive if 
criticized are not, and see courtesy only on the side that 
forbids authenticity <pick-your-favorite-nasty-name> types 
from raining on their parade.

I think Stephen's _strategy_ might have been better selected; 
I don't think the issue is courtesy -- except insofar as the 
lack of courtesy by destroying attempts at recreations balances 
against a putative lack of courtesy in using irony to point that 
out.  In that regard, if honors are not even, I'm not sure it's
Stephen who is on the wrong side.

Let us accept Bertram's dictionary for the moment (though I think 
that is a poor place to go to determine something as important as 
what constitutes courtesy). Under "courteous" his dictionary says 
(among other things),

>    2   : marked by respect for and consideration of others

Bertram then continues by saying of Stephen's posting that 

>                 it more clearly breaks the second definition
>of 'courtesy' since it is disrespectful and inconsiderate of
>the person who posted the original song.

There are two problems: first, what constitutes respect and 
consideration, and second, whether "others" means "all others
always", and if so, whether it's _possible_ to be polite.

Presenting the explanation above assumes that the writer
either doesn't know that some of us are trying for a medieval-
like experience, or doesn't know that blatantly modern filks
disrupt that.  I'm not sure that making such assumptions shows
much respect.  If it were me presenting the filk, I'd certainly
rather have people assume that for some reason, I'm knowingly
breaking the mood than have them assume I don't know what I'm
doing.  This point loses some force because of the difference
between performing it at an event and presenting it on the 
Rialto: but few things are written with the intention of never
being performed, and filk performances tend to go everywhere
others do.

As to being considerate: that seems _to me_ to mean taking into
account the effect of what you say or do, and that effects on
people matter.  But it is possible to consider, to recognize 
bruising effect, to recognize that people matter, _and to go ahead 
anyhow on principled grounds_.  Under _my_ definition, that's not  
inconsiderate.  To show inconsiderateness, you would have to show
that there was no principled reason that outweighed the projected
effect.  This seems not to be true under Bertram's view of 
considerateness, or that of many others.

Further, what if it isn't possible to do things that will bruise 
no one (including letting no one be bruised because of your inaction)?  
The question then may have to become, do nothing, or choose whom to 
bruise or let to be bruised.

Our concept of courtesy is _not_ respect for and consideration of 
others: else blatantly modern filking at events would long since have 
been branded rude, on the grounds cited above.  

Our concept of courtesy is _not_ respect for and consideration of 
the different ways of others: else we would be more willing to respect, 
have consideration for, and adapt to those whose cultures balance 
directness against avoiding embarrassment differently from the main 
one many of us live in.  

Despite our frequent assertions of toleration, neither the SCA as a 
whole nor the Rialto has shown itself particularly good at either of 
these.  There is a particular range of behaviors we tolerate very well 
-- but just as large a range of reasonable, principled behaviors that 
we tolerate poorly to not at all.  Either this is a moral issue -- 
and we are in the wrong -- or it is (as I believe) a brute socialogical 
fact, and hence a bad podium from which to preach.

Our primary modern sense of courteous behavior seems to be avoiding
embarrassing people.  I find much more to say for this than my lord
would: perhaps because I identify more readily with the sting of
embarrassment, but more likely because I know just how hard it can
be to interact sensibly with someone who is outraged and defensive
because embarrassed.  But what I find to say for it has all to do
with strategy, and virtually nothing to do with courtesy.

A while back I tried to start a discussion on different senses of
courtesy: the absence of discussion on the point, and the consensus 
of what discussion there was, indicated an overwhelming preference 
for what I called then the romantic view of courtesy.  If this is 
correct, then what Bertram is really asking is whether there is any 
place on the Rialto for people with a medieval as opposed to a romantic 
view.  I find it disheartening to hear the SCA questioning whether 
there is any place in any part of it for a principled medieval attitude.

Yours in service,

Angharad ver' Rhuawn / Terry Nutter