From: "DAVOUD MAHA"@smtpgate.ccmail.COM
Subject: cc: Mail SMTPUUCP 2.0 Undeliverable Message
Organization: The Internet
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:57:20 GMT

User mfaul is not defined
           Original text follows 
-----------------------------------------
Received: by ccmail
From sca-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Received: from mc.lcs.mit.edu by blinky.ccmail.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA02683; Tue, 8 Sep 92 00:58:23 PDT
Received: by mc.lcs.mit.edu id ae02235; 8 Sep 92 3:56 EDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by mc.lcs.mit.edu id aa02079; 8 Sep 92 3:02 EDT
X-Digestifier-Version: 2.5 
Message-Id: <dig-SCA-5.608@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 92 21:47:01 EDT
From: Automatic SCA Digestifier <@mc.lcs.mit.edu:sca-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Reply-To: SCA@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SCA Digest V5 #608
To: SCA@mc.lcs.mit.edu


SCA Digest                  Mon,  7 Sep 92       Volume 5 : Issue 608 

Today's Topics:
              cc:Mail SMTPUUCP 2.0 Undeliverable Message
                          History vs. dreams
                      Prince of Thieves wrongos
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 16:28:51 pst
From: "DAVOUD MAHA"@smtpgate.ccmail.com
Message-Id: <9208077159.AA71590@smtpgate.ccmail.com>
To: SCA@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: cc:Mail SMTPUUCP 2.0 Undeliverable Message

User mfaul is not defined
           Original text follows 
 ----------------------------------------
Received: by ccmail
From sca-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Received: from mc.lcs.mit.edu by blinky.ccmail.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
        id AA01385; Mon, 7 Sep 92 16:28:58 PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by mc.lcs.mit.edu id aa02819; 7 Sep 92 19:05 EDT
X-Digestifier-Version: 2.5 
Message-Id: <dig-SCA-5.604@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 92 16:48:48 EDT
From: Automatic SCA Digestifier <@mc.lcs.mit.edu:sca-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Reply-To: SCA@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SCA Digest V5 #604
To: SCA@mc.lcs.mit.edu


SCA Digest                  Mon,  7 Sep 92       Volume 5 : Issue 604 

Today's Topics:
               History vs. dreams (Was: consort gender)
                    Great diesel beasts at Pennsic
                          History vs. dreams
                        Town Battle at the War
                            SCA 2500 C.E.
         Using period words to refer to mundanities (2 msgs)
        safety for marshals (was: Re: Town Battle at the War)
                      Prince of Thieves Wrongos
                          History vs. dreams
                         Avoiding OOP phrases
                          History vs. dreams
                             Email to me
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 92 19:52:01 GMT
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
Subject: History vs. dreams (Was: consort gender)
Message-Id: <1992Sep6.195201.8461@odin.diku.dk>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

greg@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)) writes:

>These remarks identify the problem quite well.  We have a choice.  We can
>use one of two decision-rules in admitting or excluding practices from
>our recreation:
>       1.  Historical documentation of medieval practice;
>       2.  The modern preferences, prejudices, and ideologies of modern
>               people.

>The first has, at least, the virtue of some degree of objectivity.  The
>latter is entirely arbitrary, if enforced, or no decision rule at all.

>By and large we tend to accept the second decision rule by default.  That is
>why the SCA by and large has as much to do with the Middle Ages as quantum
>mechanics.  Other people have every right to live their fantasies as they
>choose.  I'm a little tired of having their fantasies imposed on my
>historical recreation and even more tired of being told that their
>fantasies have anything whatsoever to do with medieval history, as the
>grotesque formula, "the current middle ages," implies.

>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.

I hope that no-one will take it amiss that someone who is not a member
of the Society shoves his oar in for a moment. I read about the SCA more
than 15 years ago in a couple of old issues of "Amra", and I was
fascinated. (I even tried to organize something similar here in Denmark,
but alas the scheme died after the third tournament). 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.



      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)

 -----------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 92 14:05:18 EDT
From: hammond@lrc.edu
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC
Subject: Great diesel beasts at Pennsic
Message-Id: <1992Sep2.140519.284@lrc.edu>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

In article <1992Aug31.203734.21956@access.digex.com>, corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.123211.16136@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> carl@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Alexander of Kiev (mka Carl Alexander)) writes:
>>John McGuire (John T Dillon) writes:
>>>
>>>  The great diesel beasts at Pennsic were an annoyance, bleating their 
>>>challenge out in both daylight and darkness.  However blame not all of 
>>>them as being unfriendly and malicious.  Most of them were blaring not to
>>>awaken campers, but to express displeasure and alarm at the throng of smaller
>>>dragons perched on the roadside, or in the road, peering into the camp.
>>>
>>I suspect the State of Pennsylvania would be happy to permit us to 
>>engage in a roadside beautification project:  We could acquire a 
>>bunch of saplings, of one of those fast-growing tree varieties that 
>>various lumber companies have developed, and plant them in a fairly 
>>close-packed row along the fence, as far up the embankment as the 
>>State would permit.  If we did the planting during the war, there'd 
>>be plenty of volunteer labour.  (We'd want to have the holes dug 
>>beforehand, of course -- doing that by hand would be a little too 
>>period for most people's taste -- but I suspect the Coopers own 
>>a backhoe; if not, it wouldn't be that expensive to rent one for 
>>a day or two.  Dropping the trees off a truck, setting them in 
>>the holes, and filling in the holes wouldn't be a big deal for a 
>>bunch of healthy young fighters.)  If we started off with 15-foot 
>>saplings, it would do some good immediately, and probably make 
>>the campground completely invisible from the highway by PW XXX.
>>I for one would be willing to contribute both time and money to 
>>such an effort; I suspect the Coopers would as well.  (For those 
>>who object that we may not be at Coopers' Lake that much longer:
>>I disagree, for a variety of reasons there's no point in going 
>>into here.  But you're entitled to your opinion:  if you think 
>>it would be a wasted effort, then don't contribute to the effort.)
>> 
>>I'm serious about this, and would like to know what other people 
>>think.  (Can you tell I was camped on the Serengetti, too close 
>>to I-79?)

Seems like a great idea to me. I also was on the serengetti and had
wondered at the continued noise from the adjacent through way.
I don't know what my situation will be for nexe pennsic, but if I 
am available I believe I can contribute some time to such a worthy project.

                                Michael of Hammond
                                from the soon to be (we hope)
                                incipient Barony of Winding Waters,
                                Kingdom of Atlantia

                                

 -----------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 92 23:17:50 GMT
From: Terry Nutter <jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu>
Organization: The Rialto
Subject: History vs. dreams
Message-Id: <3416@creatures.cs.vt.edu>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

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

 -----------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 92 00:20:58 GMT
From: Beth Appleton <Beth.Appleton@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org>
Subject: Town Battle at the War
Message-Id: <715836061.F00001@ocitor.fidonet>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

 VJV> I would rather see some arrangement where the 
 VJV> marshals can keep an eye
 VJV> on the fighting without risking injury as in the Bridge Battle. Any
How about constructing towers, like unto the towers that lifeguards 
 use?  What with structures already being part of the battle, one 
 more should not create a problem.  There will be a bit of trouble  
 in constructing something sturdy enough, and yet portable and 
 take-downable, but it's a suggestion.
    The State Fair of Texas uses these towers, in conjunction with  
 foot patrols, to maintain peace.
     Gwenllian Cwmystwyth fM
         Steppes, Ansteorra

 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)

 -----------------------------

Date: Mon,  7 Sep 1992 08:27:38 -0400
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Subject: SCA 2500 C.E.
Message-Id: <ceeoeua00WB8QKFm0J@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

Greetings good gentles --

I turned on the tube last night to relax after a joyous but tiring
day at the hospital with Eromene and our new daughter Elizabeth.
(Yes, I know that *tired* will take on a whole new meaning with
the arrival of our first child, but...).  Anyway, while watching
the sports section of the evening TV news I had a vision of the
SCA (or its spiritual descendent) 500 years hence.

  "See the spendid tournaments of armored opponents...
   Hear the cheering of the crowds,
   Note the heraldric symbols on their helms,
   Celebrate the pagentry between bouts of ritual combat,
   The score at halftime is San Francisco 17, New York 7..."

Yes, football.

I wonder -- how far does the analogy of 

         Modern-football <==> Medieval-tourneys

hold?  In both cases you have an elite group of highly skilled
people "competing" and the rest of the population fascinated by
their competition.  Still, I'm thinking more about "mind set."
Did people in the age of tournaments _think_ about them in ways
that match up well with the way our modern society thinks of
professional football?  Would the folks who _didn't_ want to
put on shoulder pads and heavy helmets, 500 years from now,
want to play _baseball_ or _soccer_ instead, like the SCA's fencers?

Well, I'm obviously _still_ tired folks -- but perhaps you can all
have some fun ringing changes on the notion.

My best to you all -- Bertram-the-smiling-new-daddy

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
+------------------------ PREME * Press On * PREME ---------------------+
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..." 
   

 -----------------------------

Message-Id: <m0mRkNw-0000s1C@sue.komunity.se>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 16:48 MET DST
From: Christer Romson <christer@sue.komunity.se>
To: smylex!jlee@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Cc: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Using period words to refer to mundanities

Lothar:
> I like to use words that ignore or conceal an item's modern origins,
> rather than coming up with a cutesy term that points out the fact that it
> is strange and that I am trying to hide the fact. (Ex. wagon instead of
> dragon for car, garderobe instead of portacastle).

Godfrey:
> Anyone have any other examples of this type of thing

Gate guard for troll. <Whatever a person who arranged feast for his master
was called in English in period> for autocrat. News letter editor for
chronicler. Chronicler for someone who writes chronicles rather than
historian. Children for smalls. Telephone for far speaker (telephone isn't
more period, but if i have to mention them it won't point the fact out as
much as far speaker does). Music for bard in the box. 
 ----------------------------  
  |\  | |   /|   | |\  \ | /   
  | \ | |  * |  /| | >  \|/    SCA: Lindorm Eriksson, Nordmark, Drachenw., East
  |   | |\   | / | |/    |     Mundane: Christer Romson, Stockholm, Sweden.
  |   | | \  |  /| |\    |     Email: christer@Sue.KOMunity.Se
  |   | |    | / | | \   |   
  |   | |    |   | |  \  |   
 ----------------------------

 -----------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 92 15:39:13 GMT
From: Charles <cctimar@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu>
Organization: Vanderbilt University student of numerology
Subject: Using period words to refer to mundanities
Message-Id: <1992Sep7.153913.11260@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

To all upon the Rialto doth Charles the clerk send his greetings!

Lindorm Eriksson writeth:
> Gate guard for troll. <Whatever a person who arranged feast for his master
> was called in English in period> for autocrat.

"Nervous."  Also, head cook for feastocrat.

> historian. Children for smalls. Telephone for far speaker

For those who find "children" too boring, "childer" was another
legitimate plural.

As Lindorm mentions, it is better to describe the action without
mentioning the mode.  That is, it is better to say, "I spoke to Anne
this afternoon," than to say, "I telephoned Anne this afternoon."
Similarly, "I came here with John," is better than, "I came in John's
wagon," although that is still better than, "I came in John's dragon."
-- 
    -- Charles, student, in Glaedenfeld, Meridies

 -----------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 92 17:27:38 GMT
From: Alex Hart <Alex_Hart@mindlink.bc.ca>
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Subject: safety for marshals (was: Re: Town Battle at the War)
Message-Id: <14916@mindlink.bc.ca>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

I personally have been marshalling tournies and wars for about 6 years now in
An Tir,and although I have been in the thick of things,the only problem(if you
can call it that) I have had is the occasion arrow hitting me instead of the
fighter it was aimed at. There have been no instances that I am aware of of any
marshall being mistaken for anything but what he\she is.Some of us wear
baldrics and some tabards,and the very junior marshal on the sides may not wear
anything,but be carrying a staff of some sort.The recognition surely must come
from the fact that marshalls are not armoured ? The staff also protects you
when coming up behind a fighter,but I always inform a fighter that I am a
marshall in such cases.
All of which is I suppose a long winded way of saying " why fix what ain't
broken ?"

Alastair The Eastern Traveller
Lions Gate,An Tir

 -----------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:50:09 +0200
Message-Id: <199209071750.AA07512@meryl.csd.uu.se>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Prince of Thieves Wrongos
From: "]ke Eldberg" <vader@meryl.csd.uu.se>

Greetings from William de Corbie!

Costner "Robin Hood" errors:

Not only did "Prince of Thieves" have a bad cast -- the story
is also full of errors.

A text at the beginning says that King Richard went to the
Holy Land to fight the Turks. But the Turks did not take
Palestine until 1577. In Richard's days, the crusader's enemies
were Arabs; Saladin was an Egyptian of Kurdish descent.

When the prisoners are having their hands cut off at the
opening of the film, the headsman puts the prisoner's arm
on a *steel* anvil. If this was real, he would quickly
ruin the edge on his ridiculously oversized scimitar.
In reality, a wooden block was used. And probably an axe.

When Robin & co. escape, they climb out of a modern manhole
in the street. It is possible that the Arabs had good sewage
even in those days, but a manhole with a metal lid, in the
middle of a street? No way.

Robin's father writes a letter asking news of his son; the
hand is clearly a 19th century chancery-style script, very
different from the bastarda or minuscules a real 12th century
writer would have used.

When Robin's father rides out, he is overwhelmed by some
20 men on foot. A mounted knight could easily have broken
through such a skirmish line, killig a couple, and escape.

When Robin and Azeem land on the English shore, Robin says:
"By nightfall we shall feast in my father's castle". I wonder how
he was planning to get from the south coast to the vicinity of
Nottingham in just one day, on foot. The distance is at least
200 miles.

Irish Wolfhounds are used to hunt the boy poacher; it seems an
unlikely choice for such a task. I am not even sure that the race
existed in England at that time. 

If you have spotted any other stupid wrongos, do tell.

William

 -----------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 92 17:51:13 GMT
From: thomas wrentmore barnes <tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Subject: History vs. dreams
Message-Id: <Bu7yxD.1oK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

>
>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.)  
>
If you are in a really medieval setting and someone came up to you and
insisted loudly on being recognized as an elf you have several options:

a) assume that the person is a mummer or player of some sort. In this
case you can ask him "Are you in a play?" or ask him some other sort of
question which allows you to establish that he is not really an elf, but
rather a player or jester.

b) assume he is crazy. In this case you cross yourself, (or whatever),
utter a prayer and leave post-haste, before the madman hurts you. If
he's a real elf, the prayer might repel him. If you are feeling
confrontational you could call for the watch or your retainers to deal
with the madman. Or you could raise the hue and cry. 

c) assume he's possessed. In this case cross yourself, utter a prayer
and leave post-haste, crying all the while for a priest and raising the
hue and cry. Or, if you are feeling confrontational you could kill him
or attempt to exorcize the demon that's possessing him.

d) assume that he's a real faerie. Depending on when and where your
persona lived and how much education they had, appropriate reactions
could range from worship, to healthy fear, to cold iron and a prayer
against minions of Satan.

e) assume that a crazed beggar with deformed ears. Appropriate reactions
range from knocking him out of the way with the flat of your sword for
his presumption to giving him alms and a prayer for his eventual release
from his deformity and madness.

f) assume he is a warlock of some sort. Cross yourself, utter a prayer,
raise the hue and cry and watch the ensuing canon trial and public
execution. Lots o' fun.

There's a personality challenged git in my part of the world who
inflicts himself on events in a full D&D style wizards robe, complete
with gold lame stars, moons and comets and the pointy hat. If he does it
much more, I'm going to make a Dominican inquisitor costume and bone up
on canon law, heh, heh, heh. ;-} Of course, that would violate corpora
wouldn't it. Or, I could call him out as a charlatan and ask him to cast
a spell or cast a correct horoscope.

   My point is that a real medieval person faced with the same event
that a modern person in medieval clothes who is trying to act medievally
faces is (was?) going to act differently than the modern trying to act
medieval. Or to put it bluntly "Authenticity nitpicking isn't period".

Have fun,

   Lothar \|/
           o

kj
>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

 -----------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 92 18:31:03 GMT
From: thomas wrentmore barnes <tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Subject: Avoiding OOP phrases
Message-Id: <Bu80rr.3E5@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

 Greetings All,

  This was meant to be a follow up post, but my newsreader got away from
me...

   Lothar's Rules for Avoiding Garishly OOP phrases.

1) LOOK UP A PERIOD SUBSTITUTE - The OED lists the first usage of a word
in English in the correct context.  jakes, garderobe, neccessitatas are
all period names/euphemisms for latrine. Toilet, WC and portacastle
aren't. Why use an OOP period phrase instead of an equally good period
phrase?

2) DEEMPHASIZE THE MODERN ASPECTS OF THE OBJECT - "Station Wagon" sounds
modern, "Wagon" sounds medieval, or even better "Wain". "Computer"
sounds modern, "Demon in a Box", "Scribe in a Box", "Golem" and a
million other euphemisms sound contrived, cutesy and have the effect of
being very modern sounding because they emphasize the "weirdness" of the
object in medieval society. Personally Lothar wouldn't touch anything
advertized as a "Demon in a Box" or a "Golem". Try "scribe", "machine",
"engine", or "servant". A computer is all of these things. Noone ever
said a servant had to be human.

3) IGNORE OR CHANGE ASPECTS OF A CONVERSATION THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE
OR FANTASTIC USING MEDIEVAL TECHNOLOGY. - Don't say "I took I-70 to the
airport, caught the 9:45 flight to Los Angeles International Airport,
rented a car and drove to the hotel" or "I'll sent you e-mail on
git-net" when you can say "I travelled X hours to reach my hostel" or
"I'll send you a message". Mundane specifics can be discussed at the
post-revel or in the parking lot. Of course you must be careful to get
you time scale right. If you say "I travelled 12 hours to get to Cathay"
you are describing a medieval fantasy. If you say "I travelled many
leagues/miles to Cathay" or "I travelled a long time to reach Cathay" a
medieval person might still think that you're a liar, but at least they
won't dismiss you as a blantant liar.
    This technique can be used to discuss mundane events at SCA events
while still maintaining a medieval facade. Even if both you and your
friend know that your "scribe" is actually a batch of silicon chips,
your "barber" actually has an MD and has performed "chiurgery" that
actually consisted of reducing an open fracture and pinning the bones
back together, and your "pilgrimage" actually took you to lands
undreamed of by medieval people, you can still talk in a way that a
medieval person might understand.

I offer the following glossary

autocrat - prob. o.k. as stands, but how about "host", or "steward". The
obvious choice of "Seneschal" is already taken.

feast-o-crat - "head cook", "butler", "cook"

dragon - "wagon", "wain", "cart", "chariot", "car"

computer - "scribe", "engine", "machine", "servant"

sewing machine - "seamstress"

washing machine - "laundress"

toilet - "jakes", "neccessitas", "garderobe"

telephone - "I will speak to you at your home", "Talk to me at home", "I
will speak with you later", I will call (you implied)". There doesn't
seem to be a good one word euphemism for this one.

printer - "press", "scriptorium"

glasses - "a pair of glasses", "spectacles", "lenses"

I'll bet that if the collected minds of the Rialto work on this we can
banish some of the more garish neologisms and verbal anachronisms from
the society.

Good Luck,

  Lothar \|/
          0

 -----------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 92 19:23:49 GMT
From: Terry Nutter <jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu>
Organization: The Rialto
Subject: History vs. dreams
Message-Id: <3422@creatures.cs.vt.edu>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

Greetings, all, from Angharad ver' Rhuawn.  Lothar writes,

>If you are in a really medieval setting and someone came up to you and
>insisted loudly on being recognized as an elf you have several options:
>
>a) assume that the person is a mummer or player of some sort.
> ...
>b) assume he is crazy. 
> ...
>c) assume he's possessed. 
> ...
>d) assume that he's a real faerie.
> ...
>e) assume that a crazed beggar with deformed ears. 
> ...
>f) assume he is a warlock of some sort.

In the actual incident I referred to, the person in the funny ears 
announced "I'm an elf," and proceeded, when faced with "I beg your 
pardon?" to say "Didn't you notice the ears?"  The gentle faced with 
this responded, "Yes, but I thought it unseemly to comment on an 
obstetrical accident."  One can play these games; just as one can 
pretend one does not know what a farspeaker is, or to what people 
are referring when they claim to travel in the bellies of dragons.  

But while you do it, you're thinking, "Can you please go play D&D 
somewhere else so that I can try to get back into a medieval mindset?" 
If you are very, very, _very_ good at this, you may fool those around 
you; you may even on rare occasion fool yourself; but you cannot do
it consistently.  

Authenticity nit-picking is not period; and the best way to deal with 
radical intrusions, in my opinion, is to ignore them as best one can 
and move on.  But this is a very poor best.

The people who want to be elves ask that they be given a space to do 
it in.  Fair enough.  How about also a space for those who don't want 
that?  What I am suggesting, really, is a move from passive courtesy 
("I won't say you can't play your game, if you won't say I can't
play mine") to active courtesy ("I will move over sometimes to make 
space for you to play your game in, if you will do the same for me").  
It seems to me that this is at least equally tolerant, and far more 
equitable, since those games that are relatively fragile are not 
guaranteed always to lose.

I'm not proposing a new set of laws, or enforcement; really, what 
I'd like to see is a more genuinely tolerant _mindset_, that does 
not assume, on any side, that any other is out to get it, or that 
it has rights over any other, except in its own time and place.

Unless we can get something like this, I think we will continue to 
lose many of the people who many of us would most like to keep.

Cheers,

-- Angharad/Terry

 -----------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 92 16:29:43 GMT
From: "Hilda(Bambi" <visenix!bambi@bloom-beacon.mit.edu>
Organization: /etc/organization
Subject: Email to me
Message-Id: <Bu60HK.DE3@visenix.uucp>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

 my lords and ladies
joyful ,and exauhsting news..my lord husband has found
gainful employment in An Tir.this will first of all change
my e mail address. in future, for the next few months
all mail addressed to me must come to me trhough fido net
(hi there yoseph!!!)
the address starting as soon as i hang up from here will be
Genie@p0.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org
this account will cease to be valid on the 10th of september 
1992.
now i would like to know if any of you out there are in the
portland area and what the sca info is for that area. also 
please if any of you are families with young school age children
i would love to open a dialogue with you as i have no one
there to help advise me about schools and neighborhoods.i am
homeschooling my little girl THIS year but that is to help the
darling get her barings...she is VERY bright but we have never
moved in her lifetime and she is REALLy freaking out.I am moving
us by myself so it will take me a while to follow my husband,
hence the long lag time.
please help me...im a little freaked out me self with the sudden-
ness of it all an a little adviice and information would sure do
a lot to make me feel more confident.
thank you for your patience.
beatriz del moro
hilda eugenia smith-beattie(bambi)
11525 hickory cluster
reston va
22090
new address
Genie@p).f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org
(oops thats right i got an owie..its Do~na Beatriz now aint it?)

 -----------------------------

End of SCA Digest
******************************

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 92 23:14:59 GMT
From: Charles <cctimar@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu>
Organization: Vanderbilt University student of numerology
Subject: History vs. dreams
Message-Id: <1992Sep7.231459.16441@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu

To all upon the Rialto doth Charles the clerk send his greetings!

Angharad ver' Rhuawn writeth of those that play at being elves.

Last month, some one did write of a suitable reply.  This does require
stepping out of persona, but,

"Hello.  This is a convention of the Society for Creative Anachronism.
We try to re-create medieval and Renaissance life.  You are welcome to
join us; the only requirement is that you should dress as a medieval or
renaissance person.  If you are having trouble with this, there are a
number of merchants near the barn who would be able to find clothing in
your size."

I agree with Angharad, however, that this should not be necessary.

Several people have pointed out that we don't re-create persecution,
and other aspects of the middle ages.  I realize this is not a hard and
fast rule, but I think that, from the perspective of authenticity,
errors of omission are less serious than errors of commission.  Doing
things that were not done, such as being an elf, or racing through the
streets on a motorcycle with a buffalo head, are much more irritating
than not doing things that were done.

Alternatively, everything we do should either be what they did in
period, or things that are done in the modern world (like washing our
hands).  Things we are used to, in one of the two worlds we inhabit, do
not call as much attention to themselves as things that fit into
neither.

This allows for the reasonable approach of starting with modern world
behaviours and replacing them gradually with medieval ones, without
ever taking up absurd ones.  (This approach, unfortunately, must be 
modified slightly to account for the absurd behaviours that the SCA
itself occasionally forces upon us.)
-- 
    -- Charles, student, in Glaedenfeld, Meridies

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:25:15 +0200
Message-Id: <199209080025.AA12996@meryl.csd.uu.se>
To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Prince of Thieves wrongos
From: "]ke Eldberg" <vader@meryl.csd.uu.se>

Greetings from William de Corbie!

Apropos my Prince of Thieves errors, Aryk Nusbacher writes>
 
>What's the point?  It's fiction!
 
>One of the joys of writing or producing fiction is that you can have
>manhole covers when you want them, and executioners can use anvils,
>and you can call the Seljuk Turks "Turks". If you're going to go after
>that sort of thing, you can knock Bill Shakespeare for having clocks
>striking in ancient Athens.

I disagree. "Prince of Thieves" is fiction, not fantasy. When fiction
is set in a known place at a known time in history, we have a right to
expect the producers to make it historically consistent. 

The fiction is in the story, not the environment thereof. Of course
nobody expects an adventure movie to be 100% archeologically correct.
But if historic consistency is irrelevant, then Robin could have
ridden a motorbike! Mistakes which are obviously due to indifference
or sloppy research are not acceptable, especially when it would have
been so EASY to do it right.

The truth is, I just thought it was a bad film, and I derive perverse
pleasure from finding faults in it. That is the point... As to Brian
Blessed and Sean Connery (each appearing for about 1 minute), they
hardly outweigh Kevin Costner and several other badly cast characters.
(Bletch!)
 
 >>When Robin's father rides out, he is overwhelmed by some
 >>20 men on foot. A mounted knight could easily have broken
 >>through such a skirmish line, killig a couple, and escape.
 
>Thus providing a quick ending to the story, and saving us from hearing
>the Sherriff of Nottingham explain to Guy of Gisborn why he wanted to cut
>Robin Hood's heart out with a spoon. Bad trade.

Well, it would have been so much BETTER and not much harder to do,
to make the attackers a truly superior force. As it is, the knight
just rides up to them and stops. Looks ridiculous.
 
William

------------------------------

End of SCA Digest
******************************