From: justin@inmet.camb.inmet.COM (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks)
Subject: Stereotypes; Legends; Bureaucracy; History; Dance
Organization: The Internet
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:08:43 GMT

Re: Stereotypes

There has been a small ruckus over stereotypes, specifically about gamers.
Sean pointed out that such stereotypes can be harmful; William pointed out
that they are grounded in fact; Boris asserted that they are not.

Everyone seems to be going to extremes here. Broadly speaking, I'd say
that William is correct: most stereotypes *are* grounded in *some* fact.
Some arise from sheer ignorance, but many more have a grain of truth. If
you don't recognize that, you wind up with egg on your face when you try
to convince people against them.

At the same time, it's important to recognize that most stereotypes aren't
grounded in *much* fact. There are usually a few people who fit the type
to a T; there are usually many more who miss it by a mile. I've met a few
stereotypical "gaming geeks", even a couple in the Society; most haven't
stuck around long. On the other hand, most of the gamers I know are among
the long-time movers and shakers of the Barony, and most of them don't
"look" like the stereotype at all. (If you add in Interactive Literature,
you get even more roleplayers, including myself.)

The point is, don't give the stereotype more credit than it deserves.
Just because there are people who fit it, don't believe that any large
proportion do. Every group has its stereotypes. Gamers tend to be
perceived as geeks. Fen tend to be seen as way-out wackos. SCAdians
are often seen as an inbred group, concerned only with politics.
(Really -- some of the assertions I heard in the earlier days of IL
were fascinating.) Masons tend to be seen as stodgy old men. As a member
of all of the above, I can pretty confidently say that the vast majority
of the participants in each don't fit the "type". There are just enough
who *do* to reinforce the convictions of the people who want to believe
in their own prejudices...


Re: SCA Urban Legends

Sam'l writes:
>        I grant that it is easy to post misinformation, but grant me then
>that the readership will _damn_ speedily correct that misinformation!

Sorry, but much as I love the Rialto, I *don't* grant this. The example
at hand (the idea that Jaelle's project would be running 20 volumes)
did *not* get corrected that I recall -- indeed, the rumor continued
to magnify.

It's important to remember that the Net adores and feeds on Urban Legend.
There are hundreds of people (myself included) who jump up and down and
scream every time that the "modem tax" legend, or the Craig Shergold
story, get posted -- but they still get repeated, infecting the Net
several times a year.

Ultimately, what gets remembered tends to be the more memorable report,
which is *not* necessarily the truer one. Corrections get missed, or
simply forgotten, and the rumor persists. After a little while, it crops
up again, and now it has the weight of repetition. It only takes three
assertions for a Vague Rumor to turn into Indisputable Fact, generally...

So it *is* important to keep clear where your information is coming from.
If you're posting a rumor, make it *damned* obvious that it is such. If
you are sure of your facts, give at least a little idea of why. Otherwise,
sorting the wheat and the chaff can be damned difficult...


Re: Bureaucracy

Badger laments the growth of stifling bureaucracy, remarking that:
>        I view the, seemingly, very rapid rise of the bureaucracy in the
>Society with more than a little horror.

I agree that the growing bureaucracy is a major danger to the Society;
however, it should be noted that it is *not* anything new. The bureaucracy
has been growing quite steadily for 20-some years, and the new burst is
not especially unusual, except in that it is affecting more conspicuous
stuff than most.

Most importantly, don't fall prey to the temptation to blame The
Bureaucracy as some faceless entity that is trying to make life
difficult -- this is the syndrome that leads people to simply blame
the Board for the Society's woes, without really understanding *why*
these actions are being taken. The considerable majority of rules are
made because someone -- as often as not, someone *not* involved in
the bureaucracy -- said, "Something Must Be Done". In most cases, the
easiest way to "deal" with a situation is to make a rule about it.
It's often not the most *effective* way to deal, but only rarely
does anyone offer any alternatives. Besides, any *one* rule is
rarely too intrusive -- it's the combined effect that makes life notably
less fun.

The moral? Be on the lookout for situations that may be taken as
reasons for new laws, and help come up with *good* solutions to
those problems. Otherwise, the law-making mentality will usually
win out...


Re: Ancient Baronies

In response to my definition of:
>> ... let's define an "ancient Barony" as one that was
>> around when a Barony was defined as somewhere not inside a Kingdom.

Arval asks:
>Was there such a definition?  I have been told that there was once a policy
>that the first branch in any state was automatically a barony; one of the
>early issues of TI lists a branch as "The Barony in Pennsylvania" (which
>seems ot have died without ever taking a real name).  I wasn't aware that
>there was ever a notion of "not inside a kingdom."

Well, this just begs me to pull something out from my Historical Corpora
file. One of these days, in my Copious Spare Time, I really should get
back to creating and serializing my annotated edition of this.

Anyway, from Corpora Volume Two (1972):

>(b) A (territorial) *Barony* is a branch sufficiently far from the guardian
>Kingdom capital that its members cannot easily attend Tournaments, 
>Revels, and other events held at the capital. Like a province, it
>has a full set of officers who are responsible to their counterparts
>in the Kingdom. A Barony holds its own Tournaments, at which the
>champion chooses a Queen of Love and Beauty, as well as Revels,
>classes, etc. Its members are defined as those who can easily attend
>events held near its capital (the residence of its Seneschal).

This is pretty interesting: it defines a Barony as essentially a
micro-Kingdom. Note also that the "capital" is defined in terms of
the Seneschal -- it really isn't clear that such a thing as a "Baron"
exists, even...

I'll grant that the wording still leaves the Barony within a Kingdom;
however, it makes it clear that it is considered relatively autonomous...

It's not clear how long this defintion really applied, but I believe
that at least some people took it seriously for a while. Carolingia
appears to have been a Barony by this definition in its early days.
(This was back when you had to live within 50 miles of NYC to become
King of the East. This was *also* in the days when Easterners considered
200 miles to be way out in the boonies...)

There was also another kind of Barony, that altered a bit into what
we now think of as a "Barony":

>(c) A (charter) *Barony* is a branch formed of voluntarily associated
>individuals within the territory of a Kingdom (although a member who
>moves to another Kingdom may retain his affiliation with the Charter
>Barony). A Charter Barony may be located in any part of a Kingdom, but
>must fulfill certain other requirements in order to be granted this
>status (see #2 (c)). This type of Barony is headed by a Baron or
>Baroness appointed as such by the King under his power to appoint
>"Court" Barons, and it has a full set of officers, who, like those
>of a province rank as subordinate to those of the Kingdom. It holds
>tournaments and other events and pursues a program of education and
>research, while participating fully in all the activities of the
>Kingdom as well.

As "Kingdoms" grew to occupy all the available land, this definition
became pre-eminent. Note, however, that this isn't exactly the same
as today's Baronies either. The members of a Charter Barony were
"voluntarily associated", which would seem to imply that Charter
Baronies didn't encompass land in quite the way that modern ones do.
And the Barons of Charter Baronies were equivalent to Court Barons,
which they certainly aren't in come Kingdoms today...


Re: Anachronistic Anachronists

The story of the trekkie being obnoxious at an event reminds me of a
question I've had for a while. I've heard a very little bit about a
thing called The Institute for Trans-Temporal Studies, apparently
founded by a bunch of SCAdian fen way, way back, to act as a sort
of persona-umbrella for people who did both fandom and the Society.
Anyone know anything about it? I gather it didn't last long, but I'm
compulsively curious about SCA history...


Re: Dance

(You knew I would get to this subject eventually, right?)

Vashti writes:
>... events would be far duller
>without dance and music, even  if it all is from the 1400s to 1750s.
>I include this late date to catch  Hole in the  Wall of course, the most
>popular dance that has the same form  through out the
>Society.

It's actually not quite *that* bad. Hole in the Wall is just barely 17th
century -- the first description we have is from 1698.


In another message (which I've only seen Vashti's reply to -- the Fido/
Internet gateway sometimes screws up the order of messages) Gwenllian
asks about Scottish reels, particularly Strip the Willow. Vashti replies
that she doesn't care for them much, because they don't "feel" right.

Given what I know about the subject, I'd be inclined to agree with
Vashti. Indeed, my usual definition of "post-period dance" is that
if it's a dance for a longways set, where people are dancing with
more than just their partners, it's too late. This is a slippery
definition, but it's grounded in the way that the styles were evolving.
Half of the dance from the first edition of Playford were for short
lines of couples, or sets of a different shape. These are fairly
recognizeable as having grown out of the stuff being done in Italy
at the turn of the century. The other half is "longways" dances, for
an unlimited number of couples, where the order of the set is changing
(the so-called "duple minors" and such). These appear to have been
fairly new in 1650, and were clearly the big new trend -- by the end
of the century, they take over completely from the older styles.

(I'll certainly admit that this is a rather subjective distinction,
and subject to some grey areas -- for instance, Trenchmore, which
is somewhat similar to Strip the Willow, and which *may* date back
to period in that form, breaks the rule. But it at least provides
*some* criteria for deciding what I teach.)

Now, Gwenllian mentions that there are references to reels in late
period. This is interesting; I haven't seen any such, but I can't
claim to be an authority on the subject. I'd like to know what kind
of references they are. If it's just that reel music was known in
period, then the argument is weak; music was re-used and re-used in
period, and just because a dance's music is period, doesn't mean
that the dance is. If, on the other hand, there are actually
references to a "reel" as a dance type, then it's certainly at least
worth some further research. Since I don't know of any references to
"reels" as meaning anything *other* than the modern form, it's possible
that they referred to something similar to the current dance. (However,
we should be careful with assumptions -- "reel" in period wouldn't
necessarily mean the same thing it does today.)

So without any hard facts, I'm still inclined against reels. That's
open to change from more information, though -- as always, absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence. If someone wants to do some
research on what we know about period Scottish dance, The Letter of
Dance would happily publish it. (This has been a paid plug.)

Also, Gwenllian writes:
> Well, you're judging it based on your knowledge of *English* Country 
> Dances.  It's a Scots Reel.  Would you base the accuracy of the Italian 
> dances you know on what you know about English Country?  Apples and 
> oranges.....

Not necessarily. Don't underestimate the interconnectedness of dance
styles in the Renaissance. In general, *everybody* in Western Europe
was copying the Italians. In particular, English Country and late Italian
are closely related styles. The best Italian teacher I know (Master
Sion) teaches Italian dances just like English Country, and it works
rather well.

This doesn't mean that the Scots were necessarily doing the same thing
as the English. However, most countries were mostly doing the same dances,
often somewhat mutated, through most of the 15th and 16th centuries...

				-- Justin du Coeur

Random Quote du Jour:

On Persona, and the Differences to One's Mundane Being:
"If I'm wearing glasses, I'm David. If I'm not wearing glasses and am
 awake, I am probably Cariadoc. Cariadoc lives in a different world
 than David. Fuzzier."
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca