Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Persona & Classes
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:01:47

Fra Tadhg Liath unto *Master* Arval Benicoeur and all others unto whom these presents shall have come giveth greeting (and congratulations, in the former case):
 JM> T> Despite the fact that playing persona games demonstrably
 JM> T>has never worked,
 JM> T> demonstrably does not work, and demonstrably will never work, there
 JM> T> persist a depressingly large number of people who continue to elevate it
 JM> T> to the status of a holy ikon. When reasoned argument doesn't make an
 JM> T> impression, snide is sometimes all one has left.

 JM> No, Tadhg, there are other possibilities to be considered: Perhaps you do
 JM> not understand what these people are doing and why, or perhaps your notion
 JM> of the purpose of the SCA is fundamentally different from theirs.  What
 JM> does it mean for a persona to "work"?  If the artifice of persona assists
 JM> SCA participants in gaining understanding of a medieval culture, it has
 JM> "worked" as far as I am concerned.

 Oh, I understand what they are doing; I think I have a fair grasp of why;
 certain it is that my notion of the purpose of the SCA is fundamentally
 different from theirs.

 My point is that playing persona games (which is a different concept from
 persona qua persona) does not, in fact, "assist SCA participants in
 gaining understanding of a medieval culture". That's my whole point.

 To contend that it does is the equivalent of saying that one can take a
 Russian, a Turk, and a Japanese, put them in a room together, and have each
 speak naught but his (or her) own language, thereby communicating useful
 things about each culture to the others. That is the (absurd) logical
 extreme of the "persona game" approach. It ought to be obvious to the most
 casual observer that it does not work, and cannot work.

 Unless personae come from fairly close cultures both temporally and
 geographically, they cannot communicate effectively and still remain purely
 "in persona". If the "persona game" approach worked, then by rights I
 would be teaching people useful things about 7th century Irish monks by
 spending all my time converting Da'ud to The True Faith - or getting him
 executed. (Hmmmm ... come to think of it...) This would be boring for me,
 boring for Da'ud, and boring for anybody who had to suffer through it.

 JM> > However, to withhold knowledge that one has from a 
 JM> student who desires it
 JM> > merely because one's "persona wouldn't know that" is an instantiation of
 JM> > a class that I call "stupid persona tricks"... 

 JM> Tadhg, are you arguing that a teacher is obliged to try to impart the sum
 JM> total of her knowledge every time she teaches a class?  Or 
 JM> that she may not
 JM> so much as mention a topic without providing a full explanation?  Perhaps
 JM> she had simply decided that she didn't have time to cover that aspect of
 JM> A-S poetry, and had hit on this trick as a simple and elegant method to
 JM> explain to her class what she would and would not be covering that day.
 JM> Indeed, by making passing mention of a topic that she did 
 JM> not want to cover
 JM> it that class, she was increasing her contact with her 
 JM> students: Did anyone
 JM> suggest that she would refuse to discuss that variety of 
 JM> poetry outside the
 JM> class, or away from the event?  By accusing her of withholding knowledge,
 JM> you damn her on little evidence.  You also seem to be ignoring the
 JM> possibility that the lady was trying to teach something other than just
 JM> poetic style: She may have been trying to give her students a context for
 JM> the poetry, by showing them how a noblewoman of that time would have fit
 JM> into her culture.  That seems to me to be an admirable goal, and one
 JM> particularly suited to the SCA.

 That she withheld knowledge seems apparent from the original post; how much
 evidence do you require? I'm not arguing against withholding knowledge, for
 which (as you point out) there may have been many legitimate reasons. All
 I'm saying is the way she did it was an ill-considered one.

 JM> Let me suggest another example: Suppose I were to teach a class on
 JM> mathematics, from the point of view of a 14th century scholar.  Is this
 JM> class flawed because I do not teach my students about 
 JM> mathematical theories
 JM> developed after the 14th century? Is it less value because I do not point
 JM> out idea which later supplanted the ones I am discussing?

 No, but such a situation is not strictly analogous. It would be analogous
 (and flawed) if you refused to teach an idea that was current in the 14th
 century for the reason that "your persona wouldn't know it". That's the
 whole point; attempting to stretch it beyond that strictly limited
 situation may be fun to discuss but departs from my original criticism.
  
 JM> I am trying to teach a slice of history, and to explain how 14th century
 JM> scholars thought about mathematics.  Do you see something wrong with this
 JM> plan for a class?

 Not at all. But, again, it has nothing to do with what I originally said.

 May you be ever well.

        Tadhg.

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