From: ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Travel,Persona
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:54:31 GMT
Reply-To: ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


hzhao@eagle.wesleyan.edu takes up my argument with Fra Tadhg on
teaching in persona. In response to my point that the lady was not
reducing the amount of Anglo-Saxon poetry she taught by leaving out
things she, as an Anglo-Saxon lady, didn't know, since she had only a
limited amount of time, he replies that "In any event, a proper
lesson plan would make allowances for such things as well as
discussion time on what the attendees wished to know more about." 

A proper lesson plan does not increase the number of minutes in an
hour. The choice was between leaving some things out without comment,
or leaving some things out and using the fact that she was doing it
to increase the dramatic effectiveness of her class and make a point
about how a culture looks from the inside.  She chose the latter--I
think wisely.

He goes on to argue that she could have found an in persona excuse
for knowing the poetry that was not done in the presence of women. No
doubt she could have. But doing it that way would have meant
abandoning an opportunity to teach a useful lesson.

Both this correspondent (who does not give his name, which is why I
am referring to him by his EMail address) and Fra Tadhg seem to
assume that the lady wanted to teach about that particular sort of
poetry but felt she couldn't because it would be out of persona. That
is not what was happening. She mentioned the existence of that sort
of poetry precisely because it gave her an opportunity to make her
point about Anglo-Saxon society, and strengthen the illusion that she
was a lady from that society rather than a modern teacher or an SCA
generic medieval person. I mentioned the incident as an example of
the way in which giving a class in persona can make it more
interesting and effective. To argue that she could have found an
excuse for not doing what she wanted to do is to miss the whole point
of the story.

What seems to be going on here, if I correctly interpret their
criticism, is something that one sees much more often when the issue
is authenticity rather than persona. People who are not interested in
authenticity assume that the only reason to be authentic is that the
rules make you (or that you are showing off), and therefor put the
issue as "authenticity vs fun." That assumes away a large part of the
argument, since those of us who are in favor of more authenticity
believe that it makes the society more fun, not less.
 
Similarly, Fra Tadhg and hzhao@eagle.wesleyan.edu seem to be viewing
"staying in persona" as the equivalent of fighting with one hand tied
behind your back--an arbitrary restriction that makes it harder to do
what you want to do. In fact, in many contexts, including the class I
was describing, staying in persona is a device that makes it easier
to do what you want to do--which is one reason to stay in persona.
David is not a nearly as good a story teller as Cariadoc.

David (and Cariadoc)
From: Tim@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Tim)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet