Mowing Down The Tall Poppies (extract from her online journal)
by Meliore Fioravanti
November 17, 2009
For those who have been following my online journal for a long time, you know that every month or so, I have too much time on my hands and start thinking *Deep Thoughts*. As this is primarily my SCA journal, I think *Deep Thoughts* about the SCA here. It's been a while (you lucky people), but I had that time, so you are doomed to another installment of Melle's Philosophical Bullsh*t of the Month!
In this month's episode...
I was presented with the ideal of Tall Poppy Syndrome by Pearl last week as it applies to the SCA.
While I do see where it it likely to happen in our type of social environment, I must say I have seen more of it here than in Caid. I don't know what the mechanism is that makes it different. I found Caid to be very nurturing and educational. Maybe in that sort of environment, it is easier for people to grow tall, quickly. We make them that way - we pull them in already that way? I don't know if that's it, but it sounded like a good BS theory.
Now, something I am coming across here, quite a bit, is people asking for my instruction. They are willing to come long distances or wait months for the event at which I will teach, hopefully. What is now dawning on me as odd is that they should have teachers in their own back yard. Also odd, one of the folks coming to me for this is an apprentice to a costume teaching Laurel. Hah?
So, in thinking about this further, it occurs to me that I am not seeing the kind of educational opportunities that I took for granted in my youth. Those opportunities were in collegiums, but as well, were in the arts nights held by the barony and the once a week stitch n' bitch at a knowledgeable person's house. The level of personal mentoring was very high and was not formal. Instruction in anything you wanted to know about was as abundant as the air. You could learn by osmosis in so many venues.
What is going on here? Are the information holders hoarding? Are there too few people holding all the knowledge to go around? In this day and age, I can't imagine not learning SCA-wise at an alarming rate because of the availability of information accessible on the internet. When I was starting out, we didn't have that. We had poorly stocked libraries instead! And the Compleat Anachronist. Yeah, written stuff, and Collegium once or twice a year. But, in every home there seemed to be a treasure trove of a SCAdian's stack of rare and spiffy books. A former Baron and Baroness, Woody and Lyndia, had such a stock of it that they turned their home into the Woodlyn Library and even supplied a full photocopier! They were an amazing resource and those shelves covered everything you can think of that would be of interest or necessity to a SCAdian.
But, as well, the level of warm personal contact was very different from what I see here. Title or no title, we were all in this together, elbow to elbow. As a newcomer, I hung around with one lady, our A&S officer, who was just an amazing and well-rounded artist. We met at her house every Wednesday, while her hubby ran fighter practice in the park across the street. She was Laurelled later on. Turns out, I met them shortly after they stepped down off the Royal Throne. Oops, surprise, they were muckity-mucks! There was no pretense there at all, though. They had titles and were respected, but it wasn't this waving the title around "see how farking important I am and suck up to me" thing. We were just buddies.
There was also my lone baroness. When I joined as a silly little 22 year old. She had me on retinue within a few months of joining and I was Chronicler for the Barony. She mentored me along every inch of the way, and not because I asked (because I didn't), but because it was second nature to do that. She showed me how to sew, build a persona, flirt, politics, how the SCA works (at both the big and small levels), how to be social (I really wasn't), and eventually how to be the baronial Seneschal.
She secretly held my hand along every step of the way. She didn't micromanage me, heck, I didn't even realize she was doing it at the time, but she was there as an adviser and safety net. What did she get out of it? Well, someone who she could count on to do things the way she liked, that is to say, "by the book". I learned it all at her knee after all. And she had a friend. She did all of this why putting herself through cosmetology school after being dumped by her husband for a pop-tart, penniless and alone on the throne with no one else to help carry the load and never, never once, did she miss a beat, event or opportunity to make the SCA amazing. In return she was hated by those jealous of her success and wanting to seize that for themselves, and she was loved by many and eventually was one of the most politically powerful women in the kingdom. What happened to her? She got bored and went off to the Companie of St. George. She needed more of a challenge. Simply amazing woman.
As I was saying to Johannes earlier this morning, it's those kinds of people we need more of around here. I see that kind of person out there and I see them being driven away. Why? Tall Poppies. I was told when coming to Outlands that this was the most xenophobic kingdom in the known world. Why? I have a couple of theories, but the fact is that if you cut down your Tall Poppies and suppress the playing field, then when a Medium Poppy arrives from out of kingdom with their new fangled ideas and maybe more advanced skills in some area, they seem Mile High Poppies in the comparison and must be destroyed for threatening the status quo. With this in mind I came up with a long list of people to which it looks like this exact thing happened. Not a pretty picture. This is why I hid who I was and my past in the SCA when we moved here. I got outted.
So, if we take it as a given that we are Tall Poppying ourselves into the stone age, then how do we stop it? I know that I, and mine, were feeling pressure to 'dumb down our game'. I won't get into how that came about, but it was a very real pressure to tone it down a notch or two.
What if we had done that? Then the fantastic girl I met at StagsCon who introduced herself to me because of what I was wearing, I might not have met. She and I are now planning to meet and do some costume education stuff together! Wouldn't have happened. I am frequently asked for my advice on sewing to help others wrap their head around some issue that the books alone aren't fixing. Would they have thought to ask me if I was just wearing my war rags to Coronation and Twelfth Night?
When we hide our light under a bushel, we give the rest of the world the idea that it really is just a dim place we live in. We stop dreaming, we stop pushing, we stop learning. That is quite antithetical to the concept of the SCA.
So, how do we fix this? Well, the Tall Poppies have to stand tough. Don't take the beat down or don't respond to it. It comes in subtle and not-so-subtle forms.
- One is the eye rolling compliment about wearing Elizabethan at war. Yes, they are saying "you could just wear a T-tunic and why go to all the trouble". The message you start getting is that your putting out the extra effort makes you a vain boob. That's not it. Don't listen. What is really happening is that your game means something to you and you are showing respect to the SCA, your love of history and your persona. That's how you play your game. This is their way of trying to get you to play their way in stead of your own by subtly imposing their (often lowered) standards on you.
- Sometimes it snarking. Example: I have seen a girl wearing an Elizabethan that had a slight fit issue because she had lost a bunch of weight. She was being hacked on by a group of women who admitted, themselves, that they have no ability to make such a garment, right fitting or not. Haa? The best way to work with this is to stop the snarking and the snarkers. Yep, I kind of ripped them a new one. Snarking is intended to give a group of "in the know" people an exclusive position from which to tear down others to feel better. Some people really glorify this activity as some kind of appropriate social exercise. Don't and don't let others snark, because it debases us all. It is not constructive criticism, it's just bitchy.
When you feel pressured to do less or make things of less quality, instead, take it up a notch and challenge others to do the same. See my icon? That is what I wore to a baronial anniversary where I was running a fund raiser food stand. That is what I wore to run the BBQ grill. Overkill? Youuuu betcha! And no, I wasn't hot in it.
- Don't take those A&S scores seriously. Remember, most judges may not even know the craft they are judging. Read the comments and consider the source. For my part, I just choose not to put myself in that kind of subjective and arbitrary headlock by not competing. And that is what A&S is. It is art competition. So, in a mix up, who wins Rembrandt or Picasso? See, it's stupid for it to be a 'competition' anyway, so don't let the judging get you down. This is the number 1 spot for the, lets call them Poppy Mowers, to get a crack at you. But do displays and non-competitive activities. Let people see the inspirational stuff you do.
- Compliment and compliment often. Everyone out there needs an occasional stroke and when getting snarked instead, they need it even more. We do this stuff for ourselves, but we do it as well to contribute to the theatrical expression of the SCA. We want to have the period look and feel and that doesn't happen by accident. It happens because people put in effort, unrewarded effort for the most part. They need some love.
Well, that is all I have for now. I would love to hear insights on the topic and recommendations on how to let us bloom.
Death by Snarking: An Artist's Nightmare
by Meliore Fioravanti
April 14, 2009
As noted in the CF Community, the recent Kingdom A&S has brought up some interesting discussion about artistic self-worth and about the standards we hold for ourselves in the SCA.
Firstly, even the most confident artist in the SCA has had moments of self-doubt regarding the value of their work. I think that in large part this is because most of us are relatively self-taught as opposed to art school students. As a result, most of us never go through rites of passage deeming their work worthy. They didn't have torturous final exams, the 'gate' interview that I had to endure at ACCD between my sophomore and junior years to determine if I was good enough to continue, grades and passing classes. That is the joy of taking classes in the SCA - there no tests, no grades. You attend, and that is all. So we each judge the quality of our work in a near vacuum. We may think we are at the top of our game and then go to an A&S competition and get torn to ribbons by the judges. What do we believe? Our work is shit or the judge is jealous and insane? Did we buy our own PR and are delusional? It forces us to ask the questions:
1. Am I as good as I think I am?
2. I know what my PR is, who is feeding me this and what criteria do they use? Are they objective?
3. Can I really compare my work against the work of others? What are my standards vs. theirs?
The first question is a toughie, especially if no one in your immediate area is doing the same kind of stuff for you to weight yourself against or to have a sounding board with. We tend to develop in pods where one person is doing a thing and teaches others. So, you created those sounding boards, then they are running on what you told them and aren't really objective sounding boards to begin with. That makes it hard.
The second question is more difficult. For some, our teachers tell us that we are good, but they taught us, so they are reflecting on their own skills vicariously in a way. That’s not objective at all. If your friends love your work, they are no more objective than your Mommy was when you brought home scribbling from elementary school to pin to the refrigerator. Even a judge in an A&S may not be able to give you decent feedback because their forte is weaving and they are judging your clay work. They have inadequate knowledge to really speak to your work. They know nothing about it and so may be impressed because they couldn't do that and they don't know any better, or grade you down based on what they think the craft is. So, where do you get really good information and how do you discern if it is valid or not? I think for many this leads to some LJ communities or YahooGroups where you can get feedback from people outside of our pod, who share that craft, and you can look at their work and judge if they really know what they are talking about when they give you critique.
Finally, it comes down to your own judgment. It is a real balancing act to try and see your work without Ego being in the way and not judge it by unrealistic standards. Now, I am one of those people who generally doesn’t like her own work. My ego isn't the issue here, my confidence is just wanting. I see all the flaws in my stuff, but it is important to realistically weigh whether those flaws are really flaws, or I am just nitpicking myself? I do nitpick, too much, on my own work. What I balance it against comes after most of the work is done and I can hold it up next to the portrait and say, "yep, that looks just like it" or not. I also have to step back and get the big picture. At the myopic level I tend to work in, absolutely everything would look like crap. I have to back up and look or even walk away for a day, come back with fresh eyes and then step back and look. My viewing distance is closer than many (about 5-foot) who apply the 10-foot rule. I want to be standing within conversational distance (that is typical in my culture) and have the illusion stick. The ten-foot rule is good for small theater, whereas real theater they say the 20' line is where it has to read correctly. I set that standard of 5' for my work, but that is just for me. Everyone sets it differently for themselves.
This brings us to the notion of illusion and the judging. A&S judges look over your work with a microscope. No, that is not 20', 10' or 5-foot, that is eyeball to product distance. Is that fair? Sure, but one has to wonder from their comments whether they are looking at your piece as an approximation of period, a recreation or an attempted forgery. Sadly, the latter often happens and that is not what this is about. We are not trying to make indistinguishable duplicates. My gods, how boring we would be if we all looked exactly like existing portraits with no variation! Recreations are nice, they look right, but may be made of something slightly different or have chosen an adornment from a different portrait and mixed the two. That is fine. But most often what I find we are doing is approximations. I would have to say that is where I am on that range of authenticity.
I want to do work that would have existed within the parameters of what we truly know existed. I am a designer not a knock off artist, so I don't want to just do a replica. I want to push the envelope and stamp it with my unique mark and flair. So, for those who want you to justify the existence of every fiber and prove that though on this piece they used silk, they could also have used linen or cotton because in this other example they made the exact same garment and it was cotton, is just silly. We know they used a variety of fibers on these garments, enough. Who the hell cares really, if it looks and behaves like it should? I am not saying I shouldn't have to document that they actually had access to cotton and used it, I am saying that they are getting a little out of control on the minutia level.
Example: This doublet for a woman was made of silk velvet, that doublet for a man was made of cotton velvet - this is close enough, folks! We just don't have enough extant garments for every single permutation of content and cut to document this stuff with utter precision. And even if we did, that one piece might be a deviance, a fluke that would never have happened again. Does that make it any more or less valid? No. Our editing choices need to be a little saner.
Now, this led to another discussion about the standard of excellence we hold for ourselves for our SCA “kit” (this means all your SCA stuff from clothing to your pavilion and chairs). I was just saying to my boyfriend, that I am disappointed in myself to realize that when I started I had a kit that was complete down to the several sets of accessories per garment. I had a special set of silverware (hand forged) with the two tined fork, a silver chalice, belts (in a rainbow of colors and period), and jewelry for every change of clothes, multiple hats, pouches and shoes.
Now, I am down to one set of shoes and boots, just use house silverware, have one necklace, a hat, a hairpiece, and a belt and pouch that don't go with my clothing. What happened? Well, it was time, weight loss, a marriage with divorce and a move, but that isn't really what did it. What happened was that it takes effort to care about that level of gloss. And I did it for years and one day I was tired. I didn't make the effort and no one noticed. I did it again, even more dressed down - no one noticed. And after a while I looked just like they did and no one batted an eye. My standards came down to what everyone else was doing because if they don't care, then why should I? Ohh, ouch! Apathy got me, and Joho too, actually, it got most of us somewhere along the line. I went from wearing the right shoes, stockings, full set of under things, hat, hair, jewelry to wearing the gown, maybe with the right shoes (who cares, no one can see them anyway) with a hair piece/veil over my sweat pants, sweat socks and mundane shoes. Hey, I needed a pocket to keep my lip balm and wallet in, but I was still without a belt, stockings, bloomers, gloves, pouch, pomander, chatelaine, hair jewels, and hatpins.
You see, doing it up in the SCA takes work. It takes money and giving a crap about it, but it really takes work. And if laziness is perfectly acceptable, then why do the work, right? That burns just to type it out and realize that it is what I did. It is not okay. I was uninspired, so I stopped reaching for the ideal because no one else seemed to be inspired either. I stood out maybe a bit more than I was comfortable with, so I succumbed to conformity and mediocrity.
Interestingly enough "conformity and mediocrity" is something I was reading about in a book called Snark last night. Therein, the author says that snarking is a tool used by a group "in the know" to enforce conformity and mediocrity upon others who have forged ahead of the curve. Reading that, I thought, I can easily envision that being the case! You see it in schools all over the world, but did that factor into my situation here? It seems to resonate that way.
I slept on that question and this morning, I realized the answer is, “yes”. I did it to myself as well. I wanted to blend in because my fear of being snarked is as great as the pain of actively being snarked. My friends and enemies, alike, snarked me. I came to know about it because later, their fellow snarkers tried to snark back at them in my company, and in so doing, ratted them out. That hurt. I expect it from enemies, but as the David Denby of Snark says, the strange thing about snarking is often done in a situation where 2 girls in a cafeteria are snarking a girl across the room, the odd thing is that she is their best friend. It is a tool, used to create solidarity among conformists to bring breakaways back into the fold of mediocrity. By the way, I do highly recommend this book.
Yeah, I got snarked. Sometimes I even considered it a compliment (considering the source), but after a while, it wore me down. Sadly, I succumbed because those around me who helped me to keep my standards were under fire too. We all fell into it at the same time. Who would rescue us if we were all drowning in it simultaneously? No one. We had to save ourselves by being conscious of that was happening. We were not aware and that is not a fault; it just caught us unawares. In my boyfriend’s case, he used to have all the accessories and even made special boxes to keep them in. Wow, we really fell away from our own standards.
The time has come for us to put that back to rights. Because, by conforming, we are setting that standard that others may fall down to as well, by example. Even the most resistant, fully-accessorized person would come down to that level given enough time with no good examples to stand with them. It’s that, or feeing ostracized, even out of jealousy, they leave. I have done both in the last 23 years of SCA participation. Fortunately, I am in good company now, we are aware of what befell us and we are all working consciously to get back up to the standards we hold dear.
Heroes: The Quest for the Role Model
by Meliore Fioravanti
March 7, 2009
I had a long talk a few days ago with someone about leadership and his efforts. He has struggled to and bring along and help make them better people – that was what they agreed to. Noble. He has recently discovered, that on the whole he has had poor success. I don’t see that he failed, but some have just been decidedly hardheaded and immature. These are my thoughts in depth on that conversation:
Learning:
There are two schools of thought on teaching people how to think and, by extension, how to investigate their world and learn from that on their own: the “Eastern Method” and the “Western Method”.
My friend and I came from an Eastern tradition where we are shown examples, parables, stories, and metaphors and learn to ask what is the true meaning beneath the tale or situation and *why* was it so? The Western method is usually to get hit with a stick when you screw up until you stop doing dumb shit – Hard Knocks. In this method one learns that one behavior is bad and don’t do *specifically* that. When the next situation comes up, if they haven’t necessarily learned *why* the other thing was wrong, then they can’t generalize and develop the *judgment* to determine if it is also wrong in this slightly different situation. The Why is critical. Each method has strengths and weaknesses, but if you teach someone indoctrinated in one method with the other, there will be disconnect, frustration and failure.
He has tried to teach his mentorlings by the Eastern Method and they are just not getting it. He didn’t see why they weren’t getting it because, to him, it is second nature to absorb information this way. They weren’t raised with that way of thinking. So what now? He is feeling explosive from the many years of frustration and is so depressed and exhausted that he is almost beyond wanting to fix it. I can’t blame him. He needs time to think this through, mourn the loss if his several years of work
In pondering his dilemma, I have been thinking back on those who are really responsible for making me a better person. There were 3 in the SCA, really, and at no time did they actually try to make me a better person. They never gave me a belt, and lessons, and told me how I should think or act. No, they were just excellent Examples. I saw them, admired them and wanted to be like them. They did things and I asked why? Their answers became formative in how I ended up behaving, then, and in the future because it cemented my ethics. These extemporary people became (for want of a better word) my Heroes.
They didn’t preach to me, but they taught me better than I would have gotten in a classroom. They were the example I emulated and eventually became (as much as I can). In looking around here, I don’t see any clear examples ‘white knights’. I am not saying these people need to be knights. No, they can be anyone. But, they need to reflect a type of person we should want to be because they follow the “knightly virtues”. What we need more of are these examples of people who walk the walk that they talk: Heroes.
Now, my friend has always styled himself a bad guy, feeling that if people learned what he had to offer and let him take the blame for anything untoward that came along, then, perhaps they would grow. He thought it would be a good thing to be the one everyone blamed for bad things while secretly making good in the background because he “could take it” and it would give those he mentored the easier road. What we have found is that they are just not listening to what he had to say, he gets made responsible for no end of irrelevant BS that is not his work and the good doesn’t come of it. As I see it, we have a Hero who is trying to hide behind the mask of an Anti-Hero.
The simple fact is they need to the outward example. I am not saying that he is not a good example, I am saying, he is a mystery. There are two of these guys here, amazing people who are enigmatic and introspective. They say things of great value, but people need the “monkey see, monkey do” part as well. So, when these 2 role models do the right things but the *why* is not readily evident the interpretation can vary widely. They are secretive and you never know what you may get from them next time because no one bothered to ask “why did you do/say/react that way?” And the rest of the time they keep everything close to their vests. Heroes need to be clearly visible and understood.
I realized that people who have been surrounding my friend and learning from him for several years now have no idea who the hell he is, what he really thinks, what he needs from them and what principles guide his actions. He TOLD them this stuff, but they are not connecting stuff they were told with each situation and how it came into play. Oddly enough, this self-styled “black knight” is really a white knight who doesn’t think he is a ‘nice’ enough person to be regarded as such and certainly not a role model. It takes something not necessarily nice to standing up and say “that is bullshit and here is why”. That is the White Knight, in the traditional sense. He doesn’t have to be a perfect man or necessarily a “nice” man, in fact he can have many faults, but it is his trying to overcome his failing and his striving to stick with a specific set of ethics, even when they are uncomfortable and inconvenient, that puts him on the path of enlightenment and makes him a ‘true knight’. Conflict is not seen as nice, but often it is necessary when standing in the face of injustice. Knights do just that. Nice and Righteous are two totally different things.
This is the old argument: are Angels “good”? They serve the All Mighty God of Love, but they are sent to do horrible things in his name. They destroy cities, kill first-borns, etc. They are the arm of Karma and justice and that is NOT always sweet and delightful, especially when you are on the receiving end. All I would ask of my Heroe is that he/she be an Angel with feet of clay, serving a higher purpose and trying, despite his or her faults, to do the right thing.
Being made of clay myself, I would not want to emulate a perfect person. I can’t do it, so why try? And besides, there are no “perfect people”. Humanity is a quintessential and inescapable flaw. But, *striving* is where it matters. The ethics one adheres to, even when it is not convenient, are as critical as is showing compassion when not defending those ethics. All the knightly virtues are the struggle I need to see in my Heroes. If it were easy, then it wouldn’t be laudable. They may have those struggles and adhere to that code, but if that is not evident, most people don’t get it. Learning takes the student ‘getting it’.
While admit to being enigmatic myself, I still try to wear at least the skin of what I am doing out where it can be seen and understood, like it was with one of those 3 role models I had. She was quite the mystery, but if you watched carefully and said “why” she would tell you and it was quite enlightening. After a while I didn’t need to ask why, because I had absorbed her ethics and come to understand what it is to adhere to them.
So, to all the Antiheroes out there, I ask you this: are you an Antihero because you are too weak to take the role of a Hero in earnest or are you just scared of scrutiny? Antiheroes are a dime a dozen because all you need is to be a bad guy with an occasional moment of clarity and goodwill. How simple is that? But to be a Hero takes a commitment to step into the light and have it all be seen. We need heroes today in the SCA. Are you one?
By the way, this comic strip is most appropos though it does contain one piece of foul language. However, sometimes that kind of language cuts to the heart of the matter like no other can: http://xkcd.com/137/. It goes perfectly with our household motto, "Magis gauisus , minor fimus"
Dropping the "A" Word: Authenticity
by Meliore Fioravanti
November 19, 2008
In recent years, I have heard the use of the phrase "Authenticity Nazi" and "authenticity police" thrown around quite a bit to refer to tw groups of people: those who are research buffs and those who are snotty to others and critical of their level of period presentation. It's really about people who have set their bar for period accuracy at a certain point and are holding everyone else to it. Not cool. We all make our own editing choices, but they are only valid for ourselves. But what this has done is make the word "authenticity" into a dirty word. This is unfortunate, because it has made it de classe to do research and really push toward making something as historically accurate as possible. This has had an unfortunate effect on the arts culture of the Society because it has made it a dirty little secret to care about accuracy.
Icame to the SCA in a round about way from the Living History Center's Renaissance Pleasure Faire. They were very authenticity-oriented (especially by comparison to other faires), which I loved. But unfortunately, it was still just a resume building item for out of work actors. I wanted something more, something year-round, that was not for an audience, but an interactive environment for the participants. I was also attracted to the idea that behaving as befits a more chivalrous age might make me a better person through practice. So, I was directed to the SCA.
It was a very different time and place then. At my first event, a coronation, I was stunned by the display of scrolls that covered 3 rows of tables that spanned the whole end of the hangar-sized building they used for a hall. They were amazing and the environment was remote from modern life, and as it was a Coronation, the garb was stunning. I even had my first "SCA moment" there, where suspension of disbelief was possible. I was hooked on that feeling of otherworldness, where I wouldn't be seeing the special effects as just that, but could actually feel something new and different.
From that moment, I became a research fiend, more to the exclusion of the social aspects of the SCA. I wanted to know how they did it, why they did it that way and to what heights the craft rose. Every art that was available in a class or I could dredge up in a dust covered library book from the restricted access section became a fascination. I began design and manufacture of of a wide range of painstakingly researched pieces, but ultimately found myself a little disappointed in the setting in which they appeared. The modern environment took all the magic out of it for me. It wasn't the authenticity of the setting, it was the illusion I craved to help make me feel 'something different'.
This is where things went wrong with me, I suspect. I started being a behind the scenes person - a set and prop builder. I eeked my joy out of the research and manufacture, but never got the payoff of seeing the piece in place. I couldn't take pride in any of it either as a result. I made period clothes for myself, but only so I wouldn't "mess up the tableau" or to solve the puzzle of how it was made. I stopped living for the love of the immersive experience and became more a backstage techie, who could have skipped the event, instead happy to be in a workshop or museum.
Sowly, but surely, that took the luster off the whole thing. I was really craving an experience I was just not as having. Once I realized this and pulled out of the background, I saw that I was still not having the experience I sought because of the "authenticity" issue, or rather, maybe it was more the lack of immersion in that "other" environment. But the fact is, we live in the modern world and there will always be portapotties, vinyl tile floors, modern tents, golfcarts and walkie talkies. That illusion of a period environment is a very fragile thing and in most cases a very small scale one.
So, while authenticity is a thing to strive for in my little slice of the world, whether it be in my tent, clothing or comportment, I have come to accept that it will never be ideal. But, for my percentage of the effort, I will try and not give up. Because when authenticity becomes a dirty word, people stop trying and reaching. Then, we stagnate and the whole game devolves. I won't tell others to live according my editing choices, but it behooves me to stick to them for me, and not give up because they don't want to be branded "Authenticity Nazi's" or want to put in much effort in that direction. It's my passion, I won't let that die off because it is unpopular.
I am still looking for ways to have and offer my help in creating that environment while being part of it as well. And, truth be told, I am really far from an authenticity authoritarian, myself. In a Scotch and Philosophy a few months ago, I faced a statement by one of our prominent Outlanders who said "SCA people, on the whole, look for exoticness rather than authenticity. They choose something that is more obviously "not modern" rather than something perfectly period, because the period object may look pretty much like the one you can buy at Walmart even today. It's not different enough. " That was quite enlightening. So, I suspect I am an ambience person (another "A" word). Granted, I do love to be able to look at a made object at the 1' distance, not the 10' distance and still be convinced, but as long as I get the feeling, I am happy. I do wish I could have it all period and right now, but I take my progress one baby step at a time, praying each is on a sure foot. Research takes a long time but is well worth it.
Dreams and Dreaming
by Meliore Fioravanti
March 23, 2008
I am on en elist with another household and affiliates and a question went out to the list asking: "So, what is "the Dream" to you? When did you first see it? How has it changed for you over the years?"
I put it here because I realized that this introspection is almost a manifesto that I want available to all those I have met who say the Dream is a bad thing because everyone's dreams are different. There is a difference between dreams and The Dream. Everyone in the SCA should have both. The Dream is not a limiting thing, or a demand that you play one way really, it is a philosophy. Here was my reply:
My dream or my Dream?
The former are the little wishes that come and go, I've had hundreds. The latter... that is another story. The SCA Dream to me is creating a moment and a feeling of a more chivalric time. It is a vision of honorable people with the right to dignity, justice, mercy and generosity, who are charged to have courage and a boldness of spirit that they might pay it forward in kindness and ennoble others. The SCA is the joining together in that effort, a growing army of virtue, practicing to be better people.
For me and mine, the SCA is where we fight the "good fight," as much as we may, versus a world full of infectious woe, with only Hope in our hands, dreaming to bring to life a less mean age in the SCA and in the daily world too. We of Chateau Flammel take these words of Woodrow Wilson to heart, every day...
"We grow great by dreams. All big men are dreamers. They see things in the soft haze of a spring day or in the red fire of a long winter's evening. Some of us let these great dreams die, but others nourish and protect them, nurse them through bad days till they bring them to the sunshine and light which come always to those who sincerely hope that their dreams will come true."
I don't believe dreams die; rather, I believe a part of the Dreamer does.
Here was my first "SCA moment":
I saw it first in the glowing halo of my king at my first camping event. We stood shivering and sopping wet in a hangar sized hall at a far away fairgrounds. The smiling man in his Caidan blue velvet was telling jokes up by the front of that coronation hall. He had something metallic and shiny looped over his arm as he spoke animately, his sand colored puff of curls and bears wagging and he and other men slapped backs. A voice came from the back of the hall, a woman with a camera called "Hey Hanno, look kingly!"
He perked up seeing her and bounded up impishly onto the stage, put one foot up Captain Morgan style on a footstool, and took the crown off his arm and placed it into the golden blond afro atop his head, straightened his chain and smiled. With his smile his beard flared up in a spray of bold leonine glory. In that moment, he was transformed from joker to King as the gray dripping cloud outside the hangar window parted only enough to beam down a blazing ray of sun onto him and him alone, alighting his brilliant golden red beard and halo of hair into an almost heavenly fire. The hall hushed and the hundred people milling around stopped breathless before the sight of what looked like a king blessed by God himself, a luminescent Jove. That was my moment; I shall never forget it.
How has it changed? It hasn't changed, I have. I have grown more sensible and perhaps a little more cynical, tired but more wily. That Dream stays in my heart to this day, 22 years later, and every day I look for that cloud to part again, because I know, that one day, it surely will.
What Big Dreams May Come
by Meliore Fioravanti
November 28, 2006
Coming originally from the land of movies (everyone was in "the business" out there) it was somewhat of a shock to arrive in our new home kingdom. Even more than just the absolute friendliness of the residents, I slowly but quite profoundly became very puzzled to find that they think very differently about the SCA here. There are definite cultural differences but I figured we all pretty much approached the game from some central well of knowledge, and all held some things to be self evident. I was wrong.
One thing that has me stunned today is the difference in the sense of scale. I am from a world where we dream big. By doing so, we reach farther. And even if we do not achieve some very difficult goal, at least we grasped farther than we thought we might be possible previously. The struggle for improvement is well worth the effort. Mediocrity starts at only reaching so far as you have actually done before. If we do that, then slowly, we find we don't quite make it as far as last time and our world gets smaller by inches every year.
But in places where people have not been taught the philosophy of dreaming big and to really try despite insurmountable odds, a whole different mentality developed. This type of culture is afraid of hoping and is prone to negativity when dreams come their way. They see all the reasons that something won't work before the idea is even fully formed. Reasons will be found to not do things rather than finding creative ways to make them happen. The environment becomes quickly oppressive, creativity is squelched and after a while so is the joy. Stagnation follows.
It's important in any group to set aside time for dreaming freely and ideating without saying "yeah but...". Its productive to offer ways that an idea can happen, but refrain from any reason why it can't. Finish dreaming first. Then list obstacles and find ways around them. List out the people to help, places to do it and the rest comes almost by itself. While it is true that talk is cheap and just talking doesn't make anything happen, still it must to happen and in an open environment. The practicalities can be worked out later. And even if the full blue-sky vision is just in no way possible, still some part of it may be exactly what is needed. You can always cut back from something too grand, but dare to think in the grand scale to begin with.
Freedom to come up with ideas is important, but so is scale. It's easy to only think in terms of something as big as a bread box that you can do by yourself. Unfortunately, that may prove very limiting. When ideating about the SCA it's important to ask yourself: How far could this go? How many would it/could it affect? How many can we/do we want to get involved? Could it be bigger, broader, just more somehow? The SCA is very much about cooperative groups and while we all have our personal projects, often times I see people limiting a project to keep it out of the public's reach. Create on the small scale, the personal scale, but you can dream bigger and share that with others who need the inspiration.
The creative process is a delicate one that needs nurtured. Given enough toxicity and negativity, which can develop quite quickly, it becomes feeble and dies. Negativism during this process not only kills ideas, but teaches the creatives to think that way too. They learn to kill their own creative thought processes. If you get enough stagnation from this in one place, bringing back vitality is very difficult. Know the process of free ideation is crucial to the rebuilding. It takes so little to learn to dream little, to think in the box and to stop reaching farther. Protect that fertile ground at all costs or you will see a SCA that is as dead as crumbling parchment.
"Vox audita perit,
litera scripta manet"
The spoken word perishes, but the written word
remains
