Any other suggestions on SCA-ish movies -or- are you smarter than the Outlands list?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 3:04:36 PM | Ben Baron
Re: Outlander Seeking Movie Suggestions
Here were my contributions. See the Outlands List for other details, if necessary.
Other suggestions (from Caer Galen movie night):
Dangerous Beauty : One Ms. deFranco conquers 16th c. Venice, one bed at a time. Great eye candy … but don't use it for costume documentation (unless you are documenting what you're wearing to the after revel). Mmm, Hot chicks with swords.
Kingdom of Heaven : Dateline: The Crusades. Orlando Bloom proves he isn't just another pretty Elf. Who knew crusaders were so buff? Deus Vult seeing thee on thy Bowflex.
Queen Margot : Marguerite de Valois, princess of France, tries to keep all sides satisfied in the War of the Three Henries (1580s France). See Dangerous Beauty on documentation.
Shakespeare in Love : A Tom Stoppard script that doesn't put you to sleep like Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead (with many inside jokes for Shakespeare nerds). A tale of writers block, which the movie never makes clear whether Shakespeare ever really got over (see the YouTube parody `George Lucas in Love '). More hot chicks with swords (Gwyneth Paltrow) …mmm, and she can act, too. Beware of the kid pulling the wings off flies – he will turn out to be utterly unimportant to the story, but will drag down many an English Lit class by being like Shakespeare only much, much gorier... For costume, see this one, avoid Elizabeth.
Stealing Heaven : The classic medieval love story of Abelard and Heloise – two lovers separated by an inconvenient belief system. They were pseudo-intellectual before pseudo-intellectual was hip, by about 700 years. (Who names their child Astrolabe?).
The Advocate : A personal favorite – A tale of jurisprudence in 15th Century France. A city lawyer has his eyes opened running a law practice in a small village. How's a lawyer to get any work done between pigs, cows, witches, evil Templars and random hot chicks in his bed. Curious yet?
The Other Boleyn Girl : Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) sharks her sister for the hottest guy in school. That guy just happens to be The Incredible Hulk aka King Henry VIII (Eric Bana). Costuming ok, but who's watching? Taken from a bodice ripper novel, it features a distinct lack of actual ripped bodices. Filmschool 101, people, in film we take a book's complex implied narrative details and turn them into simple graphic statements in explicit color on the screen. Disappointing.
Slightly post period :
Restoration : An inspiring tale of loss and redemption after the Restoration of the English Monarchy. Gore Warning: Lots of the plague.
The Libertine : A depressing tale of loss and redemption after the Restoration of the English Monarchy. More loss, less redemption. Johnny Depp plays … Johnny Depp playing the Earl of Wilmot, a playwright who is as the title of the movie suggests, but forgets to wear a cap in the rain, if ya know what I mean. John Malkovich plays Charles II. Great costumes, if post-period. Love them coats. Gore Warning: lots of the clap.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Some easy political advice
1. Keep your hands above the table where everyone can see them. You’ve seen the scene in a wild west saloon. Two edgy gunfighters face each other over a table. The first one to reach down, even if to pick up a penny, gets shot. What this means in the SCA is make sure your motives are as clear as possible. Especially in tense times, try to make your statements as clear and unequivocal as you can.
2. A followup to one: Once you take a public position, give people a chance to line up behind it. Then, once you have supporters, don’t leave them in the lurch. If you are going to ‘move to the center’ (as leaders must do), make sure the people supporting your position aren’t left holding the bag.
3. Sun Tsu says: “Know your enemy as well as yourself and you need not fear the result of a thousand battles.” This applies equally to any political situation. For instance, you are the new baron and baroness of the barony of dishwater. Don’t ask for officers to resign and be rehired. This isn’t the British Commonwealth. Likewise, if you are the new head of an officer corps (as I have seen recently), don’t assume the staff is worthless. Scout, scout, scout. If people want to run to you and gossip, simply take in the information. It’ll come in handy.
4. When things are rolling your way, don’t stop them. The greatest ‘old fart’ trick of fighters is avoiding wasted motion. Leave flailing away to the youngsters. The definition of wasted political motion is jawboning an issue after it has already swung your way. At best it is a waste of time. At worst, you may annoy people enough that they don’t wish to give in to you and so swing to the other side. In other words, be a good listener as well as debater.
5. Another bit about scouting: look for a way to give the opposition a way to save face. Sometimes this is all that is stopping a situation from ending peacefully. Winning is about achieving the goal, not humiliating the enemy. Keep your eyes on the ball, always. Also, if your ‘side’ is winning but someone on your side is particularly galling to the opposition, get them out of the way if possible. Often the opposition is ready to fold but not if it means losing face to ‘that one person’ (usually the one who was first involved in the dispute for your side).
6. Don’t try to be ‘good cop/bad cop’ unless you’re really good at it. And you’re not really good at it. No one is. That only works in cop shows. Instead, just be straightforward and consistent.
7. You can’t make everyone understand your point of view. At some point you will have to learn to gracefully say: we’ll agree to disagree. This is better than belaboring a point until you lose your entire audience (or all your traveling companions).
2. A followup to one: Once you take a public position, give people a chance to line up behind it. Then, once you have supporters, don’t leave them in the lurch. If you are going to ‘move to the center’ (as leaders must do), make sure the people supporting your position aren’t left holding the bag.
3. Sun Tsu says: “Know your enemy as well as yourself and you need not fear the result of a thousand battles.” This applies equally to any political situation. For instance, you are the new baron and baroness of the barony of dishwater. Don’t ask for officers to resign and be rehired. This isn’t the British Commonwealth. Likewise, if you are the new head of an officer corps (as I have seen recently), don’t assume the staff is worthless. Scout, scout, scout. If people want to run to you and gossip, simply take in the information. It’ll come in handy.
4. When things are rolling your way, don’t stop them. The greatest ‘old fart’ trick of fighters is avoiding wasted motion. Leave flailing away to the youngsters. The definition of wasted political motion is jawboning an issue after it has already swung your way. At best it is a waste of time. At worst, you may annoy people enough that they don’t wish to give in to you and so swing to the other side. In other words, be a good listener as well as debater.
5. Another bit about scouting: look for a way to give the opposition a way to save face. Sometimes this is all that is stopping a situation from ending peacefully. Winning is about achieving the goal, not humiliating the enemy. Keep your eyes on the ball, always. Also, if your ‘side’ is winning but someone on your side is particularly galling to the opposition, get them out of the way if possible. Often the opposition is ready to fold but not if it means losing face to ‘that one person’ (usually the one who was first involved in the dispute for your side).
6. Don’t try to be ‘good cop/bad cop’ unless you’re really good at it. And you’re not really good at it. No one is. That only works in cop shows. Instead, just be straightforward and consistent.
7. You can’t make everyone understand your point of view. At some point you will have to learn to gracefully say: we’ll agree to disagree. This is better than belaboring a point until you lose your entire audience (or all your traveling companions).
Royal (f)right
I wonder often, in this supposed royal right kingdom, how people reconcile the lofty ideals of justice and mercy with the notion that the king’s word is law, even though that word be abusive and hurtful.
The first and greatest feature of justice is that it protects the weak against the caprices of the strong. The strong need no further protection. The abuse of power by those in high places is the height of injustice, and has been accounted such in period and out. This is the very injustice that knights, and by extension all peers, pledge in their vows to prevent.
How is it, then, that the Crown is portrayed so often as the victim, whose sensitive rights and prerogatives need constant husbanding. Poor frail flowers. It always seems that the next line of retreat is that restricting the Crown’s rights somehow damages the ‘Dream’, that this is the suspension of disbelief we all must, evidently, maintain to keep playing this game. Yet, when in order to maintain this Dream, real people’s real feelings are hurt or abused, this is somehow discounted as the price of doing business. At least, then, it is more honest of those who say: “if you don’t like what happens, win Crown”. That is, of course, tantamount to saying that the strongest (literally) get to make the rules. That is also unjust, but perhaps not surprising.
If we must err on any side, let us err to prevent the weak from being damaged, not the strong. That is my ‘Dream’. And it isn’t the real world either.
The first and greatest feature of justice is that it protects the weak against the caprices of the strong. The strong need no further protection. The abuse of power by those in high places is the height of injustice, and has been accounted such in period and out. This is the very injustice that knights, and by extension all peers, pledge in their vows to prevent.
How is it, then, that the Crown is portrayed so often as the victim, whose sensitive rights and prerogatives need constant husbanding. Poor frail flowers. It always seems that the next line of retreat is that restricting the Crown’s rights somehow damages the ‘Dream’, that this is the suspension of disbelief we all must, evidently, maintain to keep playing this game. Yet, when in order to maintain this Dream, real people’s real feelings are hurt or abused, this is somehow discounted as the price of doing business. At least, then, it is more honest of those who say: “if you don’t like what happens, win Crown”. That is, of course, tantamount to saying that the strongest (literally) get to make the rules. That is also unjust, but perhaps not surprising.
If we must err on any side, let us err to prevent the weak from being damaged, not the strong. That is my ‘Dream’. And it isn’t the real world either.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Good people do too need laws
Good people do not need laws
Gentles, I would appreciate a specific citation where the quote from Plato can be found. (“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”). After quite some searching, I cannot find it. I am inclined to believe it is an apocryphal attribution. It is to be found all over the Internet, which only increases my suspicion. However, not one site gives any details. Interestingly, although it may be apocryphal it is immensely popular; It is used by everyone of every political stripe from arch-liberal to arch-conservative.
One can see the appeal of the quote, since it can be used as a universal tool to, in a rather sly way, denigrate any proposed law as needlessly bureaucratic while simultaneously flattering the hearer as being in the population of ‘good people’. It is, to my mind, however, yet another application of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. That is, most people fall somewhere in between absolute good and absolute bad. So, for any realistic situation, this quotation is meaningless.
I do not claim to have made a complete study, but I would say that Plato’s view is not as the first quote would have it. First, he believed, quite reasonably I think, that a proper state must both educate people in the ‘right’ as well as having fixed law, and cannot have one without the other. Here he uses the analogy of the law being like the lines of a drawingmaster - used to guide the young through society until they have learned the ‘right’:
“This is what is done by those who have the means, and those who have the means are the rich; their children begin to go to school soonest and leave off latest. When they have done with masters, the state again compels them to learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they furnish, and not after their own fancies; and just as in learning to write, the writing-master first draws lines with a style for the use of the young beginner, and gives him the tablet and makes him follow the lines, so the city draws the laws, which were the invention of good lawgivers living in the olden time; these are given to the young man, in order to guide him in his conduct whether he is commanding or obeying; and he who transgresses them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to account, which is a term used not only in your country, but also in many others, seeing that justice calls men to account.” [Protagoras, Plato]
Far from the rather cavalier attitude toward the law implied by the first quote. Here he states rather plainly that he believes that the law is of literally cardinal importance. He says that it is for the benefit of all and no man, not even the ruler, is above the law:
“Now, according to our view, such governments are not polities at all, nor are laws right which are passed for the good of particular classes and not for the good of the whole state. States which have such laws are not polities but parties, and their notions of justice are simply unmeaning. I say this, because I am going to assert that we must not entrust the government in your state to any one because he is rich, or because he possesses any other advantage, such as strength, or stature, or again birth: but he who is most obedient to the laws of the state, he shall win the palm; and to him who is victorious in the first degree shall be given the highest office and chief ministry of the gods; and the second to him who bears the second palm; and on a similar principle shall all the other be assigned to those who come next in order. And when I call the rulers servants or ministers of the law, I give them this name not for the sake of novelty, but because I certainly believe that upon such service or ministry depends the well- or ill-being of the state. For that state in which the law is subject and has no authority, I perceive to be on the highway to ruin; but I see that the state in which the law is above the rulers, and the rulers are the inferiors of the law, has salvation, and every blessing which the Gods can confer.” [Laws, Plato, Book IV]
So, I do believe that Plato has quite a bit to say on the subject of society and law. Perhaps it is not what was cited initially, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Yrs,
l.
Gentles, I would appreciate a specific citation where the quote from Plato can be found. (“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”). After quite some searching, I cannot find it. I am inclined to believe it is an apocryphal attribution. It is to be found all over the Internet, which only increases my suspicion. However, not one site gives any details. Interestingly, although it may be apocryphal it is immensely popular; It is used by everyone of every political stripe from arch-liberal to arch-conservative.
One can see the appeal of the quote, since it can be used as a universal tool to, in a rather sly way, denigrate any proposed law as needlessly bureaucratic while simultaneously flattering the hearer as being in the population of ‘good people’. It is, to my mind, however, yet another application of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. That is, most people fall somewhere in between absolute good and absolute bad. So, for any realistic situation, this quotation is meaningless.
I do not claim to have made a complete study, but I would say that Plato’s view is not as the first quote would have it. First, he believed, quite reasonably I think, that a proper state must both educate people in the ‘right’ as well as having fixed law, and cannot have one without the other. Here he uses the analogy of the law being like the lines of a drawingmaster - used to guide the young through society until they have learned the ‘right’:
“This is what is done by those who have the means, and those who have the means are the rich; their children begin to go to school soonest and leave off latest. When they have done with masters, the state again compels them to learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they furnish, and not after their own fancies; and just as in learning to write, the writing-master first draws lines with a style for the use of the young beginner, and gives him the tablet and makes him follow the lines, so the city draws the laws, which were the invention of good lawgivers living in the olden time; these are given to the young man, in order to guide him in his conduct whether he is commanding or obeying; and he who transgresses them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to account, which is a term used not only in your country, but also in many others, seeing that justice calls men to account.” [Protagoras, Plato]
Far from the rather cavalier attitude toward the law implied by the first quote. Here he states rather plainly that he believes that the law is of literally cardinal importance. He says that it is for the benefit of all and no man, not even the ruler, is above the law:
“Now, according to our view, such governments are not polities at all, nor are laws right which are passed for the good of particular classes and not for the good of the whole state. States which have such laws are not polities but parties, and their notions of justice are simply unmeaning. I say this, because I am going to assert that we must not entrust the government in your state to any one because he is rich, or because he possesses any other advantage, such as strength, or stature, or again birth: but he who is most obedient to the laws of the state, he shall win the palm; and to him who is victorious in the first degree shall be given the highest office and chief ministry of the gods; and the second to him who bears the second palm; and on a similar principle shall all the other be assigned to those who come next in order. And when I call the rulers servants or ministers of the law, I give them this name not for the sake of novelty, but because I certainly believe that upon such service or ministry depends the well- or ill-being of the state. For that state in which the law is subject and has no authority, I perceive to be on the highway to ruin; but I see that the state in which the law is above the rulers, and the rulers are the inferiors of the law, has salvation, and every blessing which the Gods can confer.” [Laws, Plato, Book IV]
So, I do believe that Plato has quite a bit to say on the subject of society and law. Perhaps it is not what was cited initially, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Yrs,
l.
Monday, April 16, 2007
A little Duke (on titles of direct address)
Ah, to every rule there are exceptions. That's what really makes research interesting. On the subject of use of titles of direct address. I believe all the titles - Duke, Earl, Baron, etc. have the same issue : is the form [title] [firstname] correct in period (i.e. Duke Jocko)? A quick search of Shakespeare shows that he mostly uses the form (at least in 3rd person address, but I see no reason it wouldn't be the same for direct address) [firstname], Duke of [placename], as I think is usually correct (i.e. Jocko, Duke of Flatbush), but there is this example from Henry VI:
So, I'd say let's hit those books, folks, and see what other example we find.
And interestingly, Robert Greene, in his famous "A Groatsworth of Wit", which first comments on Shakespeare - usually the connection is keyed off of the phrase "A tiger's heart wrapp'd in a player's hide", alluding to the phrase in Henry VI, but I had never seen mentioned before (from A Groatsworth of Wit - 1592:[http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/greene1.html]"
GLOUCESTER: Brave peers of England, pillars of the state,To you Duke Humphrey must unload his grief,...
CARDINAL: So, there goes our protector in a rage. 'Tis known to you he is mine enemy, Nay, more, an enemy unto you all, And no great friend, I fear me, to the king. Consider, lords, he is the next of blood, And heir apparent to the English crown: Had Henry got an empire by his marriage, And all the wealthy kingdoms of the west, There's reason he should be displeased at it. Look to it, lords! let not his smoothing words Bewitch your hearts; be wise and circumspect. What though the common people favour him, Calling him 'Humphrey, the good Duke of Gloucester, 'Clapping their hands, and crying with loud voice, 'Jesu maintain your royal excellence! 'With 'God preserve the good Duke Humphrey!' I fear me, lords, for all this flattering gloss, He will be found a dangerous protector.
So, I'd say let's hit those books, folks, and see what other example we find.
And interestingly, Robert Greene, in his famous "A Groatsworth of Wit", which first comments on Shakespeare - usually the connection is keyed off of the phrase "A tiger's heart wrapp'd in a player's hide", alluding to the phrase in Henry VI, but I had never seen mentioned before (from A Groatsworth of Wit - 1592:[http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/greene1.html]"
Roberto perceiuing no remedie, thought best to respect of his present necessitie, to trie his wit, & went with him willingly: who lodgd him at the Townes end in a house of retayle, where what happened our Poet, you shall after heare. There, by conuersing with bad company, he grew A malo in peius, falling from one vice to another: and so hauing found a vaine to finger crowns, he grew cranker than Lucanio, who by this time began to droope, being thus dealt with by Lami[l]ia. Shee hauing bewitched him with hir enticing wiles, caused him to consume in lesse than two yeeres that infinite treasure gathered by his father with so many a poore ma[n]s curse. His lands sold, his iewels pawnd, his money wasted, he was casseerd by Lamilia,that had coosened him of all. Then walkt he like one of Duke Humfreys Squires, in a thread-bare cloake, his hose drawne out with his heeles, his shooes vnseamed, least his feete should sweate with heat: now (as witlesse as hee was) hee remembred his Fathers words, his vnkindnes to his brother, his carelesnes of himselfe. In this sorrow hee sate downe on pennilesse bench; where when Opus and Vsus told himby the chimes in his stomacke it was time to fall vnto meate, he was faine with the Camelion to feed vpon the aire, & make patience his best repast."So, Greene obviously knew his Shakespeare and used the phrase as Shakespeare did - "Duke Humfrey".
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Of smalls and walls and sealing wax
Out of a surfeit of curiosity I went and looked up the entire OED entry on the period use of 'small' as a noun. I hope you find it interesting as I did.
1.a. Persons or animals of small size or stature; little ones, children. (Now only with the.)
c. 1220 Bestiary 505 in O.E. Misc., Ðe smale he wile ðus biswiken, ðe grete mais he nost bigripen. a 1300 E.E. Psalter xvi. 16 Þhar leuings to Þair leuings to Þair smale left Þai.
1388 Wyclif Matt. xviii. 6. Who so sclaundrith oon of these smale, that bileuen in mee... [But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me...]
c.1430 Syr Tryam. 1556 ' A lytulle lower, Syr, 'seyde hee, ' And let us smalle go wyth thee'.
So, it seems that in period 'small' was used as a collective noun for children. It is therefore correct to say 'the small', much as we say 'help the poor' or 'we small', like we say 'we few, we happy few, we band of brothers'. There is no support for using 'small' as a singular noun like 'there goes my small' and no support for using 'smalls' as the putative plural of 'small', as in an event for 'smalls'. However, it is correct to say 'an event for the small', or 'an event for our small', meaning an event for children, kids, kinder, et cetera.
I hope this is interesting!
1.a. Persons or animals of small size or stature; little ones, children. (Now only with the.)
c. 1220 Bestiary 505 in O.E. Misc., Ðe smale he wile ðus biswiken, ðe grete mais he nost bigripen. a 1300 E.E. Psalter xvi. 16 Þhar leuings to Þair leuings to Þair smale left Þai.
1388 Wyclif Matt. xviii. 6. Who so sclaundrith oon of these smale, that bileuen in mee... [But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me...]
c.1430 Syr Tryam. 1556 ' A lytulle lower, Syr, 'seyde hee, ' And let us smalle go wyth thee'.
So, it seems that in period 'small' was used as a collective noun for children. It is therefore correct to say 'the small', much as we say 'help the poor' or 'we small', like we say 'we few, we happy few, we band of brothers'. There is no support for using 'small' as a singular noun like 'there goes my small' and no support for using 'smalls' as the putative plural of 'small', as in an event for 'smalls'. However, it is correct to say 'an event for the small', or 'an event for our small', meaning an event for children, kids, kinder, et cetera.
I hope this is interesting!
ON STRIVING
ON STRIVING
"God always strives together with those who strive." - Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.)
There is an old shibboleth about how striving for a peerage is bad, saying:
"People shouldn't be striving for peerage anyway. They should be striving to be good at what they enjoy."
This idea has been accepted without sufficient question: What is so wrong with striving toward a goal? I have heard several reasons in the past, none of which I agree with.
One is that peerage as an end causes people to disregard the means -- to cut corners. Another is simply that modesty is a virtue to be expected in peers and to be proud of peerage shows some unseemly boastfulness.
In answer, one can say that first having a goal of peerage does not cause one to cut corners, that society generally has a place for goal setting behavior. Also, to say that peerage is not a worthy goal is quite contrary to the prevailing message sent in the SCA: that awards are given as a reward for virtuous behavior.
SHOULD WE ASSUME PEERAGE AS AN END CAUSES PEOPLE TO CUT CORNERS? NO, PEOPLE SET GOALS AS THEY ARE TAUGHT TO, FOR POSITIVE REASONS.
First, to simply assume that striving to a goal means getting to the end with no regard for the path one follows is to take an unnecessarily (dare I say) cynical view of human nature. Is the obvious not much more likely? People in society are taught to set concrete goals for ordinary, positive reasons.
For instance, imagine the child who tells their parent: "Mom, when I grow up I want to be a fireman." Do we tell them: "Well, son, if you really love fighting fires, someday you'll be a fireman." No, you tell them, "Here's how you work toward that goal, first volunteer at your local Rural FD, then after you graduate apply to a small fire district."
It is no different in the SCA. The belted circle (especially) is populated with people who wanted to grow up to be a medieval Knight, and the SCA supplied them with the opportunity. Were they wrong to think that?
Most people will have to change to achieve their goal. And most need something to tell them they are making progress. It is more practical to say 'someday I will be a knight' than to say 'someday I will love fighting'.
Or, think of this as people believing in sympathetic magic: 'if I try to be a knight this will cause me to have the qualities of a knight.' Hopefully the good ones.
In some people it does.
Ever tried to lose weight? A good weight loss program combines a measurable goal (achieving a target weight) with a proper means (getting good nutrition, not simply fasting) and counsels realism (setting an achievable target). All of these are necessary for success.
Now, should we all be so zen that we can make the means all and disregard the end? Perhaps, but I believe most people don't work that way. The Oriental martial arts are about developing self-discipline and focus, but they still have belts and belt tests to recognize achievements of certain levels, and there are people who are held up as recognized masters (sensei) of martial arts.
DO PEOPLE TRULY DO THINGS FOR THE LOVE ALONE?
Striving for a goal need not imply that they do not also love the thing for itself. Although, one can say that the SCA awards do not reward doing something for its own sake. In a sense they cannot. Public recognition is the antithesis of doing something for the love of it alone. A person who finds virtue in doing something for its own sake would find such attention at best as an unwanted intrusion into their privacy and at worst as an implication that they are being a hypocrite. It certainly would not please them.
Most of us fall somewhere in between -- we would like to be pleased with our pursuits no matter whether they are recognized or not, but appreciate recognition as praise when it is offered.
THE SCA ASSERTS THAT AWARDS ARE A GOAL, QUITE DELIBERATELY, AND FOR GOOD REASON
So, one may ask, how did people get this idea that peerage is a valid goal? I would say: 'how could they fail to get that idea?' The reason we have awards in the SCA (in my opinion) is not primarily to reward certain select people but rather to motivate others to emulate them. That is why we pick out people and apply an easy-to-understand label of Knight or Laurel or Pelican and hold a large, central, public, ceremony where people can see that label being applied. It is fully in keeping with that goal that people grab onto that label when they think of the good qualities which (we hope) are common to that peerage, and which we hope people emulate.
In fact, is not court and giving of awards central to what makes the SCA the SCA? The quintessential SCA event consists of a court (or several) and a feast or tournament, depending on whether it is indoor or out. People would have to be blind and deaf to miss that. Given that, how realistic is it for people not to use the words we cram into their mouths?
Why do we assume the worst? Why is 'I want to be a knight someday' not assumed to be a shorthand for 'I want to be like that person who I regard highly', instead of for 'if I shrug enough shots I'll get a white belt.'
Social engineering? You bet. But that's the system the SCA has quite deliberately created by 37 years of labor. Why do we fight the very nature of we have set up?
WHAT MESSAGE DO PEERS SEND ABOUT WHAT PEERAGE MEANS?
People make much of the fact that peerage is a recognition, not a reward. Recognition or reward? What is the difference? I suppose that the term 'recognition' is supposed to connote selflessness. By the argument, a recognition merely gives a name to what a person already is, and does not or should not change their reality. It does not augment who the person is before or after. It is nothing therefore to be proud of. On the other hand, a 'reward' is taken to mean an augmentation to the person. It changes them, not just the label we apply to them, and so can be a point of pride in itself. So, for instance, if a reward is monetary, one is demonstrably heavier in the purse after receiving it. Therefore, a reward is somehow immodest, as it is the opposite of selfless, so it is selfish.
Which is peerage, then, recognition or reward? Let's get real for a moment. It is both.
As I said above, peerage is an accepted motivational tool of the SCA. Peers are exemplars, not just of the values that made us peers but how to act in being peers. And, as exemplars, candidates see all sides of us and of what a peerage means to us, including the natural, genuine and proper pride many of us have in having become peers.
Am I proud of my achievement of peerage. You bet I am, and I believe most peers are proud of theirs. Do I view it as a reward? Yes. Should it be rewarding merely to be held up as an exemplar? Well, it certainly validates my values that they should be held as an example. I can take pride in that. It certainly beats being a pariah for one's values.
Awards are not the sole reason we are motivated to achieve. But given the exposure we have given awards in the SCA, it is unrealistic to expect most people will not see them somewhat as a reward. They simply connect cause and effect (virtuous behavior causes public acclaim, note, distinction and celebration). In fact, we hope they will feel rewarded, otherwise holding forth the promise of awards loses its motivating effect.
Is this a license to be rudely boastful? Boorish? No, of course not, but all things in moderation; It is equally unhealthy (and unrealistic) to require we indulge in ascetic self denial.
Look at a peerage ceremony. It is a celebration, full of happy faces, friends honored and pleased to be seen in the retinue, and an overjoyed, if not overwhelmed candidate. It is a cause for joy. What are they so happy about? Not a commemoration of a selfless act, surely. We do not ask the candidate to wear sackcloth and ashes. We ask them to be proud and contented.
It is false modesty, then, for peers to suppress entirely the pride we have in our achievements. And it is then hypocritical to ask an excess of modesty from candidates.
Of course, we should discourage people from expecting the reward to always follow the behavior. That way leads to disappointed, unhappy people and worse, bitterness toward the general idea of striving to better themselves. But, as we give that proviso, we have to ask ourselves: "Are people being disappointed by falling short of the qualities which we hoped they would emulate, or is this just an excuse for the circle not doing its diligence and overlooking too many good people?"
WHY ARE PEERS NOT PROUD OF PEERAGE? IS MODESTY MERELY THE EASY WAY OUT?
It is obvious to others, if not to ourselves, that achieving peerage is selfishly rewarding. Why then do peers so often feel guilty about showing pride in their accomplishment? Perhaps it is because we fear that this promise - that peerage is nothing more than a selfless recognition of merit - is false, or at least exaggerated. We fear that rewards do not come only to the just - that peerage is not a meritocracy, but instead is the old boys club some say it is, gained by benefit of class, fortune or even politics. For if we had the total force of our convictions and believed without hesitation that peerage is a meritocracy, we would have no shame in stating without false modesty that we are merely the exemplars of what merit brings, knowing that anyone else has an equal chance, limited only by their true merits, of doing the same. Instead, we fear that our pride provokes not motivation but jealousy.
We must face this fear head on. Saying one should love the pursuit of a thing solely for its own sake seems to deny the aspect of reward. It reduces to nil our credibility as exemplars when we seem to believe something that so contrasts with reality. People constantly see the association made between awards and good pursuits. Indeed, as I said, doing something solely for its own sake and public recognition are not just incongruous, but in a sense, antithetical.
What can the reasonable listener make of peers preaching modesty in the face of the evidence? He can take one of two possible messages. Either the peers are being disingenuously naive, or, worse, that they believe good things come to those who wait.
Good things come to those who wait. What harm is there in forwarding this promise? Nothing, but it certainly sets a very high standard for the peerage to follow. We must now be responsible to insure that justice is always done when a person does nothing but quietly, humbly practice their art and wait for their just reward. This does not square with the reality of how circles do or can work in the SCA. I am not omniscient. Most circle members are not. Circles, in practice, cannot recognize people who do not to a certain extent promote themselves to us. Indeed, we do not. Instead, we are constantly requiring candidates to show or prove their merit to us. How? In circle we ask what offices they hold, what competitions they win, what arts they demonstrate or teach. In short, we ask how they have actively proven their merit. It is the height of hypocrisy to believe that we can ask this and yet fault the candidate who shows such initiative. By this standard, a candidate should be faulted rather than favored for using their art to win an arts competition or their fighting skill to win a tournament rather than doing it for its own sake. After all, to believe that that they do the thing with no hope of recognition or reward is to believe that they love their skill and its practice exactly as much before competing and after. This is certainly not the message that we send in the SCA. We hold competitions at all times and all levels for all manner of things.
And this is to be expected.
CONCLUSION:
In brief, striving for the ranks we set forth in the SCA is not only good but should be expected given the system we have set up. Let's quit slapping people with one hand for the same things for which we are stroking them with the other.
"God always strives together with those who strive." - Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.)
There is an old shibboleth about how striving for a peerage is bad, saying:
"People shouldn't be striving for peerage anyway. They should be striving to be good at what they enjoy."
This idea has been accepted without sufficient question: What is so wrong with striving toward a goal? I have heard several reasons in the past, none of which I agree with.
One is that peerage as an end causes people to disregard the means -- to cut corners. Another is simply that modesty is a virtue to be expected in peers and to be proud of peerage shows some unseemly boastfulness.
In answer, one can say that first having a goal of peerage does not cause one to cut corners, that society generally has a place for goal setting behavior. Also, to say that peerage is not a worthy goal is quite contrary to the prevailing message sent in the SCA: that awards are given as a reward for virtuous behavior.
SHOULD WE ASSUME PEERAGE AS AN END CAUSES PEOPLE TO CUT CORNERS? NO, PEOPLE SET GOALS AS THEY ARE TAUGHT TO, FOR POSITIVE REASONS.
First, to simply assume that striving to a goal means getting to the end with no regard for the path one follows is to take an unnecessarily (dare I say) cynical view of human nature. Is the obvious not much more likely? People in society are taught to set concrete goals for ordinary, positive reasons.
For instance, imagine the child who tells their parent: "Mom, when I grow up I want to be a fireman." Do we tell them: "Well, son, if you really love fighting fires, someday you'll be a fireman." No, you tell them, "Here's how you work toward that goal, first volunteer at your local Rural FD, then after you graduate apply to a small fire district."
It is no different in the SCA. The belted circle (especially) is populated with people who wanted to grow up to be a medieval Knight, and the SCA supplied them with the opportunity. Were they wrong to think that?
Most people will have to change to achieve their goal. And most need something to tell them they are making progress. It is more practical to say 'someday I will be a knight' than to say 'someday I will love fighting'.
Or, think of this as people believing in sympathetic magic: 'if I try to be a knight this will cause me to have the qualities of a knight.' Hopefully the good ones.
In some people it does.
Ever tried to lose weight? A good weight loss program combines a measurable goal (achieving a target weight) with a proper means (getting good nutrition, not simply fasting) and counsels realism (setting an achievable target). All of these are necessary for success.
Now, should we all be so zen that we can make the means all and disregard the end? Perhaps, but I believe most people don't work that way. The Oriental martial arts are about developing self-discipline and focus, but they still have belts and belt tests to recognize achievements of certain levels, and there are people who are held up as recognized masters (sensei) of martial arts.
DO PEOPLE TRULY DO THINGS FOR THE LOVE ALONE?
Striving for a goal need not imply that they do not also love the thing for itself. Although, one can say that the SCA awards do not reward doing something for its own sake. In a sense they cannot. Public recognition is the antithesis of doing something for the love of it alone. A person who finds virtue in doing something for its own sake would find such attention at best as an unwanted intrusion into their privacy and at worst as an implication that they are being a hypocrite. It certainly would not please them.
Most of us fall somewhere in between -- we would like to be pleased with our pursuits no matter whether they are recognized or not, but appreciate recognition as praise when it is offered.
THE SCA ASSERTS THAT AWARDS ARE A GOAL, QUITE DELIBERATELY, AND FOR GOOD REASON
So, one may ask, how did people get this idea that peerage is a valid goal? I would say: 'how could they fail to get that idea?' The reason we have awards in the SCA (in my opinion) is not primarily to reward certain select people but rather to motivate others to emulate them. That is why we pick out people and apply an easy-to-understand label of Knight or Laurel or Pelican and hold a large, central, public, ceremony where people can see that label being applied. It is fully in keeping with that goal that people grab onto that label when they think of the good qualities which (we hope) are common to that peerage, and which we hope people emulate.
In fact, is not court and giving of awards central to what makes the SCA the SCA? The quintessential SCA event consists of a court (or several) and a feast or tournament, depending on whether it is indoor or out. People would have to be blind and deaf to miss that. Given that, how realistic is it for people not to use the words we cram into their mouths?
Why do we assume the worst? Why is 'I want to be a knight someday' not assumed to be a shorthand for 'I want to be like that person who I regard highly', instead of for 'if I shrug enough shots I'll get a white belt.'
Social engineering? You bet. But that's the system the SCA has quite deliberately created by 37 years of labor. Why do we fight the very nature of we have set up?
WHAT MESSAGE DO PEERS SEND ABOUT WHAT PEERAGE MEANS?
People make much of the fact that peerage is a recognition, not a reward. Recognition or reward? What is the difference? I suppose that the term 'recognition' is supposed to connote selflessness. By the argument, a recognition merely gives a name to what a person already is, and does not or should not change their reality. It does not augment who the person is before or after. It is nothing therefore to be proud of. On the other hand, a 'reward' is taken to mean an augmentation to the person. It changes them, not just the label we apply to them, and so can be a point of pride in itself. So, for instance, if a reward is monetary, one is demonstrably heavier in the purse after receiving it. Therefore, a reward is somehow immodest, as it is the opposite of selfless, so it is selfish.
Which is peerage, then, recognition or reward? Let's get real for a moment. It is both.
As I said above, peerage is an accepted motivational tool of the SCA. Peers are exemplars, not just of the values that made us peers but how to act in being peers. And, as exemplars, candidates see all sides of us and of what a peerage means to us, including the natural, genuine and proper pride many of us have in having become peers.
Am I proud of my achievement of peerage. You bet I am, and I believe most peers are proud of theirs. Do I view it as a reward? Yes. Should it be rewarding merely to be held up as an exemplar? Well, it certainly validates my values that they should be held as an example. I can take pride in that. It certainly beats being a pariah for one's values.
Awards are not the sole reason we are motivated to achieve. But given the exposure we have given awards in the SCA, it is unrealistic to expect most people will not see them somewhat as a reward. They simply connect cause and effect (virtuous behavior causes public acclaim, note, distinction and celebration). In fact, we hope they will feel rewarded, otherwise holding forth the promise of awards loses its motivating effect.
Is this a license to be rudely boastful? Boorish? No, of course not, but all things in moderation; It is equally unhealthy (and unrealistic) to require we indulge in ascetic self denial.
Look at a peerage ceremony. It is a celebration, full of happy faces, friends honored and pleased to be seen in the retinue, and an overjoyed, if not overwhelmed candidate. It is a cause for joy. What are they so happy about? Not a commemoration of a selfless act, surely. We do not ask the candidate to wear sackcloth and ashes. We ask them to be proud and contented.
It is false modesty, then, for peers to suppress entirely the pride we have in our achievements. And it is then hypocritical to ask an excess of modesty from candidates.
Of course, we should discourage people from expecting the reward to always follow the behavior. That way leads to disappointed, unhappy people and worse, bitterness toward the general idea of striving to better themselves. But, as we give that proviso, we have to ask ourselves: "Are people being disappointed by falling short of the qualities which we hoped they would emulate, or is this just an excuse for the circle not doing its diligence and overlooking too many good people?"
WHY ARE PEERS NOT PROUD OF PEERAGE? IS MODESTY MERELY THE EASY WAY OUT?
It is obvious to others, if not to ourselves, that achieving peerage is selfishly rewarding. Why then do peers so often feel guilty about showing pride in their accomplishment? Perhaps it is because we fear that this promise - that peerage is nothing more than a selfless recognition of merit - is false, or at least exaggerated. We fear that rewards do not come only to the just - that peerage is not a meritocracy, but instead is the old boys club some say it is, gained by benefit of class, fortune or even politics. For if we had the total force of our convictions and believed without hesitation that peerage is a meritocracy, we would have no shame in stating without false modesty that we are merely the exemplars of what merit brings, knowing that anyone else has an equal chance, limited only by their true merits, of doing the same. Instead, we fear that our pride provokes not motivation but jealousy.
We must face this fear head on. Saying one should love the pursuit of a thing solely for its own sake seems to deny the aspect of reward. It reduces to nil our credibility as exemplars when we seem to believe something that so contrasts with reality. People constantly see the association made between awards and good pursuits. Indeed, as I said, doing something solely for its own sake and public recognition are not just incongruous, but in a sense, antithetical.
What can the reasonable listener make of peers preaching modesty in the face of the evidence? He can take one of two possible messages. Either the peers are being disingenuously naive, or, worse, that they believe good things come to those who wait.
Good things come to those who wait. What harm is there in forwarding this promise? Nothing, but it certainly sets a very high standard for the peerage to follow. We must now be responsible to insure that justice is always done when a person does nothing but quietly, humbly practice their art and wait for their just reward. This does not square with the reality of how circles do or can work in the SCA. I am not omniscient. Most circle members are not. Circles, in practice, cannot recognize people who do not to a certain extent promote themselves to us. Indeed, we do not. Instead, we are constantly requiring candidates to show or prove their merit to us. How? In circle we ask what offices they hold, what competitions they win, what arts they demonstrate or teach. In short, we ask how they have actively proven their merit. It is the height of hypocrisy to believe that we can ask this and yet fault the candidate who shows such initiative. By this standard, a candidate should be faulted rather than favored for using their art to win an arts competition or their fighting skill to win a tournament rather than doing it for its own sake. After all, to believe that that they do the thing with no hope of recognition or reward is to believe that they love their skill and its practice exactly as much before competing and after. This is certainly not the message that we send in the SCA. We hold competitions at all times and all levels for all manner of things.
And this is to be expected.
CONCLUSION:
In brief, striving for the ranks we set forth in the SCA is not only good but should be expected given the system we have set up. Let's quit slapping people with one hand for the same things for which we are stroking them with the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)