[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Query re: A&S/heraldry comp at Pointless

Poster: "Thorpe, John" <thorpj@caepo1.columbiaSC.NCR.COM>

Greetings from Eldred!

Scipsit Tibor:
%Eldred wrote:
%  In the context of "playing" SCA, we would like to maintain the illusion
%  that we "own" our registered armory.  As Tibor so eloquently points
%  out, we don't own it--it is just on a list maintained by the Laurel
%  Sovereign of Arms.  When someone violates the rules(customs)
%  we use in our game, then our illusion begins to fragment.  We have
%  no formal recourse for arbitrating disputes nor enforcing those
%  decisions.

%Ahh, but which illusion?  The illusion of ownership of armory?  That
%illusion is not a good one: for it is not only false (as all illusions are)
%but it prevents us from understanding history, and from playing more and
%better games of history.

Reality check #1:  Illusion of armorial ownership.  Armorial ownership
is a reality in period.  Exclusive ownership is another matter.  We have
formulated an illusion within the SCA that we have exclusive ownership
of armory.  Tibor is correct that this obscures the real view of history.

%I have some of the most fun I can have in the Society, when I can act as a
%period herald acted.  Resolving such disputes in a peaceful and period 
%manner seems to me to be the ultimate fun,

Cool.  That may play well in the East, but I seriously doubt I would survive
such encounters intact if I tried that here in Southern Atlantia....  Just 
d**n stuffy herald...  8^)

%Or, is the illusion you feel that is being shattered the period illusion we
%attempt to create? Nothing could be further from the truth.  Identical arms
%were born all over history.  (I could bear that out with a quick check in
%Papworths Ordinary, any random page.)

Reality check #2:  The period illusion we attempt to create is not shattered
by armorial display.  The illusion is shattered when we attempt to
arbitrate matters in a modern style--which is what seems to happen more
often than not.

%That seems like an interesting challenge.  I happen to be working from home
%today, so I will check some random page in Papworths...

%Page 356.  The first arms listed belong two different names, the third
%arms listed belong to 3 different names, the fourth arms listed belong to 4
%different names, the fifth arms listed belong to 4 different names, the
%seventh arms belong to two different names.  Half the arms belong to
%multiple names.  (And this is England alone: I know not for the continent.)

%Let's check a few other pages, the first 10 arms:  I find that somewhere
%between one half to one third of these random arms have multiple holders.

Torpedoes away!  Well, now that you've scuppered our notion that
armory must be unique.... 8^)  You now need to change the minds of
the rocks:  "Armory has been unique in the SCA since day one, and we
*like* it that way!"  How to change the status quo....education?  Change
the system under them?  Do you really want to go against the will of
the people(if you could get a large enough sample of them to respond)
that wants unique armory for the sake of creating a more period model?
I'm sure many heralds would like to see a more period model, but alas,
we are not the majority of the populace, are we?

In service,
Neutral Minion(tm)
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org