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

Re: scope of the SCA

Poster: "Terry L. Neill" <Neilltl@ptsc.slg.eds.com>

Sherry Hintze <chhintze@bmd.clis.com> wrote:
>One of the things that isn't mentioned much anymore (Actually, it was
>well moot before I entered the SCA 9 years ago) are the ties between the
>and modern fantasy fiction.  

>At one time, the SCA had a lot of overlap with such-like.  Look at the
>current occupations of a lot of the founders - writing fantasy fiction.
>Somewhere along the line, we decided to make a break with fantasy, I think
>largely in the interest of gaining respect as an organization.  IMHO, it's
>helped do that and it's been a good thing.

The original invitation to the original party asked attendees to wear the
costumes of the Middle Ages, Tolkein, Elves, or other 'sword-bearing' eras/
timelines.  (Not an exact quote, but close enough.)

The SCA started as a group of people trying to re-create the ideals of
Aurthurian romantic chivalry and honor, as filtered throught the Victorian age,
as filtered through fantasy novels, as filtered through the climate if Berkely
in the 60s.

Note authentic historical accuracy is nowhere in there.

This is where we clash with other "historical re-enactment" groups.  Their
organizations started with the idea of re-enacting history as closely as they

Our organization started as a fantasy/medieval party.  What attracted folks to
it was the romance of chivalry through all those filters.  (Remember, this was
BERKLEY in the SIXTIES - you can't get more romantic and idealistic than that!)

The cutoff of 1600 was because that was when one of the folks filling out the
incorporation papers thought gunpowder was invented.  They MEANT it to be a
medieval organization - running from the dark ages to the invention of

But it's grown and changed since then.  The only continuously active member of
the SCA who was at that party at Diana Paxton's house has never been on the
board of directors.

Our vision now is our collective vision over time, not the vision of the
attendees of that first party.  This is not a bad thing.

Throughout the last 31 years, the SCA has grown closer and closer to the
historical aspect and (sadly) further from the chivalry and honor aspect.

We can look to the founding parents to see what they intended.  But what they
intended is not what's in our governing documents.  And isn't what we're doing
now over mumbly-odd countries in (soon to be) 15 kingdoms.

Personally (my *personal* opinion) I'd like to see an emphasis on BOTH
historical accuracy and Chivalry.

I can help a chivalrous person become more historically accurate.

It's a hard slog to help a historicaly accurate idiot become more chivalrous.

        - Anarra

List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org