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

Re: For the record

Poster: Eldred@concentric.net

Greetings from Eldred!

> Eldred@concentric.net wrote:
> > 
> > Greetings from Eldred!
> > 
> > So rather than attempt to get help in designing armory that looks more
> > authentic, or even show an interest in it, she's giving up?  This makes
> > the client sound like a petulant child.  Good thing we aren't a group like
> > the Militaes Normans (sp?) or the Civ War Re-enactors, or you'd be
> > extremely unhappy.
> Uhhh...no...rather than go through the 3rd submission on the same device
> that has been bounced twice for reasons that have *absolutely nothing*
> to do with the quality of the device (which actually has been praised by
> at least one person for being quite period, and elegantly simple), she
> is choosing to save her time for pursuits that interest her more.

Simple, yes.  However, neither a horse nor 'My Pretty Pony' is a
unicorn, regardless of whether a horn is on it or not.  My device would
have been bounced back pretty quick if I had drawn 'Puff the Magic
Dragon'.  The whole idea is to make an attempt at being medieval.  *That*
is why the College of Arms defines the heraldic unicorn the way it does.

Without seeing the second submission, I can't vouch for what happened the
second time around.
> Well ya know, we didn't join the Militaes Normans, a Civil War
> reinactment group, ECW or anything like that, we joined the SCA.  

Right.  My point being that we are a heck more lenient in what we tolerate
as being period than either of the other groups I mention.  I'm not saying
it's good, I'm not saying it's bad, it is just the way it is.  *IF* you
had joined the MN, you would be held to a far stricter standard of
authenticity than the SCA requires (in general) in order to play the game.
Be glad that we *are* so tolerant and do have some minimum standards.  If
we didn't the SCA would just be a place for people to live role-play their
D&D characters (OK, some already do, but that's a different ball of wax).

> She determined that since the College of Heralds has absolutely no
> enforcement powers, she doesn't care about them.  I've tried to convince
> her that the reasons for the return are legitimate (although I
> personally think one of the reasons was trivial, I bow to the judgement
> of those who disagree), but she has decided that she doesn't like the
> game, so she isn't going to play.

Ah, 'I don't like your rules, and you can't make me follow them, so I
won't operate within them....'  Well, that's her choice.  We don't force
anyone into the process, we encourage them to follow it.  Part of the goal
of the College is to make our names and heraldry more authentic feeling.
We don't always get it right, but we've gotten a lot better at it.

> I remember the discussion we had about the Heraldic vs NonHeraldic
> unicorns, it was quite educational on both sides, and she was genuinely
> interested.  Not anymore.

I'm glad it was educational.  I'm sorry if you feel that the discussion
turned into a brow-beating, but as I indicated before lots of people are
willing to talk, but fewer are willing to listen.

> If you want to teach folks that their device is poorly drawn on the
> submission form, why not say something like "Okay, the device is legal,
> clear of conflict, and approvable, therefore we pass it.  However, the
> color of the field on the submission form was a little more orangish
> than would be considered normal (or the unicorn is too horsey),
> submitter should be made aware of this and note it in future use."

Because no one learns from success, only their failures?  8^)

Actually, Laurel *does* do what you suggest--within limits.  If the item
in question is too far from period practice (as we understand it), it gets
returned.  If people want to learn that their devices are not drawn
correctly, then they should go look it up (any consult table should have
at least one handy, and it is recommended that local heralds have a
picture reference as well).  The College of Arms is a *volunteer*
organization that is used as a verification and registry service, not a
personal research facility for people to learn about the Middle Ages.
Yes, we *do* research, and we do consult, but it is reasonable to expect  
a client to show they are serious by initiating the research on their own.

Another point:  some of us scribes(yeah, I do that, too) get the emblazons
from the Kingdom files (or once upon a time we did).  Having unheraldic
arms on an otherwise spiff scroll looks silly.  Not all scribes are
heralds, nor do they all understand heraldeze.  If you were such a scribe,
and you were handed the emblazon from the Kingdom files to copy onto a
scroll, how would you feel about copying something that didn't look right?
I guess it depends on your personal integrity as an artisan....
> Who does that harm?

The client.  The client learns nothing if we tell them 'OK, but it isn't
period.'  Personally, I'd say that Snoopy doing the happy dance on the
grass does not equate with 'Vert, a beagle rampant'.  If the client is
forced to draw their arms in a period manner, then they have learned
something (other than Heralds are nit-picky).  At one time, felt as you
did, but after participating in the CoH and the CoA for a while, I found
that I agree with this aspect of the process.

In service,

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