![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
evaluating Laurel candidates (SCA)
Non-SCA people probably won't be interested in this.
While cleaning up the pile of mail that arrived during Pennsic, I bumped into a message I had sent a few weeks ago to someone who asked what I look for in candidates for the Laurel, the SCA's peerage (highest-level award) for arts and sciences. This is what I wrote (cleaned up a bit):
After the basic requirements given in Corpora, here is what I look for:
While cleaning up the pile of mail that arrived during Pennsic, I bumped into a message I had sent a few weeks ago to someone who asked what I look for in candidates for the Laurel, the SCA's peerage (highest-level award) for arts and sciences. This is what I wrote (cleaned up a bit):
After the basic requirements given in Corpora, here is what I look for:
- Superior skill in some SCA-appropriate field. I define fields broadly; research, court heraldry, period archery, and recreating period tournaments would all qualify.
- Knowledge of what is period and what is not, in detail within that field but to some broad level in other fields. The person should have done enough work with period techniques and materials to know first-hand what the issues are. You don't have to hand-sew all the garb, but you do have to have done it enough to understand which sewing-machine tricks aren't found in nature. :-)
- Peer-like qualities that can be summed up as "I would send a newcomer to this person for guidance without hesitation".
- Sharing the knowledge -- teaching, writing articles, one-on-one tutilege, I don't care so long as it happens (and isn't restricted to "only for my friends" or the like). I don't care how spiffy the stuff you make is if you don't share your knowledge with the rest of us. (This is aided by activity level, but I'm perfectly happy to give a Laurel to someone who mostly doesn't leave his home group if he has some other way of getting the knowledge out there.)
- A degree of inquisitiveness, intellectual rigor, and general approach to research that I find hard to describe. Critical thinking -- about your sources and about the conclusions you can draw from them -- is a big part of it. There is also a creativity aspect that is exemplified by projects such as the various "experimental archeology" efforts.
- Impact -- is the society a better place because of this person's presence? Not all fields are conducive to ground-breaking work (and this is certainly not required for the Laurel), but when the possibility exists and the candidate comes through, I consider it to be highly significant. The person who opens up a new field -- credibly! -- scores major points.
- "Tenure": while I don't have a set rule here, the candidate has to have beeen active in the SCA for several years. If a real-world expert joins the SCA and seems to acclimate within a year or two, he's still not ready for a peerage.
no subject
Second, I'm going to hijack your post and ask another question: based on these requirements, why is it so hard to get a Laurel for something other than just the "usual suspects"? Specifically (and you knew this was coming since I am obsessive) why do we have hardly any fencing Laurels?
From your descriptions, I can rattle off a few people I know personally that fit this bill with fencing. They all have superior skills in historical fencing, they can rattle off about DiGrassi and Lovino at the drop of a hat (any hat), they take Cadets, they run practices, they try to run period tourneys... I can say with conviction that from your criteria I think these people deserve a Laurel.
However, I've been informed that the highest award for fencing is the White Scarf. That seems to imply that fencing is not worth a Peerage...which, IMHO, sucks.
Again, I've hijacked your discussion. :) Sorry about that. You just got me thinking.
no subject
I think the general answer to this one is: because the Laurels have to become educated enough to evaluate a new field, and this can take time. For example, if a scribal candidate shows up, there'll be a dozen people in the order who can speak in detail about the strengths and weaknesses of the person's work. If, on the other hand, the candidate's art is early-period glass-blowing, there will be few if any people in the order who can speak to the subject. So we'll go off and try to learn about this -- taking the candidate's classes, networking with people in other kingdoms, and whatnot -- but in the mean time lots of people will abstain from the vote. Royalty don't like to see lots of abstensions; they view it as lack of support. Sometimes that's the case, but in these kinds of cases it's lack of current knowledge.
Do some Laurels fail to educate themselves so they can move beyond an abstension? Yes, of course, for various reasons -- but I think most of us really do want to make the effort here. Besides, learning new things is neat! But all of this means that the candidate in an "obscure" or "new" field usually has a longer journey to the Laurel than someone else does. It's unfortunate, but I'm not sure what we can do differently. (Input welcome.)
Now on to your specific question...
Specifically (and you knew this was coming since I am obsessive) why do we have hardly any fencing Laurels?
First, remember that this is my list, not the order's official list. I personally think a fencing Laurel is a spiffy idea.
If someone is doing period-style fencing (not modern sports), including using appropriate equipment, and is teaching that period style and encouraging people in it and all the other things you list, and he meets the personal criteria I gave above, then I would support him for a Laurel. There will always be people (peers and royalty) who think fencing belongs with the martial order or nowhere, but my perception is that this was much more a problem in the East kingdom than here in AEthelmearc. I believe that a candidate in this area would receive a fair hearing in AEthelmearc.
So, have you written letters of recommendation? While sometimes the Laurels propose candidates directly, much of the time -- and especially in uncommon fields where there isn't already a champion in the order -- the recommendations come from outside. You should definitely write to the royalty, and you can copy the clerk of the order as well. (Royal recommendations get passed on to the order, but the speed and reliability do depend on the organizational skills of the royalty in question...)
However, I've been informed that the highest award for fencing is the White Scarf. That seems to imply that fencing is not worth a Peerage...which, IMHO, sucks.
I think part of the problem is that some people fixate on the idea of a single peerage for fencers. Fencers who are doing historically-accurate work should be candidates for the Laurel; fencers who are doing butt-loads of work to make fencing happen should be candidates for the Pelican; and fencers who are pursuing a modern sport, no matter how good at it they are, should either not expect a peerage (just as one shouldn't expect a Laurel for web design) or should be candidates for Chivalry. Really, the problem is that our order of the Chivalry is anomolous; it's for a modern sport, rattan fighting, but it's an ancient and venerable order for a modern sport so it's not going to change. The people who are only midling fighters but are doing amazing stuff with medieval tournament companies aren't going to be knighted, either, but they are fine candidates for the Laurel.
Re:
I knew that one was coming. :) Not yet, but I will be. I am also very glad to hear your comments that a fencing candidate would receive a fair hearing here in our fair AEthelmearc.
Mutter, mutter. Now I have to go and do research and write things. Mutter, mutter. :)
"The usual suspects"
If you do calligraphy, there's thirty two thousand calligraphy persons out there you can be ranked against. "Well, his Roman half-uncial is actually better than Lisa's, but his Gothic Litera hand is worse than George's!" Your skills can be pigeon holed to an uncanny degree of precision.
If you are, Ghod/dess help you, unique, then there's no one to compare you against. There is an individual in Rhydderich Hael, (Monica knows who I'm talking about) who has the persona of a 14th c. English ship's navigator. He IS a ship's navigator. He has a trunk full of navigation instruments that he built in his workshop. They are all functional and he knows how to use them. He's a member of the Buffalo Maritime Society which owns a historical replica of a 17th c. merchant ship and they've used his stuff on tours. After I spearheaded a MAJOR campaign to get him a Laurel, getting people to write recommendation letters, etc. their majesties awarded him a Sycamore.
Specifically (and you knew this was coming since I am obsessive) why do we have hardly any fencing Laurels? ... However, I've been informed that the highest award for fencing is the White Scarf. That seems to imply that fencing is not worth a Peerage...which, IMHO, sucks.
This is no longer a question of "Is person X good enough for a peerage?", this is now "Why isn't there a peerage for what X does?" As far as the BoD is concerned, there's Knighthood for Martial Arts, Laurel for peaceful arts, and Pelicans for everything else. This question just came up (again!) to the BoD within the past year and the BoD said that the majority of their mail was against creating a peerage for fencers or archers. It's not that people don't want to give out peerages, it's that we've been told we can't.
The awards only have 'lesser distinction' on the books. Watch how White Scarves are awarded in court. That is, for all intents and purposes, a peerage ceremony. They are treated with the respect of a peerage. When a White Scarf talks about fencing, he's listened to with the attention as a Laurel talking about garb. And it seems to be that AEthelmearc is not giving out Laurels but Pelicans for this sort of thing. Connor Bowsplitter who was peeraged this past Pennsic is pretty much a peerage for archery.
Re: "The usual suspects"
This is something of a Catch-22. Per your comments, the BoD says that Knighthoods are for Martial Arts. Fencing is a martial art. However, as far as I know, the only Knighthoods ever given are for heavy fighting. So, fencing is precluded from ever getting a martial peerage.
The awards only have 'lesser distinction' on the books. Watch how White Scarves are awarded in court. That is, for all intents and purposes, a peerage ceremony.
I would agree with you on this -- mostly. The White Scarf treaty and/or fencing is not in every Kingdom. Also, Laurels are apart of a larger community than White Scarves -- they can comment on more than just their field of speciality.
You have some very valid points -- a White Scarf is very much like a peerage -- but not exactly. And it's that "not exactly" that seems to bother me a little bit. It is as if fencing is considered the red-headed step-child of the Society and that does not seem quite so fair to me.
Re: "The usual suspects"
Yeah, I wish our peerage orders had evolved differently. If "knighthood" didn't have such a strong Arthurian lure, it would have actually been better to have just two: "doing stuff" and "making stuff happen". Then skill at fighting and fencing and horsemanship and music and cooking would all be lumped in together.
Re: "The usual suspects"
another peerage
The ruling was against creating a peerage specifically for fencers and archers. I agree with that ruling, for the same reason that I think the kingdom-level awards for the various martial specialties are a bad idea. (I understand why the White Scarf has to be separate, but we didn't need to separate out archery, thrown weapons, equestrian....) We don't have individual peerages for cooking and illumination and weaving and music; we lump them together under the Laurel. We've already seen how absurd things can get when you try to split things out; our grant-level awards are screwy and it is no longer possible to receive a "generalist" martial award. If you're a decent fighter and a decent archer but not stellar at either you will receive no award; in the arts, you would still be eligible for an award.
In my far from humble opinion, every legitimately-recognizable pursuit in the SCA can be fit into one of the three existing peerages. Not everything done in the SCA is suitable for a peerage -- for example, I do not feel it is appropriate to recognize raw skill with modern archery, or photography, or web design with a peerage no matter how good the person is at it. If he's doing enough work that it's Pelican-level service then do it that way. If he's doing actual recreation (period archery, for example) then it belongs with the Laurel. If he's very skilled at period-style archery or fencing or hound-coursing or whatever, that too belongs with the Laurel. If he's just pursuing a modern sport, well, that's not really the point of our society (though see below).
As I said before, our Chivalry order is anomolous. Rattan fighting goes all the way back to the beginning and for most people it has a special place that no other martial activity will ever have. This is unfortunate, because I would like to see top-notch fencers be eligible for knighthood, but in reality it's never going to happen. Creating a parallel martial peerage for fencers won't fix that, though. It would just create an also-ran that would never be perceived as equal -- and that does a disservice to the fencers who would otherwise be sound Laurel candidates.
Re: another peerage
Re: another peerage
Rattan fighting goes all the way back to the beginning and for most people it has a special place that no other martial activity will ever have. This is unfortunate, because I would like to see top-notch fencers be eligible for knighthood, but in reality it's never going to happen.
There's a duke in the Midrealm who had a recommendation I liked. Right now, the Order of Chivalry has two equal branches: the knights and the masters-at-arms. If we created a third branch, called, oh, the masters-of-defense, we would be keeping the knights separate and unique, and still recognizing peer-like rapier fighters in the order where they belong, the order of direct competition.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also with Pelicans, I look for something that could be called "leadership" but isn't quite. Maybe "inspiring others" is a better characterization. That is, there's a difference between showing up to wash dishes at all the local events and helping to make dish-washing run more smoothly (e.g. coordinating the volunteers so you have people at the right times, or noticing that we have these recurring bottlenecks and doing something about it, or whatever). This isn't a requirement; we've certainly had candidates who were seen as "good Indians but not good chiefs" -- but when a person is a good leader, that scores points.
Note that a person who does all the work himself and doesn't delegate is not only not a good leader but a bad leader, IMO.
There's also the issue of scope. Basically, the more localized the work, the longer you generally have to do it before it's Pelican-level service. The broader the impact (and assuming the work is done well, of course :-) ), the sooner the Pelican tends to come.
no subject
A question I like to ask of Pelicans, which you touch on... Are vast amounts of minor local service Pelican-worthy? For example, if someone is /always/ in the kitchen, every event, cleaning, cooking, whatever needs doing to clean up, and this is consistent for, oh, ten years, but they never hold a lofty office, are they someone you would consider as a candidate? My former Pelican had the standard of a 'Pelican sized hole' - will they leave a hole that big if they simply ceased to exist. I agree with that, but we disagreed on whether the scenario I just presented would qualify. I think it is possible to become such a fixture as clean-up crew, or gate staff, or kitchen help, or whatever, that if you ceased to exist it would be a Pel-sized hole, although certianly of a different nature than one who changes the way we play the game at a Society level. Opinions?
Drudge work = Pelican?
I tend to see service in terms of gradations of skill. It takes little skill to do much of the jobs that you are mentioning (clean-up crew, gate staff, or kitchen help). In fact, I've done some of those same jobs at my first handful of events. So (in my opinion) if you are doing jobs that new people could easily be trained to do (it takes very little training to say 'Take this broom and sweep out the cabins') then no, it's not pelican worthy.
However, if you are doing a job that requires skills (whether in an office or not), then you should be recognized. For example, the person who serves feast at every event shouldn't be a pelican. The person who takes the feast servers, organizes them, makes sure that they are serving in period manners (peers often served high table on their knees, things like that), and sets up a viable guild structure that ensures that the servers are trained (and still keeps the feast server job open to new people) should get a pelican.
I guess the bottom line is if that person wasn't there would the work get done? Certainly the sites would be cleaned, the food cut, and the feast served. The pelican is the person who improves the way it is done (or does something totally new).
Again, my opinion. I'd love to hear how other people look at this question?
Re: Drudge work = Pelican?
I think in general I do agree, but I think there are definite exceptions. It's a spectrum thing, as I see it, with the constant, endless little jobs on one end and the one huge act of Society-level service on the other. I don't think that someone can consistently and relentlessly perform even a simple task such as doing the dishes without providing leadership, if only by example. I don't think everyone who washes dishes should eventually get a Pelican, but there are a few incredible souls out there who do, IMO.
Re: Drudge work = Pelican?
I agree with this. If we're talking about that level of service (and not, say, the guy who shows up a couple times a year and washes dishes when he does), then yeah, he's going to end up leading and inspiring other people just by being there. And if it goes on for long enough and consistently enough then he could receive a Pelican for it.
no subject
Does that help at all?
My Thoughts
First, a person should have performed to the extent that they have stretched themselves. IMO that would not be covered by simple drudge work. The leadership principle applies. Certainly, each candidate for a peerage should be judged on their own merits, but I can see the cheif cook at several dozen events getting a Pelican. I could not see that for the water boy.
Second, I think what we are discussing is "high service". Whether it be an office or a management position, high service should be a considerstion for all peerages. Peers should be leaders not only by example but by their ability to manage.
Third, (and you can get out your rotten fruit, now) fencers, riders and archers should NOT be added to the Chivalry. It's a case of apples vs. a fruit basket of other items. They may be delicious, but they are not apples. Perhaps some form of Field Peerage, but probably not. There just doesn't seem to be the necessary support fot this.
My two cents on peerage requirements
I have recently added to what I look for in a laurel candidate. This would fit in with your 'Inquisitiveness' label. The person should be interested in furthering knowledge, not just of their subject, but of arts, etc, in general. I look for evidence that the person not only teaches, but learns. There are two facets to this.
First, the person should be interested in learning from others who work in the same field. This suggests to me that the candidate probably does not have a swelled head about their own knowledge and will probably be open-minded to others' hypotheses.
Second, the person should be interested in learning new things that are not necessarily in their field. One of a laurel's responsibilities is to encourage people in any artistic endeavor. Being interested in the efforts of others is a good indicator that this will occur.
Regarding the pelican candidate, the leadership quality is also analgous to encouragement. Someone who increases the volume of people willing to/able to contribute shows leadership, even if they aren't the person in charge.
Regarding peerages for martial activities, a laurel or pelican candidates is not judged on their athletic prowess the way that rattan fighters are judged for the Order of Chivalry. I am not saying that this is the only area - there are many elements that make up a Chivalry candidate, however, excellence in fighting is a major element.
This does leave a hole for recognition of athletes in other arenas, and while I agree with you that the Order of the Chivalry is the appropriate order for prowess in a martial activity, the order is unlikely to widen in perspective.
As written above, the Chivalry feel that anything other than fighting is a different fruit and should not be considered together. (the evil voice whispers "you mean like glassblowing and costuming, or cooking, or woodworking, or C&I, or...")
It is never going to happen, but my preference would be to include fencing, archery, equestrian, and thrown weapons under the title of Master of Arms.
Re: My two cents on peerage requirements
Bingo. Thanks for articulating that!
Re: My two cents on peerage requirements
I believe that the basis of the difference between heavy fighting and rapier/archery/whatnot in this instance is that heavy is based on what was considered a chivalric fighting form and the others are not. I'm not articulating well.... the Chivalry isn't based on the sport of fighting, but on honor and courtesy and championing the weak and that type of stuff.
Rapier is based on duels of honor, but it was honor of a different sort. And it was often illegal. Archery was used in war to decimate people. It was not a chivalric form of combat; it was used by peasants. The knights still fought hand to hand.
The difference seems to me to be in intent, not in specifics. The Laurels all ultimately have the same goal: to better the Society by recreating medieval skills. The Pelicans better the Society by leading and organizing. And the Chivalry represents the Chivalric orders present in the middle ages, not just fighting. Our most common fighting format is still the tourney (at least in southern Atlantia).
Sure, they could choose to include the other disciplines, but they don't view themselves as 'the fighting peerage', and that's their decision.
Re: My two cents on peerage requirements
the Chivalry isn't based on the sport of fighting, but on honor and courtesy and championing the weak and that type of stuff.
Knighthood is, yes. What about masters of arms? Pity that the SCA calls both of them "chivalry" when one is clearly based on the chivalric model and the other isn't.
Re: My two cents on peerage requirements
Re: My two cents on peerage requirements
The existence of MoA's is the fault of the SCA's hardwired notion of "Global Solutions for Local Problems". If, so long ago, the King of the West (was that Henrik I ?) had said to Richard the Short, when Richard couldn't "swear" due to mundane religious convictions, "Oh, okay, Rich. Then don't. ARISE SIR RICHARD!", we wouldn't need or have Masters of Arms today.
Re: My two cents on peerage requirements