evaluating Laurel candidates (SCA)

[cellio]

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:

• 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.

Comments

[cellio]

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"?

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:

[rani23.livejournal.com]

So, have you written letters of recommendation?

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. :)