evaluating Laurel candidates (SCA)
Aug. 20th, 2002 09:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioNon-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.
"The usual suspects"
Date: 2002-08-20 07:33 am (UTC)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"
Date: 2002-08-20 07:50 am (UTC)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"
Date: 2002-08-20 08:47 am (UTC)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"
Date: 2002-08-20 09:03 am (UTC)another peerage
Date: 2002-08-20 08:21 am (UTC)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
Date: 2002-08-20 07:53 pm (UTC)Re: another peerage
Date: 2010-11-30 09:49 pm (UTC)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.