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

[rani23.livejournal.com]

First off, what a great question and a great answer. I've always had this vague idea of what "makes a Laurel" -- this sums it up very nicely.

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.

[lrstrobel.livejournal.com]

Wow. Jenn and I were discussing that on the way home Sunday, and I really didn't have a detailed answer. That's really well thought out and objective. Thanks so much for posting that. It's no wonder you have your two peerages.

[fiannaharpar.livejournal.com]

Speaking of your two peerages.....how about what you look for in a Pelican? :-)

My two cents on peerage requirements

[lefkowitzga.livejournal.com]

She'erah, thank you for the succinct analysis of what you look for in laurel and pelican candidates. It is always enlightening to learn your viewpoint.

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.