Monica

This past Shabbat we had as visitors the two rabbis from Bread and Torah. He's a baker; she's a soferet (scribe) who is currently writing her first sefer torah (torah scroll). They led a variety of interesting activities -- challah-baking Friday afternoon, a couple text-study sessions, and some parchment-making and more baking Saturday night.

Question: How many deer do you think go into a torah scroll? (Picture on the linked page.) I'll come back to this at the end of this entry.

Shabbat afternoon, after services and lunch and a study session, I was talking with Rabbi Motzkin about parchment-making. She makes her own parchment, starting from deer skins, because most suppliers of kosher parchment are Orthodox and hold that women can't write torah scrolls, and she won't begin a holy project like that by misleading a seller. I said I've taken a couple informal classes on parchment-making but never started as far back as the fresh deer skin. (The workshop she would be leading that night involved soaking, scraping, and stretching a piece that had already had significant work done on it -- same as what I've experienced.) We got to talking; I said I'm not a very good calligrapher and I came at this through illumination (painting). She asked in what context and I said there was this group that studies the middle ages and renaissance.

She paused, and then asked if the person I'd learned about parchment from was Aengus MacBain.

Why yes, I said. Before I could ask the obvious question, she said that she'd found him online and they'd corresponded quite a bit; she considers him one of her teachers but hasn't met him. (I said "he lives nearby, if you want to try to rectify that on this trip", but their schedule was pretty full.)

Small world -- she's never been in the SCA and only knows about it through a parchment-maker she found online, and I'm not a soferet but know a little about it through the SCA. :-)

So back to the number of deer in a torah scroll. My estimate was way off, even though I read from these scrolls fairly regularly so should have an idea of the number of seams. I'd been thinking probably 25 or 30. Her answer: 60 to 80.

More from that parlor game: Comment to this post and say you want a set, and I will pick seven things I would like you to talk about. They might make sense or be totally random. Then post that list, with your commentary, to your journal. Other people can get lists from you, and the meme merrily perpetuates itself.

alaricmacconnal gave me: Pittsburgh, writing, your favorite song, chicken, D&D, knowledge, and al-Andaluz.

( Read more... )

Just curious: where was my recent SCA post linked? And if any of my recent flurry of new visitors are reading this, hello and welcome y'all. :-)

(I'm aware of one link in a locked post. That doesn't account for all the traffic.)

SCA Inc. announced earlier this year that kingdom newsletters will be moving to electronic format next year. (PDF, it was clarified at the Pennsic BoD meet&greet.) People who want paper will still be able to get it; while pricing hadn't been determined as of the Pennsic discussion, the sense I got was that there would be an extra charge for this.

Do you see what they did there?

( Read more... )

I met Caitlin sometime in the late 80s or early 90s when I was traveling a lot in the East Kingdom. She was graceful and kind and more than competent, and I always enjoyed conversations with her. I wish I had had more chances to sit and chat with her; it was always time well spent. The world is a little darker without msmemory in it.

I find I have no other words right now, other than those about the unfairness of it all.

Yesterday Dani and I went to the Canton of Beau Fleuve for the elevation of dagonell and cigfran_cg to the Order of the Pelican, the SCA's highest award for service. Yay!

I hope people who weren't in the ceremony like I was will post pictures (and tell me where :-) ).

( two pictures )

The big new bit of stupidity -- this time not from the SCA board of directors -- is a new Pennsic rule that minors, meaning people under 18, cannot attend classes without being accompanied by an adult. I guess it's just too dangerous for a 16-year-old to learn Italian dance or a 17-year-old to learn how to spin wool, or something. This is totally bizarre, as there is not a general restriction on teenagers at Pennsic. They can go (unaccompanied) to shop (even to the blacksmiths!), or to shoot archery, or to watch the fighting, or to any private camp they choose. (Kids under 12 are more restricted.)

Sadly predictable is the reaction of many people in the face of the ensuing discussions. The original rule said minors had to be accompanied to classes by a parent or legal guardian, which is totally crazy, and in the face of much protest they "clarified" that they really meant a responsible adult, meaning any adult appointed by the parents, and not something involving legal process. And today, with that change, people are saying "oh, well that's not so bad then" and "that's reasonable" and "we can find people to take our kids to classes, then". It's as if they've forgotten that the fundamental policy itself is broken. They're saying "oh, if you're just going to take an arm rather than costing me an arm and a leg, that's ok then". Hello? And it only took a day! Amazing.

I'm not saying people need to Stand Up And Do Something Now, because I don't know what we can do. Yes, I want to fix it, but I don't know what to do today to do that. (I can think of small, tactical things to do to mitigate the damage, but that's not a solution.) It seems obvious to me that there is something deeper going on, and I'm not dialed into it. But I do know that it's a short step from "well, that's less bad" to "that's ok" (we're seeing this already) to "of course that's reasonable and you're a reckless idiot if you don't agree". We've seen this before from the SCA (mandatory membership, no wait an unjust tax instead, to point to biggest but not sole case) and it's certainly not unique to this organization. Heck, we see it in marketing too; remember New Coke?

Regardless of where it happens, its success depends on people focusing on the here-and-now and not taking the longer view. I guess hill-climbing is a popular algorithm. (For the non-geeks, this means you take an alternate path if it will directly improve on where you are, but you rule out paths that make it worse -- even if those paths then lead to something much better.)

I'm talking here mostly about process and meta-issues. As for the base question of how we treat children (of all ages), the best comment I've seen has been from Cariadoc, who wrote: "I have long held that there are two fundamental views of children: That they are pets who can talk, or that they are small people who do not yet know very much. The wrong one is winning." This non-parent says: yes, that.

SCA Inc. charges a $3 tax per event for people who attend but are not members of the corporation. I find this offensive because SCA Inc. does not bear the cost of putting on events; the local groups do. (So it's not like the higher admission fee you pay a museum if you don't belong.) There are some small benefits that the corporation provides to the hosting group, such as access to insurance, but the last time I ran the numbers this amounted to about $2/person/year. So, the tax is somewhere between price gouging (if you believe they have the right to assess a fee) and thuggery (if you don't).

I don't go to a lot of events these days; my local group doesn't hold very many and I don't travel for them. And I don't really want to be on the membership rolls of this corporation, so thus far I have been paying the fee. The presence of the fee does influence my decision to attend an event; if I'm waffling that can push me. (There is an "out" that is available to local groups, so charging the fee represents a decision on the part of the hosting group. A surprising number of local-group officers feel it is their moral obligation to charge this fee. To each his own. [Edit: I am speaking generally here, not about one group.]) It's not the $3; it's the principle.

The corporation announced today that this fee will be rising to $5 per event.

My goal is to minimize the money the corporation gets from me while enjoying marginal participation in events. (This is not identical to maximizing money in my pocket because of the Pennsic non-member tax. Some of that money -- I've sent email asking how much -- goes to Pennsic, not to the corporation. I am willing to pay a higher price to Pennsic.) An associate membership costs $20, so now I have to figure out how many fee-charging events I am likely to go to in a year. Working against this analysis is the temptation to just say "screw it" except for Pennsic and free local events. I've been drifting away from the SCA (Pennsic is different; that's family vacation), and I wonder how much I care any more.

No decisions, just thoughts.