[Artemisia] We're the Society for Creative Anything

[El Hermoso Dormiendo]

(*THIRD* attempt to get this to go through - what is this, Yahoo?)

Perhaps it's because "Reiki" is "Eastern" as well as out of period (assuming 
wikipedia isn't completely wrong[1], Reiki is a 20th-century Japanese 
invention) and therefore outside the supposed scope of the SCA, while Tarot 
is considered vaguely "European" (images of "Gypsy" fortunetellers and all 
that - so at least there's a "folkloric" angle that can be kind of wormed in, 
and certainly the Roma ARE "period" European.  That still leaves us with the 
issue of whether or not modern "fortunetelling" tarot really has anything to 
do with "period" practices, of course - but it at least "sort of looks kind 
of Medieval European in a way" while Reiki definitely doesn't.  Not saying 
this makes sense, just that I'm guessing that's the reason.).

At times, I find myself thinking that the SCA has completely lost sense of 
what it is anyway.  Not that the SCA has gone "bad", just that it's gotten 
extremely vague in its purpose.  I suspect that's at the core of many 
problems the SCA seems to be facing lately.

As one example, there are times when it seems we've become the "Society for 
Creative Arabianism" or (less often) "Society for Creative Asianism".  While 
Arabian and Asian historical events had important effects on "period" 
European history, the degree to which the SCA seems to have spread out to 
incorporate it has, in my opinion, made the "purpose" of the SCA almost 
indecipherable and a lot of written material describing the SCA doesn't seem 
to really apply any more.  

The issue of prohibition of religious titles or 
material[2], for example, is neither really enforced NOR really repealed[3].  
The prohibition would seem to prohibit a lot of "Middle Eastern" SCA (Islam 
doesn't really make a distinction between secular and religious authority, 
for example - if someone with a Middle-Eastern persona can be a "Qadi", why 
can't someone with a European persona be a "Bishop"?)  While the WRITTEN 
rules and guidelines seem firm, they also seem not to apply to the SCA as it 
is today.

Strange as it may sound, I think the flap over the covers of The Sage was just 
a more trivial example of the same problem.  My impression (I may be wrong, 
but...) is that a lot of people weren't so much "offended" as had a simmering 
irritation that to them the covers were "tacky" (in the same way that a 
real-world fry-cook serving burgers and SpudLarvae[4] at a "feast" would be) 
while at the same time there was no "legitimate" grounds for complaint.  
After all, the artist had been donating real work to the kingdom newsletter, 
and has there ever been anything but the vaguest guidelines for the cover 
art, and, let's face it, there DOES seem to be a lot of "modern fantasy" here 
and there around the SCA already anyway, doesn't there?  (I'm not much of an 
artist myself, either, so short of a completely unhelpful suggestion that the 
Sage not have cover art at all, there's not much I'd have had to offer 
personally as an alternative.)  I think the borderline offensiveness some 
perceived was just the first reason that seemed "legitimate" to voice a 
complaint about.  If there'd been some kind of firm guidelines for Sage cover 
art maybe there'd have been grounds for people who were bothered to say 
something BEFORE the collision of the build-up of the pressure of stewing in 
the uncertainty and irritation on the one hand and the several months of 
cover-art-style momentum which the artist had built up on the other...

I'm not actually complaining about anything here but the general vagueness[5], 
otherwise I'm just explaining my possibly insane viewpoint.  I don't know 
what the solution to the whole issue of the increasingly vague scope of the 
SCA is, nor if there even is one, nor even if we (the SCA) WANT one - 
certainly a lot of people seem to enjoy the more loosely-defined "nearly 
anything goes as long as it's reasonably sincere" SCA[6].  I do wish 
personally, though, that the Society would figure out what it wanted to be 
and stick to it - whatever it may be - a little better.

signed,
El Hermoso Dormiendo, just barely returned to Idaho and School and trying to 
get caught up...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki (last visited 2006-01-11)

[2] I'm told this prohibition has to do with an incident involving a West 
Kingdom coronation around 1970 and someone apparently having an 
"extra-authentic" coronation without warning, including anointing by a 
"bishop", and people getting subsequently offended about it.

[3] Personally, I honestly can't decide whether *I* would prefer to either 
really enforce OR really repeal the ban on religious "stuff".  Religion and 
religious issues are a HUGE and important part of world history in period.  
I'm not especially religious myself, but I can't help but wonder if we're not 
missing out on a lot of history by avoiding it in the SCA.  On the other 
hand, it's also easy to observe that too many people in the world are unable 
to handle religious topics without getting offended or at least becoming 
uncivil, so the ban could reasonably be seen as a safety issue.  But that's a 
whole separate topic.

[4] "Tater Tots" is trademarked...Hmmm, maybe I should trademark "SpudLarvae" 
- it has a nice cadence to it.

[5] Oh, no!  Even my COMPLAINT is poorly defined!  It's gotten to ME, too!

[6] Hey, I've been half-jokingly threatening for years now to show up at an 
event in an Adamite persona - they WERE a period sect, after all, if a 
short-lived one.

On Wednesday 11 January 2006 17:20, Bruce Padget wrote:
> I find it interesting that a Reiki class is "too
> controversial," while there are *three* courses
> pertaining to Tarot reading.  (Playing Tarots =
> period.  Reading Tarots = not so much.)
>
> I confess, I'm not sure that Reiki belongs within the
> SCA's scope.  It's the apparent inconsistency that's
> bugging me.
>
> Regards,
> Niccolo
> Abbastanza Buon Non E Abbastanza Buono
> bapadget at yahoo.com
>
> --- talanesea <talanesea at comcast.net> wrote:
> > I offered to teach a class at Estrella that was
> > rejected because "Although
> > your write up and objectives are non-religious, our
> > Seneschal's office feels
> > it would be too controversial."  I understand and
> > thought it might be the
> > case.  It was a Reiki class, and I was offering a
> > level 1 attunement.  So,
> > if you are going to Estrella and are interested,
> > please contact me and we'll
> > set up a time.  If you want more info on what Reiki
> > is, again, let me know.
> >
> > Talanesea
> > talanesea at comcast.net
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Artemisia mailing list
> > Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Artemisia mailing list
> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia