One of those conversations
Oct. 3rd, 2006 12:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hrjThere’s a conversation I have occasionally at SCA events that I’m never quite sure how to handle and it came up again this past weekend at Crown. It generally starts off something like, “How come you don’t have anyone fighting for you in Crown? We have to find someone to fight for you.”
The very existence of the conversation demonstrates that the other person isn’t aware that we live on completely different planets, which is what makes things awkward. I could have this conversation as an extended philosophical discussion taking up several hours, but it’s very hard to have it as a casual chat. (And I’m not talking about the obvious things like, “Um … you do know I’m gay, right?” They always do.) So I usually fall back on something along the lines of, “Having survived 30 years in the SCA without anyone ever asking to fight for me, I figure I don’t need to spend much time worrying about it.”
This response has the disadvantage of sounding vaguely meepish and pathetic when it’s intended as a pragmatic statement of fact, but it has the advantage of being less snappish than the other things that come immediately to mind, like, “So you figure that my SCA life is incomplete if I don’t participate in a pseudo-romantic relationship with a man even on a metaphorical level?” or “Because, of course, none of my accomplishments or contributions mean anything unless I have some guy hitting people with a stick in my name.” But those don’t really represent my position accurately either.
I don’t utterly discount the concept of person A taking up endeavor B by the inspiration of and to do honor to person C. (I do get a bit annoyed by people who don’t believe the template exists other than on the combat field.) Goodness knows, I’ve been person A myself on occasion. But to the extent that this motif is important, it’s more important than being a tick-box on someone’s SCA resume. (“Let’s see … held an office, check; autocratted an event, check; been fought for in Crown, check.”) And for that matter, the people who raise this conversation don’t seem to consider it a tick-box – they seem to consider it more on the level of having food to eat and clothes to wear. (You get that question, “How come you don’t have anyone fighting for you in Crown?” with the same tone of bewilderment that they would ask, “How come you’re standing there naked in the snow with nothing to eat?”) That’s where the “different planets” thing comes in with a vengeance. But on the other hand, while people pay a fair amount of lip service to the motif of taking the field to do honor to someone worthy, the pragmatic facts on the ground are that 90% of the time what you have is someone fighting for their romantic partner of the opposite sex. And I don’t live on that planet either.
And this is all before getting into the hypothetical nuances of meaning and expectation that people bring to the process. Is fighting for someone a gift, or is it an exchange, or a contract? Do you expect someone you’re fighting for to drop everything else they’re doing and suspend all their other commitments to watch you when you’re on the field? Does everyone else expect them to? Why? Do you expect someone you’re fighting for to provide quasi-home-maker support when you enter a tournament: providing access to material goods, service, and personal attention in support of your activities? Does everyone else expect them to? Why? Do you consider these questions a hostile challenge of the status quo or a philosophical exploration of cultural subtext of the activity? Why? (Repeat this process for the hypothetical scenario in which you actually win the tournament.)
As I say: an extended conversation taking several hours, but not a brief chat. So I fall back on bland statements of fact and on metaphors.
The statement of fact is: In order for someone to fight for me in Crown, the first thing that would have to happen is for someone to ask to do so. None of the hypothetical philosophical discussions are relevant in the absence of that event. I do not expect this to happen – not in the sense of “I consider it highly unlikely” but simply in the sense of “I do not consider it a wrongness in the universe that it has not happened.”
The metaphor is: If someone wants to give me roses, I’d be happy to receive them. But if I want to have roses, I’m not going to stand around wailing, “Oh me, oh my! Will no valiant knight win me roses?” I’m going to pick up a shovel and start planting more rose bushes.
The very existence of the conversation demonstrates that the other person isn’t aware that we live on completely different planets, which is what makes things awkward. I could have this conversation as an extended philosophical discussion taking up several hours, but it’s very hard to have it as a casual chat. (And I’m not talking about the obvious things like, “Um … you do know I’m gay, right?” They always do.) So I usually fall back on something along the lines of, “Having survived 30 years in the SCA without anyone ever asking to fight for me, I figure I don’t need to spend much time worrying about it.”
This response has the disadvantage of sounding vaguely meepish and pathetic when it’s intended as a pragmatic statement of fact, but it has the advantage of being less snappish than the other things that come immediately to mind, like, “So you figure that my SCA life is incomplete if I don’t participate in a pseudo-romantic relationship with a man even on a metaphorical level?” or “Because, of course, none of my accomplishments or contributions mean anything unless I have some guy hitting people with a stick in my name.” But those don’t really represent my position accurately either.
I don’t utterly discount the concept of person A taking up endeavor B by the inspiration of and to do honor to person C. (I do get a bit annoyed by people who don’t believe the template exists other than on the combat field.) Goodness knows, I’ve been person A myself on occasion. But to the extent that this motif is important, it’s more important than being a tick-box on someone’s SCA resume. (“Let’s see … held an office, check; autocratted an event, check; been fought for in Crown, check.”) And for that matter, the people who raise this conversation don’t seem to consider it a tick-box – they seem to consider it more on the level of having food to eat and clothes to wear. (You get that question, “How come you don’t have anyone fighting for you in Crown?” with the same tone of bewilderment that they would ask, “How come you’re standing there naked in the snow with nothing to eat?”) That’s where the “different planets” thing comes in with a vengeance. But on the other hand, while people pay a fair amount of lip service to the motif of taking the field to do honor to someone worthy, the pragmatic facts on the ground are that 90% of the time what you have is someone fighting for their romantic partner of the opposite sex. And I don’t live on that planet either.
And this is all before getting into the hypothetical nuances of meaning and expectation that people bring to the process. Is fighting for someone a gift, or is it an exchange, or a contract? Do you expect someone you’re fighting for to drop everything else they’re doing and suspend all their other commitments to watch you when you’re on the field? Does everyone else expect them to? Why? Do you expect someone you’re fighting for to provide quasi-home-maker support when you enter a tournament: providing access to material goods, service, and personal attention in support of your activities? Does everyone else expect them to? Why? Do you consider these questions a hostile challenge of the status quo or a philosophical exploration of cultural subtext of the activity? Why? (Repeat this process for the hypothetical scenario in which you actually win the tournament.)
As I say: an extended conversation taking several hours, but not a brief chat. So I fall back on bland statements of fact and on metaphors.
The statement of fact is: In order for someone to fight for me in Crown, the first thing that would have to happen is for someone to ask to do so. None of the hypothetical philosophical discussions are relevant in the absence of that event. I do not expect this to happen – not in the sense of “I consider it highly unlikely” but simply in the sense of “I do not consider it a wrongness in the universe that it has not happened.”
The metaphor is: If someone wants to give me roses, I’d be happy to receive them. But if I want to have roses, I’m not going to stand around wailing, “Oh me, oh my! Will no valiant knight win me roses?” I’m going to pick up a shovel and start planting more rose bushes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 10:20 pm (UTC)This concept went hand in hand with the idea of a tourney to determine the Ward Lord, who would champion the honor of the wards on behalf of the King. The (silly at the time) idea was that the Ward Lord, who was by definition single, would get to see the available ladies from which he could choose.
Remember, this was the late 1960's/early 1970's. If you want more thought on the whole ward-thing you are welcome to click over to my LJ.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 10:38 pm (UTC)Ward - no thanks
Date: 2006-10-05 05:22 am (UTC)