"You are SO political."

[msmcknittington]

First things first: koshka_the_cat, I got the taffeta the other day in the mail and it is MAGIC! It's draped on my dummy like a plastron right now, and I cannot wait to finish NaNo and start sewing. (After I make my little cousin's steeple hennin for Christmas, of course!) There will be pictures.

Next things next:

I've decided that I can't read anymore about Welsh/English history, because it just makes me feel bad for having the hero of my novel be English and the heroine be Welsh. I mean, how the hell can you fall in love with someone who is the oppressor of your people? Who have been oppressed since long before you were born?

It really just means that Not-Luc has to be the most amazing man to ever walk this earth, but also realistically flawed and thoroughly medieval. But not too alpha male, because alpha males leave me feeling kind of icky. And he can't be too touchy-feely, because then he's a girl walking about in a man-suit*.

That's not what I intend to write about here, though. All this reading about oppressed Wales has got me thinking about how political I am. Except I've suddenly decided I don't want to go into too much soul-searching right now, so short version:

Oppression of people is wrong. I kind of feel like I'm writing a story where a slave falls in love with her owner in the antebellum South. I believe in democracy. Bowing to nobles/royalty at SCA events makes me slightly uncomfortable, because I realize that the system that the group is based upon comes from a system of government that's based on divine right and warfare, and I'm not big on either of those things. You guys, I am too liberal for the SCA. (And, yeah, I'm probably being a trifle too serious about it, but still.)

What I need is a reenactment organization that focuses on the lives of non-nobles. There's another thing that makes me uncomfortable: the classism and sexism inherent in a lot of history and historical research. But nobody wants to play at being oppressed.

I think the reasons I'm having so much trouble with this is that a large part of me is idealist, and I want my writing to reflect that, but then there's also a large part of me that is a realist, and kind of sneers at the idealism. I can't bend to the "fantasy" part of literature, because fantasy is by its nature unrealistic, but I really, really want this thing I'm working on to be both realistic and have a happy ending with decisive resolution. Unfortunately, comedies must have happy endings, the villains must be punished, and the problems must be resolved. There can't be any plot "hangnails" bumming around to irritate the reader. And realism, by its nature, is inconsistent and irritating. Unpleasant. It points out the disadvantages of a situation.

Can individuals overcome social boundaries? Overcome them happily?

You guys. Perfectionists shouldn't do anything.

OK, writing for word count now. I swear!

_{*Dude. Please don't anyone start the "sensitive men are still real men" argument with me. I'm writing a romance novel, here, and . . . agh. I am brain-melty enough right now. Let's just say that I'm trying to write something medieval that doesn't offend my modern sensibilities overmuch, OK? This novel is just not the right forum for that argument.}

Comments

[koshka-the-cat.livejournal.com]

Yay! So glad I had some and could help :)

[myladyswardrobe.livejournal.com]

Bowing to nobles/royalty at SCA events makes me slightly uncomfortable, because I realize that the system that the group is based upon comes from a system of government that's based on divine right and warfare, and I'm not big on either of those things.

In Kentwell, we have to constantly remind ourselves, that if one is playing someone of the "lower orders" to remember to give obeisance to those of the gentry orders. We explain it as giving respect to the frock and not the person (this is not reason in the 16th century of course). In Kentwell, unlike the SCA, we do not "vote" (or win by fighting) for those in the gentry positions. Participants choose their own role based on whether they can make the costume to the correct standard and whether they have the enthusiasm to portray the role appropriately.

Over the past 16 years, I have played both gentry and lower orders. When in a working role, I may find myself in a position where I have to curtsey to someone who the following day I may be in gentry with. I take NO notice of the PERSON just what their social status is. Pretty frock = curtsey to it!

In addition, I give respect and obeisance to ANY male who is not a beggar! And an acknowledgement to all females of my status. Because that is what I would do if I was really in the 16th century.

When I am gentry, I will incline my head in acknowledgement to those of my social status but curtsey to my husband and any gentry male who is higher than me (usually they aren't as I am usually playing a visitor equal or higher in status to everyone else). To those of lower classes who curtsey/bow to me, I will acknowledge them with a polite incline of the head and a smile and perhaps a word or two of thanks.

It is not so different to the salute given when in the services. I do not know how rigid that process is in the US Services, but certainly from my experience playing a World War II Women’s Auxiliary Air Force Officer and my father’s work in the Royal Air Force, the “obeisance” process sometimes seems stricter than it would have been in the 16th century! General rule –salute anything unless same rank as yourself!

The reason? Because we are saluting/giving obeisance to the Monarch. Who represents the State. So, one can say we are giving obeisance/Salute to your fellow men!
(this is something that the chattering classes forgets when grouching about our Monarchical system. They see the PERSON (which is important – need to respect the holder of the position) and not the OFFICE. The Crown represents the People of the country. The Crown is the Protector of the People – always has been. Throughout history – certainly in Britain. Which is why our Civil War didn’t succeed in the end as a republic! The Monarch returned BUT with more checks and balances. It seems to work even now.).

It is very, very easy to put modern sensibilities onto the actions of people from history. Just like, it is easy to put Western Ideals of how we live our lives onto societies that do not follow those ideals. It may be “wrong” to us, but what right do we have to dictate how everyone should live (I’m not going into the details there). Therefore, what right do we have to wring our hands and say “That form of government in the past was So Wrong. How could people in the past have accepted it?”.

Answer: Because that was the way life was and everyone bought into it because it was a fundamental part of their life from before they were even born. It was all they knew. The Great Chain of Being was root of the whole system of "obeisance" through the Christian tradition (though other religions also have a social structure which in many ways was far more rigid that the Christian Medieval one).

To your question - Can individuals overcome social boundaries? Overcome them happily?
Why not look at how modern people from seriously different religions have overcome the social boundaries. What did they have to look at? How would their respective families react. At least with the Medieval characters, you have them both sharing the same religion. Don’t even have that comfort in the 16th century!

[snowywolfowl.livejournal.com]

First off, you have my respect for trying a romantic, comedic, sort of story. I've typically found it too difficult to shed the darker stuff just because of the realism issues you've outlined. Kudos there.

I'm going to agree with Myladyswardrobe here regarding the bowing. Ultimately, one is not bowing to the individual, but rather to the office. In Canada police officers bow to the bench, even if the judge isn't there, as a mark of respect to its authority.

For another, possibly more (or not) relevant example. I used to take Hap Ki Do, and we would kneel on the floor and bow towards a wall at the beginning and end of every class. What we were physically bowing to were the three flags (US, Canada, South Korea), but the point was that we were showing respect to the art and its practitioners. That's why we bowed when entering or leaving the room, whenever a black belt arrived, or to the judge(s) just before a sparring or forms competition. The idea there was respect for the office, which meant that even when I was a ten year old white belt I'd be receiving bows from higher ranks since my role as a judge required it.

It seems to me that if one were in those days one would be constantly aware of it, even if it were not quite thought of that way. I know when I was ten I just bowed because it was expected. I am sure peasants, servants and even knights would do it "just because".