October 19, 2011, I was tagged in a facebook post, so I dutifully went to read what it said, and was flattered. The one response at the time was interesting, and made me curious.
 |
David Peters
Since I find myself with more time than usual I have been exercising that mass of grey between my ears. As luck would have it while trudging along the web I stumbled upon a great resource. If you have not yet read it do so and if you live near enough to Sandra Dodd I am officially jealous.Humility and Formality
www.sandradodd.com
Rob Hotch-rI mean the best way possible, but you need to hit yourself with something heavy until you forget everything yoil read. Once people read that book they are never the same. I've seen it ruin people, primarily because it does make a lot of sense. Do what you want but you've been warned.
David PetersRob ~ Are there specifics you have in mind? Feel free to reply privately if you wish.
Sandra DoddPerhaps he means that people who have high ideals and principles can become disappointed with the realities of the SCA. I've seen that some with my students and associates. They thought they wanted to know lots, but the more they knew, the more they saw reality fall short of ideals. (If it's not that, Rob, reply privately because I probably don't want to know. :-) )
Rob Hotch-rI mean that every person I've known who's read that book was one person before they read it and then different after (usually feeling that they need to tell people that they've read it-almost an instinctual "hey I've been baptized" response). I don't know if there are spores ala' Invasion of the Body Snatchers somehow hidden in the physical pages or if there's a hypnotique trance induced by repeating words, phrases, etc. (I don't really think any of these things) but it literally changes people and, I personally feel, not usually in a good way. Maybe, which has been a suspicion, there is no fault with the actual tome necessarily, but the content is interpreted by the reader as to give some sort of permission (not necessarily intended) to those who've got a latent arrogant streak or secret egotistical urges, to let those respective flags fly proudly. I've only glimpsed pages and veiwed small sections (as I've intentionally avoided an actual full reading-specifically because of this.) and though there is a lot of what I know about it that I agree with, it's just not going to happen and I will never advise anyone to read it. Write me off as a cook, or as jaded former society, whatever flavor you please. I realize that you're proud of your work Sandra and have every right to be. There's just bad ju-ju in there.
Sandra Dodd#1, it's not "a book." It's ten e-mails. So if you don't even know what it is, and you haven't read it, it seems odd that you would appoint yourself a guardian or even reviewer. "Bad ju-ju"? "Tome"?
#2, What do you mean,"Write me off as a cook"...? A kook, did you mean? There's nothing in there that should bother cooks.
Rob Hotch-r#1 Bleh #2 Bleh Bleh I'm doing this little email geek dance with you. You created poison and that's it.
Oh. Then I guess he deleted that one (which I had cut and pasted) and put this:#1 Bleh #2 Bleh Bleh I'm not doing this little email geek dance with you. You created poison and that's it.
Doing this, not doing this. It didn't seem like a "geek dance" to me. It seemed like someone attempting to seem knowledgable and important in the absence of any real knowledge or weight. It seemed like someone flinging poo on someone else's happiness. Monkey poo.
the medieval past (naturally), and documenting with dictionaries (again).
Posts
