[MR] Peerage questions

[David Wendelken]

(part two)


>Before I get toasted, I know that there are many many peers who actively
_seek_ out talent _to whatever distance_ and then nurture that talent---
that is a beautiful thing.  That keeps me in the SCA :).  But there >are
some who turn to their friends and take them under their wing because
they're close and fairly good and they can train anyone to be better so
that's enough for them.  And then to see those people get into the >peerages
faster than the unassociated seems a cheat somehow.  So my praises go out to
the former peers instead, that's all.       

Well, again, we differ in how we interpret the same facts. :-)   

 

You seem to think that squires and apprentices are chosen because they are
cronies, it's favoritism of some sort.

 

I believe we pick the people we do because we think we're the right person
to teach them.   And if we don't like them, or they don't like us, we
probably aren't the right person to teach them.  I'm willing to believe it's
possible that someone who despised me or whom I despised might be the right
person for me to teach, but I've never heard of a case of it working out.
And who in their right mind would volunteer to try it?

 

I've already mentioned how I picked my first squire in Atlantia, a fine
young man up in Storvik.   How about the other three?  One was my first
squire in Meridies 28 years ago.  He joined the Marines and dropped off the
face of the earth as far as I knew.   We both, by happenstance, moved to the
same area of Atlantia 20 years later.  Sometimes you get lucky.  How did he
become my squire 28 years ago?  Because he was a fine young man, who wanted
to be worthy of being a knight, we had common interests, and were a good fit
as mentor/student.

 

Another squire is a soldier in the US army in my local group (when Uncle Sam
doesn't ship him off to nasty places where the people try to blow him up).
He's a long-time SCA fighter with a heart of gold and the manners of a
sergeant.   We got to know and respect one another.   He was quite surprised
when I asked if he wanted to be my squire.

 

The fourth is a young man, also in my group.  He's also a fine gentleman,
and we also share common interests.

 

Why are the last two in my local group and not farther away?  Because at
that time in my life I wasn't really able to travel, so I wasn't meeting
people further away.  

 


>> >So if a person wants to be, say, a Laurel, they almost have to be
>> >apprenticed to eventually get on the team. 
>> 
>> That is simply not true. They will, all things being equal, probably take
>> longer, simply because people will get to know them at a somewhat slower
>> rate.
>> 
 
>Hence the perception that some people do things to get noticed just to get
awards while other people do things quietly, simply enjoying the journey
itself.  It's a natural thought.

It may be a natural thought, but my belief is that it may say more about the
observer's state of mind than the person who did something that got noticed.
That's not an attack, merely an observation.

 

This reminds me of a story I heard about a fellow who moved to San Diego
from points east.  He was sitting in a bar and talking to the bartender.

 

"I just moved to this town.  What kind of people live here?"

 

The bartender replied, "What kind of people are there where you came from?"

 

The man answered, "A bunch of lying, back-stabbing, hateful bastards!"

 

To which the bartender said, "I guess that's what you'll find here."

 

The point being, that the bartender would have given the exact same answer
regardless of what kind of people the man had described!

 

What the person expected to find is what he would find, and two different
sets of expectations would both turn out to be "true".

 

>> I don't know where people get this notion of "politicking" about awarding
>> the peerages. In my experience spanning almost three decades, it simply
>> isn't so. Merit is the criteria. 
>> 
>I'm not saying merit doesn't enter into it but you said yourself that you
have to do many things to get noticed to get the attention of the peerages.
Those things to get one noticed are considered "campaigning" by >many.
That's the notion in a nutshell. 

Well, the notion is wrong.  If many people have it, then many people are
wrong about it.

 

A peer needs to be able to find or attract the people who would best benefit
from their training.  Trust me on this, it is far more efficient to attract
those who want to learn from you than to go looking for them individually.
You can find many more potential people to train for the same amount of
effort if they know to look you up and meet you.  Can you think of a better
measure than the prospective candidate's ability to make themselves known to
the kingdom for what they are good at?

 

If someone is doing something interesting and fun, they will get more
positive attention from me than if they are not.   And you know what?  I
think that's perfectly fair.  Why?  Because it's a direct measure of how
well they will inspire others to learn from their example!  If they aren't
fun or are being dull, they won't inspire others as well as someone who is
fun and interesting.

 

>Just know that there are some of us who want to be worthy of being a laurel
or a pelican... but don't want to be attached to one household or peer or
another.  Personally, I really admire pelicans but I like living >footloose
and politic free (says the chick working for the govt *doh*) so it just
doesn't seem fair that I'd be recognized slower because I chose to interact
with all households and all peers without grappling onto just >one- you'd
would expect you get more backing that way but the records and these
comments show otherwise.  So it goes, so it goes.

Respectfully, I disagree on several counts.

 

Pelicans are awarded for service, not politics.  Some service requires
making decisions that may be liked by one subset of people and disliked by
another.  If you define politics as a peaceful way to resolve differences
over how to allocate scarce resources, then yes, some pelicans (and knights
and laurels) are involved in politics.  If you define politics as having a
vision of something neat to do, and trying to get others motivated to do it
too, then yes, quite a few peers are involved in politics.  But if you mean
all the nasty, self-serving connotations that most people associate with the
term "politics", then you are dead wrong.  Very few peers mess with that any
more than they have to, and then mostly to protect those they feel are being
wronged.

 

Second, what do you mean "like living footloose and politic free"?  Perhaps
you have **inadvertently** communicated an unwillingness to deal with the
tough decisions that really test the mettle of a person.  If so, I would
imagine that pelicans would not like that. (I'm not a pelican and privy to
their conversations, so that's just an educated guess.)  After all, who
would feel comfortable with someone in charge that won't make the hard
decisions when they need to be made?

 

You mention that you choose to interact with all households and all peers.
What does that mean, really?  Saying "Good morning, how are you?" qualifies
as interaction, but it hardly qualifies as letting the other person know
what your goals are, and asking for their help.  It's perfectly acceptable
to ask for help without being someone's associate!   (It's also perfectly
acceptable to say, sorry, I'm busy.)

 

Have you made it clear to other laurels or pelicans you know that you have
made a life choice to be worthy of being a peer?  (And by that, I do not
mean to imply you are not already so worthy! Only to ask if you have made
your life-choice clear to other peers.)   If you haven't made yourself
clear, it's not fair blaming others!  

 

Do you keep in touch with those peers who share common interests, in order
to share new things you've found out or learned about?  Or to just talk
about things that both of you find interesting? That's not sucking up, it's
sharing!   It's what people who like each other and have common interests
do.  There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Then, finally, think thru the mathematics of it.  There are far fewer peers
than there are non-peers.  If I give everyone equal attention, I give no one
enough attention.  It's not humanly possible unless you want to have the SCA
hire me full time to do it.  Otherwise, there aren't enough hours in the
day.  So, I have to focus my attention on a smaller number of people.

 

How do I choose those people to focus on, given that I have limited time to
use for this purpose?

 

*       I do it by focusing on those who have either taken the time and
effort to let me know they want to be focused on, or

*       I focus on those who are recommended by others, or

*       I focus on those whose work and character are so outstanding that I
can't help but notice them.  (And they go to the top of the list!)

 

That's the simple reality of how this works.  You can choose to complain
about it, or work with it, or show us a better way that will work within the
reality of having to have a 9-5 job to make ends meet, children to raise, a
spouse to show love to, a house that needs maintenance, and an extended
family to care for.  I would love to know a better way that won't be trumped
by the real world.

 

Yours in service,

 

Andras Salamandra