"Here's what we want you to know"
Mar. 15th, 2011 11:09 am[Warning: some strong opinions and mild criticisms of common SCA foibles ahead.]
So I finally got myself a copy of the new edition of The Knowne World Handbook, the Society's periodically-rewritten Big Book of Everything for those who are learning. (BTW, I have a *bunch* of copies of the previous edition, potentially available to boroughs and others who want to loan them to newer folk. I don't even remember why, but I seem to have five copies. And while it's not technically current, it's still almost entirely accurate and useful.)
I will admit that my first reaction was some chagrin: my own article (the introductory games discussion) got fouled up in typesetting. Somebody clearly failed to realize that, for this article, the illustrations aren't just random, they need to be at specific places in the text. (In fact, not only are they in the wrong places, they're in the wrong *order*, making the discussion of Tafl quite confusing.)
But my main reaction to quickly skimming the entire book was, "Man -- this thing is really intimidating!"
To begin with, there's the feel of the text itself, which comes across as a wall of words. They clearly made a conscious decision to flow the entire text, with articles simply leading directly one into the next in the middle of the page -- even chapter breaks are only visible because the page headers change. I assume that this was due to practical issues of pagecount and cost, but the upshot is that the thing is really, really dense (even moreso than the previous editions, which were pretty impressive doorstops), and confers a somewhat forbidding aspect on the whole book.
Then there are the articles themselves. It wouldn't have occurred to me until going through it in order, but the book desperately wants to be reorganized. The thing is, it's organized strictly by topic, which makes it lovely for *reference*, but is kind of horrible for someone who just wants to start learning about the club. The introductory articles are side-by-side with ones that are much deeper and more detailed -- and let's get real, those have very different audiences. Basically, the SCA 101 and 201 articles are right next to each other, with nothing pointing out to the newbie which ones they should be paying attention to.
A few things particularly made me cringe when looking at it through a newcomer's lens. The section on awards made me twitch. I mean, it's almost at the front of the book to begin with, which reflects the Society's typical obsession with the award system. And while I do think it's appropriate to give new folks a *brief* spotting guide to the high points (the concepts of Lord/Lady, Peer, Baron, Royalty), I think it does folks a real disservice to get them overly focused on the damned thing too early. And then there are the little "How much do you really know about the Society?" quizzes scattered through the book. These are great for the medium-experienced folks who want to push their own knowledge -- but this sort of thing can make a newbie feel ignorant and insecure.
Overall, there's a mild element of the Society's usual syndrome of "Here's what we want you to know" burblage. This is sadly common in our interactions with new folks: instead of focusing on their questions, or what they *need* to know to cope with the SCA, or how to have fun playing, we instead overwhelm them with the information that *we* care about. It's not at all unusual for these well-meaning forays to accidentally drive people away instead of welcoming them in. Basically, we talk too much and listen too little. (The comically horrible "SCA FAQ" is the prime example. It is in no way an actual FAQ -- rather, it is the questions that the Society's bureaucracy *wishes* people would ask more, as far as I can tell, and bears little resemblance to the questions people actually ask frequently.)
Anyway, the moral of the story is that we need to be a little more careful to think about how new folks are really going to view our materials. The new KWH is a great effort, and I suspect will be quite useful to motivated SCA sophomores who want to dig into particular topics in more depth. But it's a real pity that it is (I believe) going to be so impenetrable for people just starting out. Extracting all of the truly introductory articles to the beginning of the book, or simply providing a brief annotated index of, "These are the key articles for the new member to start with" (with a really acid definition of "key"), would have made a world of difference.
(To be fair, we might be able to ameliorate this. I should look up the Society Chatelaine and suggest a webpage that at least provides that introductory index. Not as good as having it in the book itself, but better than nothing...)
So I finally got myself a copy of the new edition of The Knowne World Handbook, the Society's periodically-rewritten Big Book of Everything for those who are learning. (BTW, I have a *bunch* of copies of the previous edition, potentially available to boroughs and others who want to loan them to newer folk. I don't even remember why, but I seem to have five copies. And while it's not technically current, it's still almost entirely accurate and useful.)
I will admit that my first reaction was some chagrin: my own article (the introductory games discussion) got fouled up in typesetting. Somebody clearly failed to realize that, for this article, the illustrations aren't just random, they need to be at specific places in the text. (In fact, not only are they in the wrong places, they're in the wrong *order*, making the discussion of Tafl quite confusing.)
But my main reaction to quickly skimming the entire book was, "Man -- this thing is really intimidating!"
To begin with, there's the feel of the text itself, which comes across as a wall of words. They clearly made a conscious decision to flow the entire text, with articles simply leading directly one into the next in the middle of the page -- even chapter breaks are only visible because the page headers change. I assume that this was due to practical issues of pagecount and cost, but the upshot is that the thing is really, really dense (even moreso than the previous editions, which were pretty impressive doorstops), and confers a somewhat forbidding aspect on the whole book.
Then there are the articles themselves. It wouldn't have occurred to me until going through it in order, but the book desperately wants to be reorganized. The thing is, it's organized strictly by topic, which makes it lovely for *reference*, but is kind of horrible for someone who just wants to start learning about the club. The introductory articles are side-by-side with ones that are much deeper and more detailed -- and let's get real, those have very different audiences. Basically, the SCA 101 and 201 articles are right next to each other, with nothing pointing out to the newbie which ones they should be paying attention to.
A few things particularly made me cringe when looking at it through a newcomer's lens. The section on awards made me twitch. I mean, it's almost at the front of the book to begin with, which reflects the Society's typical obsession with the award system. And while I do think it's appropriate to give new folks a *brief* spotting guide to the high points (the concepts of Lord/Lady, Peer, Baron, Royalty), I think it does folks a real disservice to get them overly focused on the damned thing too early. And then there are the little "How much do you really know about the Society?" quizzes scattered through the book. These are great for the medium-experienced folks who want to push their own knowledge -- but this sort of thing can make a newbie feel ignorant and insecure.
Overall, there's a mild element of the Society's usual syndrome of "Here's what we want you to know" burblage. This is sadly common in our interactions with new folks: instead of focusing on their questions, or what they *need* to know to cope with the SCA, or how to have fun playing, we instead overwhelm them with the information that *we* care about. It's not at all unusual for these well-meaning forays to accidentally drive people away instead of welcoming them in. Basically, we talk too much and listen too little. (The comically horrible "SCA FAQ" is the prime example. It is in no way an actual FAQ -- rather, it is the questions that the Society's bureaucracy *wishes* people would ask more, as far as I can tell, and bears little resemblance to the questions people actually ask frequently.)
Anyway, the moral of the story is that we need to be a little more careful to think about how new folks are really going to view our materials. The new KWH is a great effort, and I suspect will be quite useful to motivated SCA sophomores who want to dig into particular topics in more depth. But it's a real pity that it is (I believe) going to be so impenetrable for people just starting out. Extracting all of the truly introductory articles to the beginning of the book, or simply providing a brief annotated index of, "These are the key articles for the new member to start with" (with a really acid definition of "key"), would have made a world of difference.
(To be fair, we might be able to ameliorate this. I should look up the Society Chatelaine and suggest a webpage that at least provides that introductory index. Not as good as having it in the book itself, but better than nothing...)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:20 pm (UTC)It takes away the "this is huge and intimidating" -- because you don't necessarily see how big it is. It lets you look for the information you need, without necessarily having it physically slotted next to something that would be intimidating or overcomplicated.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 05:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:25 pm (UTC)It's moderately nice to have, IMO. That's about it.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:38 pm (UTC)I'd like one of the old copies since I've never read any version of it, with permission to pass it on once I'm done if I decide I don't need it. I'm dithering as to whether I want the newest old version, or the oldest old version... arguments could be made for either. Leaning slightly toward the oldest.
(I have a feeling after I actually read the post, my opinion is going to be the old saw that the part of "In Service to The Dream" that's a problem isn't "Service" or "Dream", it's "The".)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 03:45 pm (UTC)The old handbook was very dated, of course. I haven't seen the new one (I keep meaning to get one but get distracted). The old one was sort of a miscellany, in the sense of Cariadoc's Miscellany, Stefan's Florilegium, or the practical notes in Le Menagier de Paris. It seemed to suffer from a lack of focus, to me-- but then I came into the SCA significantly later.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 04:08 pm (UTC)And yes, it's still a miscellany. Really, it hasn't changed that much structurally: the new layout just pushes it to the point where I *noticed* how intimidating it could be...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 04:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 05:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 04:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 07:01 pm (UTC)And yes, I agree that the new edition feels a little harder to digest than the '92 one, but I'm not sure that that's really because of anything other than physical layout -- the way the articles run together just *feels* denser. Topically, I think the mix is at least fairly similar...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 04:18 pm (UTC)I think your observations are likely spot-on, and might be worth passing on to whoever edits the next edition.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 04:27 pm (UTC)I read - a lot - and I enjoy it. But it was so frustratingly choppy in quality that eventually, I stopped - about 2/3 of the way through. When someone asked me what I thought of it and what I wanted to do with the knowledge in it, I said, "find them an editor, truthfully"
Since then, my "known world" information has come from asking around in different groups and countries for "who knows a lot about X" and then asking them for their input. That and doing research from real books.
The KWH has always struck me as a lovely idea that desperately needs an editor...
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 04:57 pm (UTC)For example, the Third Edition reprinted all the formal rules for the Society martial arts -- but, hey, rules change. I guess that was necessary in 1992 when the Web wasn't part of people's lives, but now all that formal verbiage can live on the Web and there was more space for the actual physical techniques of fighting. Now, I am not a fighter and never have been, so I don't know whether fighters actually read that stuff. I would have liked to see a wider variety of writers on martial topics -- Duke Paul seems to have written most of the articles -- but maybe that was a function of who could be recruited.
I am a little surprised that embroidery and calligraphy basics were in the Third Edition but not the Fourth.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 07:05 pm (UTC)Hadn't seen the other thread on the topic -- thanks for the pointer...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 05:13 pm (UTC)Personally I have found that the best way to handle newbies is to have them 'paired' with more established members who can guide them through their first few events. Making sure they have feast gear, guiding them to the parts of events that they are most interested in (Ah! You like blacksmithing? It just so happens...), meet others (Allow me to introduce you to...) and have someone to talk to during the event. I have run across 'lost' newbies and made an effort to keep them near me for the rest of the event (or until I can put a bug in the ear of whomever brought them or someone in their local group) so that they are not left alone. I always bring extra feast gear* and ask 'lost souls' to eat with me and mine if they don't already have someone to sit with. It's amazing how much that helps them and encourages them to come again.
*That is, when I've been able to go. Currently my health and our finances have Not Been Good™.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 07:39 pm (UTC)But in general, yes: there's simply no substitute for personal contact and interaction...
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 05:34 pm (UTC)I for one am new (slightly over a year)
I really appreciate the Handbook. Despite it's "foibles" and "issues" it is way less intimidating than the jumping in the deep end that one does as a new member. Frankly, I still find it intimidating - not in the scary sense but in the "where the heck do I start" sense.
Members tend to use "SCA words" and SCA names and assume that newbies know what they're talking about. It's wonderful to have a book to curl up with and "get some answers".
I'd love it if the SCA/Kingdom/Local sites were more informative...
And I will say that I have to fault the SCA (books, sites, etc) on the same thing you do.
- Don't tell me what YOU want me to know - Tell me what I want to know.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 07:52 pm (UTC)If you find yourself with some time and inclination at some point, I would *love* to know which sections of the KWH you've found particularly useful. (Both as part of understanding how to use the KWH as a tool, and generally to refresh myself on what the interesting topics are.)
Thanks for chiming in! Too often, there's too much of an experienced-members echo chamber talking *about* new members, without getting the most important viewpoints...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 05:46 pm (UTC)So much for being for beginners.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 06:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 07:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 06:37 pm (UTC)Beyond the typeface feeling a bit too stark and "printer manual"-like, the layout also could be more "user friendly" with each new article starting on its own page. That one piece alone would make it more useful as a reference.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 06:58 pm (UTC)Yeah, the KWH has always given the impression of being The Manual (with the emphasis on "The"). I can see from your description how it's just gotten worse. And yes, the KWH is for sophomores...or at least, not for total newcomers.
Which begs the question: how hard would it be to compile an "SCA for Dummies" or "Idiot's Guide to the SCA" type of publication, one that really was about laying out the minimal basic information you need to attend your first few events and feel like you belong. A comprehensive reference is an awesome idea for sophomores and "higher", but that's not what Joe and Jody Mundane need. And yes, I think I know the answer: not that hard at all.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 08:18 pm (UTC)Anyway, if the new KWH is a good resource for "sophomores" than I believe it's hitting its target audience appropriately.
I agree that the FAQ to which Justin pointed (assuming it is the one in the book) is pretty awful. Newbies and even sophomores don't typically give a flip about the BOD.
I haven't seen the new KWH but I did find the old ones useful. I wrote an article that appeared in the old ones, but it's pretty much irrelevant these days - it's on how to be a local chronicler, publishing paper newsletters. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 07:39 pm (UTC)I'm a fan of wikis, because you can get into as much or as little trouble as you want with those, but really the KWH needs to be organized like PJ O'Rourke's ideal supermarket: roach spray, cigarettes, and peanut butter up front, and then a married-people section with weird-colored cereals and Hallmark cards deeper in. We need a beginning section with simple concepts, cross-referenced to more in-depth treatments. "Don't show up at your first event wearing any of this list of stuff. (SIDEBAR: See pp. 78-81 for lists of official gear for the various Kingdom-level officers. If you want to get fancy, check p. 133-150 for some historical examples of sumptuary laws your persona might have had.)"
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 07:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 08:45 pm (UTC)Just a data point, I'm not sure which direction it argues towards or against.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-15 09:01 pm (UTC)That was certainly our approach as chatelaines, and what we continue to try and do - it felt like handing someone reading material of any bulk just said "I don't really want to talk to you." Background reading, sure, if they were curious, but they had to feel like people actually wanted to interact with them instead of felt bothered by them in their newness.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:not young anymore, and never female, but...
From:Re: not young anymore, and never female, but...
From:As a no-longer-young female...
From:Re: As a no-longer-young female...
From:Re: As a no-longer-young female...
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 04:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 06:01 pm (UTC)(By and large, I think it's comparable to the older editions -- it just winds up *looking* a bit more forbidding because the text is a tad denser. So if you thought the old edition was useful, this one probably still is...)
tangent
From: