jducoeur: (Default)
[personal profile] jducoeur
[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...)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 03:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dulcinbradbury.livejournal.com
Honestly, I think much of this kind of thing is better served as a webpage anyway.

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)

From: [identity profile] dulcinbradbury.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 03:39 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 03:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] meranthi.livejournal.com
How much do you need to have it in printable format? I'm a huge fan of wikis for this sort of thing, but it's been years since I looked at the KWH so I don't remember how things are laid out.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 05:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] derekl1963.livejournal.com
Wiki's tend to break things down into smaller and ever more detailed chunks - which (IMO of course) is exactly the opposite of what Justin is trying to accomplish. They're great at providing insight into deeper networks of information, much less useful at providing access to sequential information ranging from a top level overview to deeper and more specific details. It's the latter that he's aiming at. We don't want people clicking on ever deeper links without having assimilated the higher level material and put it into practice first.
Edited Date: 2011-03-15 05:17 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] derekl1963.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 08:07 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 03:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tashabear.livejournal.com
What bugs *me* is the concept that this is the BIBLE for your SCA life. You HAVE to know everything that's in it, and you HAVE to know it, or it will somehow end up on your permanent record or some shit.

It's moderately nice to have, IMO. That's about it.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] hfcougar.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 03:43 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] blaisepascal - Date: 2011-03-15 03:46 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] talvinamarich.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 05:48 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] tashabear.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-19 04:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] talvinamarich.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-19 05:06 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] tashabear.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-19 04:49 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 03:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alphasarah.livejournal.com
I haven't had a chance to see the book yet, but I agree that a general problem we have when dealing with newcomers is what I call "infodump" - we're so excited that they're interested that we want to Tell Them All The Things Right Now. It takes a skilled Chatelaine to learn to recognize the glazed-over overwhelmed look.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] esprix.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 04:20 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 03:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hfcougar.livejournal.com
Before reading the post, since I forgot to put dibs at Council...

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)

From: [identity profile] hfcougar.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 03:43 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] etherial.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 04:19 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 03:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bunnyjadwiga.livejournal.com
Hrm. I've always thought of the Handbook as a sophmore level text, but that may reflect my outlook and background; when I was a chatelaine we seldom had people ask for the Big Book of Knowing of the SCA; they just weren't manual types. (Then again, when I was a [failed] chatelaine, I was also always being told to back off the newbies and not talk to them so much. :)

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.
Edited Date: 2011-03-15 03:56 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] nicolaa5.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 10:15 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] brickhousewench.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-16 02:15 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 04:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dreda.livejournal.com
Yeah, I'm with the wiki crowd - does ANY newcomer actually read the actual artifact? I stumbled across it many years after my intro, and was moderately entertained by it, but I don't know that I would have found it at all useful at the beginning. I am certain that we never handed it to anyone when we were Chatelaines.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 05:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hfcougar.livejournal.com
I suspect that by the time most people know enough to care what's in it (by which I mean truly care, not think you need to read it because it Sounds Important and you don't know any better), they know enough to not "need" it at all.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] anthraxia.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-16 12:01 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 04:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fangirl715.livejournal.com
I have a copy of the 1992 edition of the KWH that was given to me by a friend who used to be very involved, and found it to be very helpful in a lot of ways; it also seems easier to read & digest to me than the new edition does--perhaps that's just a quirk of mine because I read the earlier one first, but that's my opinion. I do wish the new edition had a better section on food; other than talking about it in the contexts of camping, they don't really discuss food in terms of bringing dishes to potluck events, where to find useful information on period food & cooking, some quick-and-dirty shortcuts when you're still learning about the topic (or when you know the topic pretty well, but are under major time constraints), etc.--seeing it as another significant part of "going period" and providing some good, basic, general info in the contexts of scholarship, preparation, and as a part of socializing (feasts, etc.). The expanded costume section would be very helpful to a newbie, but looking really spiffy won't really help if her/his stomach is growling...

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] fangirl715.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 07:36 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] hfcougar.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-16 03:48 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 04:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] esprix.livejournal.com
I did reference the KWH when I first started, but it wasn't the first thing I saw - it wasn't until I'd been to a few events, met a lot of interesting people, and was helped by many people in person before someone said, hey, you might find this book useful, and it was once I'd gotten past the "gosh this place is kind of neat" phase.

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)
From: [identity profile] the-nita.livejournal.com
When I first started in the SCA, someone handed me the KWA and said "if you have a question, it's there"

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)
From: [identity profile] luscious-purple.livejournal.com
Yep, it's a miscellany all right. The new version (Fourth Edition) corrected some flaws of the Third Edition, but it still wasn't perfect either.

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.

[livejournal.com profile] pearl, who wrote the natural-fiber article that begins on page 44 of the Fourth Edition, led a critique of the new KWH (http://pearl.dreamwidth.org/431758.html) a few months ago.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] pearl - Date: 2011-03-15 09:05 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] pearl - Date: 2011-03-15 10:50 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] redsquirrel.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-17 01:26 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] pearl - Date: 2011-03-15 10:10 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] pearl - Date: 2011-03-16 09:10 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] pearl - Date: 2011-03-16 07:41 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 05:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] katmoonshaker.livejournal.com
::head:laptop:: It's frustrating having to deal with things like this. I used to recommend it but now... not so much. Web pages are good but unfortunately, contrary to some gentles' beliefs, not everyone has access to the web. When I was chronicler for two different groups ::mumble mumble:: years ago I made sure that we had a pamphlet to give newbies. We were also fortunate, as my current Shire is as well, in having a number of gentles who have been in the Society for a long time and are also good at speaking to those who have just begun their journey.

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 05:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gingerspark.livejournal.com
Howdy,

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)

From: [identity profile] gingerspark.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-20 05:21 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] gingerspark.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-21 05:42 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 05:46 pm (UTC)
laurion: (Default)
From: [personal profile] laurion
This is why people don't read the manuals.

So much for being for beginners.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 06:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dreda.livejournal.com
Wow - I'd never seen that Official FAQ before. Seriously that's for real? Gracious - it's amazingly awful.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 06:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ulfhirtha.livejournal.com
Beyond the 1981 Smithsonian article, when I finally was able to join the Society in earnest some 7 years later, the main material my friends and I had were "The Pleasure Book" and the 2nd ed KWH and my goodness were they wonderful and still of use to me decades later. Not only in the information but also in their very look, with a "homespun" feeling that seemed very welcoming as a newcomer. So much so that after geeting the new KWH I hunted down a stray copy of the 3rd Ed as a backup.

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)
From: [identity profile] baron-steffan.livejournal.com
What you (and [personal profile] tashabear) said.

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)
From: [identity profile] ariannawyn.livejournal.com
I really don't think the KWH IS for newbies. By the time someone has gotten to the point of *wanting* a copy of the KWH, they're probably already involved in a local group and (one hopes) have been at least somewhat acclimated by the denizens thereof. Materials for complete newbies belong at the local level, where I think most chatelaines have them.

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)
From: [identity profile] zydee.livejournal.com
I can't wait to see the new KWH, especially if it's got a lot of good information for a do-it-yourselfer like me. But I didn't use the KWH at all when I first got into the Society (in the 1980s); the people around me were gracious enough to tell me what I needed to know and I picked up the rest pretty quickly. I'd heard about this huge book that was sort of the bible, but didn't own a copy till decades later in my run with the SCA (and it's my boyfriend's copy, gotten solely because his then-wife was a writer for it). When I did read it, I was shocked at how impenetrable it was. No way could a newbie get through this without just getting overwhelmed. I used to be a graphic designer, and the KWH makes my hands itch from wanting to reorganize it.

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)

From: [identity profile] zydee.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 08:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-15 08:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lady-guenievre.livejournal.com
Hmm. I haven't seen the new KWH yet, though I should get one. That said, the old one was *so* old that around here, it's long been regarded as more of a curiosity than a useful item. Certainly as a newcomer I was never referred to it as a useful object, nor do I recall ever doing so when I was a Chatelaine. We tend to be much more likely to talk to people about what they want to know, then sending them to more specific resources.

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)
From: [identity profile] dreda.livejournal.com
We tend to be much more likely to talk to people about what they want to know, then sending them to more specific resources.

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: [identity profile] lady-guenievre.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 09:59 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] lady-guenievre.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-15 10:22 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] hfcougar.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-16 03:55 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] dreda.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-16 06:15 pm (UTC) - Expand

As a no-longer-young female...

From: [identity profile] andrea habura - Date: 2011-03-18 12:09 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] arxacies.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-18 06:28 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2011-03-16 04:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leanne-opaskar.livejournal.com
I had actually been pondering getting a copy since my old one has long since gone walkabout, and I'm finally starting to do SCA again. I can't tell if it's worth it from your review. Is it?

tangent

From: [identity profile] cvirtue.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-03-16 06:05 pm (UTC) - Expand

Profile

jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur

October 2025

S M T W T F S
   12 34
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags