Kingdom A&S discussion: single entry or multiple entry?
Most of this I posted on another thread, but it seems easiest to put it here so I'm not repeating myself as the discussion spreads :)
PLEASE feel free to disagree, and leave comments to disprove my hypotheses! :P
Okay, so I'm going to start by saying that I've never competed for champion, so, you who have get way more say than I do. That doesn't stop me from having an opinion, so here goes, analogy first!
If we want to find the very best artist to represent our Kingdom for a year, then I see this as exactly like a Crown tourney. Many Crowns decide to let fighters "bring their best", and not fiddle with the tourney format. In that case, fighters bring whatever weapons they are strongest with. Others have their own idea of what "best" means. For some Crowns, the best fighter is one that can fight with a funky weapon, and so the tourney reflects that. For others, best means someone who can fight with ALL weapons, and so the weapons choices rotate during the tourney. Are these formats better than each other? Meh. I see the same thing in the arts. Some people feel that we should judge on the person's strongest skill. Great! Others disagree. Great? I honestly don't mind when multiple skills are required, BECAUSE: no one is the master of all skills.
Which brings me to my second point. Entering funky things at Kingdom A&S because it required to do more than your specialty...this forces Laurels to learn new stuff. There was a giant hoorah a few years ago about how Laurels were getting bad scores at Kingdom because they tried new things. For me, that is sort of the point of going for Kingdom, if you are already a Laurel. This pushes you beyond your already established awesomeness. YES, you might get bad scores on entry #3, and it is unlikely that that entry will be "Laurel level". Because it is new to you. I honestly think that is OK.
No, really, superduper okay. Why? Because we should realize that Peers are human, and learn new crafts. AND because since no one is the master of all crafts, EVERYONE is still on an even footing here, even uber-Laurels are learning new things, and showing everyone the processes of how to do so. Does it suck? YES. I have entered (several times) a big (but local) A&S competition that requires a very diverse set of entries. Some of the things I tried I quite frankly hate. However, some of the crafts that I experimented with ONLY for that competition are now a passion for me. Shrug. Yes, it did suck, a whole lot. And let me tell you, I made some crappy, crappy entries. Feeling like a beginner, and having to justify beginner choices is haaaaaard. And embarrassing. In my head I go "I'm a freaking LAUREL, and I didn't see that I had it upside down? What is wrong with me?" And that leads me to do better research. If I only enter at my strengths, then I don't get pushed in that way. The external pressure to do big, impressive things falls off sharply once one is made a Peer, and I for one, can really use an external deadline to get things finished. A&S competitions do that for me.
But this gets back to how we are defining the purpose of this competition. Is it ONLY to find the best, single person? Or are there other things that we want this event to DO? Is is supposed to inspire people? Is it supposed to challenge those of us who think we know what we are doing? Meh. For me, it is supposed to do all those things. Therefore, I don't feel that a single entry does all the things I want it to do. I do think we need to balance the various things the event should accomplish with the amount of effort it takes to do so many entries. I could see entering three with the lowest score dropped. But, as I said before, I have not actually entered, and this is my own, personal, in-my-head opinion. So what if that is a "throw away" entry? Are we saying that going to the effort of making something, and documenting it, and sharing it, and having it judged by experts, has no worth? That if we don't put 100% of our available effort into each facet of our entry, that the part with less has 0 value? Why? The information was still shared. The documentation was written up. A thing was made. "Oh gosh, it was a less nice thing, so that one should never have existed"...bleh? I don't follow the logic here.
Even if you don't want to learn something 100% new-to-you, why not explore part of what you are already planning? If doing scribal, enter some ink experiments. If doing costuming, enter the weaving separately. I don't really understand how this is such a bad thing. Oh no, I had to extend my research slightly! Oh no, I had to write it up! Oh no, I got to talk to MORE people about it! How is this a bad thing? Again, it pushes me to do more research (in this case more indepth research), it asks me to extend my skills and share them more. Yes, it takes time, and yes, it takes energy. But if I don't have the time and energy to make 2 good entries at Kingdom, how am I going to be Champion for a year? Perhaps I do not fully understand the ratio of effort-of-entry to effort-of-Champion?
There is also the argument to be made about breadth vs depth of champion. Most Laurels are made so on a single subject, or some closely clustered subjects. Of course, these individuals likely know a great deal more about their single subject than those people who do many crafts. If we are looking for a champion who knows THE MOST about one subject and makes THE MOST MEDIEVAL WIDGIT (one), then we want a specialist. I think that is how this competition is usually defined, and that is fine. You don't go to the eye doctor for foot surgery. However, I think that there are people who are looking for a champion who displays the ability to do many things, at a decently medieval level. I know that this is true among fighters as well, there are those who are nearly un-beatable if they are standing, with their own sword and shield. In An Tir, that tends to be our standard, specialists. However, some people are renowned as generalists, those who can quite-often-if-not-always kill their opponent with any weapon, in any configuration. We define these things culturally. Shrug. This is a sword-and-board Kingdom on the field, so it could be a your-best-single-entry for A&S too.
I am happy either way, really. A single entry forces me to do more intensive research in my main field, while multiple entry forces me to do research away from my main field. Meh. I think sometimes the Crown is just reflecting a different set of values, which are not homogeneous across our big Kingdom. An Tir politics are certainly patchy in some regards, a gradient in others, and very rarely homogeneous from edge to edge. Setting the requirements for tournaments of all kinds is one of those decisions that the Crown gets to make. Some years I will be scrambling to sew a banner for Crown, or measuring all the shields in the house, other years I will be figuring out how to make my entry-plan fit with the requirements for A&S. Monarchy.with.a.different.ruler.every.six.months.
Continuity is never going to be something we can count on, grin.
PLEASE feel free to disagree, and leave comments to disprove my hypotheses! :P
Okay, so I'm going to start by saying that I've never competed for champion, so, you who have get way more say than I do. That doesn't stop me from having an opinion, so here goes, analogy first!
If we want to find the very best artist to represent our Kingdom for a year, then I see this as exactly like a Crown tourney. Many Crowns decide to let fighters "bring their best", and not fiddle with the tourney format. In that case, fighters bring whatever weapons they are strongest with. Others have their own idea of what "best" means. For some Crowns, the best fighter is one that can fight with a funky weapon, and so the tourney reflects that. For others, best means someone who can fight with ALL weapons, and so the weapons choices rotate during the tourney. Are these formats better than each other? Meh. I see the same thing in the arts. Some people feel that we should judge on the person's strongest skill. Great! Others disagree. Great? I honestly don't mind when multiple skills are required, BECAUSE: no one is the master of all skills.
Which brings me to my second point. Entering funky things at Kingdom A&S because it required to do more than your specialty...this forces Laurels to learn new stuff. There was a giant hoorah a few years ago about how Laurels were getting bad scores at Kingdom because they tried new things. For me, that is sort of the point of going for Kingdom, if you are already a Laurel. This pushes you beyond your already established awesomeness. YES, you might get bad scores on entry #3, and it is unlikely that that entry will be "Laurel level". Because it is new to you. I honestly think that is OK.
No, really, superduper okay. Why? Because we should realize that Peers are human, and learn new crafts. AND because since no one is the master of all crafts, EVERYONE is still on an even footing here, even uber-Laurels are learning new things, and showing everyone the processes of how to do so. Does it suck? YES. I have entered (several times) a big (but local) A&S competition that requires a very diverse set of entries. Some of the things I tried I quite frankly hate. However, some of the crafts that I experimented with ONLY for that competition are now a passion for me. Shrug. Yes, it did suck, a whole lot. And let me tell you, I made some crappy, crappy entries. Feeling like a beginner, and having to justify beginner choices is haaaaaard. And embarrassing. In my head I go "I'm a freaking LAUREL, and I didn't see that I had it upside down? What is wrong with me?" And that leads me to do better research. If I only enter at my strengths, then I don't get pushed in that way. The external pressure to do big, impressive things falls off sharply once one is made a Peer, and I for one, can really use an external deadline to get things finished. A&S competitions do that for me.
But this gets back to how we are defining the purpose of this competition. Is it ONLY to find the best, single person? Or are there other things that we want this event to DO? Is is supposed to inspire people? Is it supposed to challenge those of us who think we know what we are doing? Meh. For me, it is supposed to do all those things. Therefore, I don't feel that a single entry does all the things I want it to do. I do think we need to balance the various things the event should accomplish with the amount of effort it takes to do so many entries. I could see entering three with the lowest score dropped. But, as I said before, I have not actually entered, and this is my own, personal, in-my-head opinion. So what if that is a "throw away" entry? Are we saying that going to the effort of making something, and documenting it, and sharing it, and having it judged by experts, has no worth? That if we don't put 100% of our available effort into each facet of our entry, that the part with less has 0 value? Why? The information was still shared. The documentation was written up. A thing was made. "Oh gosh, it was a less nice thing, so that one should never have existed"...bleh? I don't follow the logic here.
Even if you don't want to learn something 100% new-to-you, why not explore part of what you are already planning? If doing scribal, enter some ink experiments. If doing costuming, enter the weaving separately. I don't really understand how this is such a bad thing. Oh no, I had to extend my research slightly! Oh no, I had to write it up! Oh no, I got to talk to MORE people about it! How is this a bad thing? Again, it pushes me to do more research (in this case more indepth research), it asks me to extend my skills and share them more. Yes, it takes time, and yes, it takes energy. But if I don't have the time and energy to make 2 good entries at Kingdom, how am I going to be Champion for a year? Perhaps I do not fully understand the ratio of effort-of-entry to effort-of-Champion?
There is also the argument to be made about breadth vs depth of champion. Most Laurels are made so on a single subject, or some closely clustered subjects. Of course, these individuals likely know a great deal more about their single subject than those people who do many crafts. If we are looking for a champion who knows THE MOST about one subject and makes THE MOST MEDIEVAL WIDGIT (one), then we want a specialist. I think that is how this competition is usually defined, and that is fine. You don't go to the eye doctor for foot surgery. However, I think that there are people who are looking for a champion who displays the ability to do many things, at a decently medieval level. I know that this is true among fighters as well, there are those who are nearly un-beatable if they are standing, with their own sword and shield. In An Tir, that tends to be our standard, specialists. However, some people are renowned as generalists, those who can quite-often-if-not-always kill their opponent with any weapon, in any configuration. We define these things culturally. Shrug. This is a sword-and-board Kingdom on the field, so it could be a your-best-single-entry for A&S too.
I am happy either way, really. A single entry forces me to do more intensive research in my main field, while multiple entry forces me to do research away from my main field. Meh. I think sometimes the Crown is just reflecting a different set of values, which are not homogeneous across our big Kingdom. An Tir politics are certainly patchy in some regards, a gradient in others, and very rarely homogeneous from edge to edge. Setting the requirements for tournaments of all kinds is one of those decisions that the Crown gets to make. Some years I will be scrambling to sew a banner for Crown, or measuring all the shields in the house, other years I will be figuring out how to make my entry-plan fit with the requirements for A&S. Monarchy.with.a.different.ruler.every.six.months.
Continuity is never going to be something we can count on, grin.