FORKNI-L
Digest - 31 Jan 2015 to 1 Feb 2015 (#2015-14)
Sun, 1 Feb 2015
There are 3 messages totaling 163 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Shakespeare
2. War: Here's how it would be (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 22:05:29 +0000
From: David McCabe <mccabed@c.......>
Subject: Re: Shakespeare
PBS says series II started January 30.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/shakespeare-uncovered/
Dave McCabe
----- Original Message -----
From: "cindy clark" <badwolf15895@s.......>
To: "FORKNI-L" <FORKNI-L@l.......>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:42:18 PM
Subject: Shakespeare
For all of us who have seen the FK actors perform Shakespeare over the years,
PBS is airing a series called "Shakespeare Uncovered" in February. The episode
covering "King Lear" got my attention, because Christopher Plummer is hosting
it. Many of us remember that GWD was CP's Edmund on Broadway. PBS might show
some scenes from this production.
Cindy
Most people have minds like concrete: mixed up or permanently set.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 16:46:34 -0500
From: Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
Subject: Re: War: Here's how it would be
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Bonnie R. wrote:
> From what I've heard of the first 2-3 wars, this could be the time to
> scale back to those roots.
Scaling back is a suggestion that seems to come up with every war. It's
obviously a compelling thought for those unable to give up the time for
"two-week Iron Man marathons", as you put it. And there's no doubt that a
full-scale war, as war developed into, does require the scribes (and *you*
are certainly a prolific writer) to put in a lot of effort.
The trouble here is that memory is golden, for those who were there; and, of
course, many of us *weren't*. Not back in the very earliest days. "What
you've heard" is semi-correct. It's the "semi" bit that gets you every
time.
> They were impromptu weekends of Round Robin revelry, right?, a group
> of fans who just happened to be online one Friday night. More like a fan
> fiction flash mob [...]
The "flash mob" analogy is pretty good for War One. The attacks were
apparently unannounced; but people leapt on them with glee and started
writing their own posts. So, although not everyone on list got involved,
those who did do so were called purely by the desire to get in on the
action.
So War One was "impromptu", certainly. At least, that's true for most of
the participants (some twenty odd people, if I counted right). Several of
them suddenly found that the fic list seemed to be on the attack, and
pranks--of various degrees--were being perpetrated on them by three Cousins.
The first attackees were avowed Knighties. (The three Cousins, on the other
hand, probably did a bit of e-mailing beforehand to set things up.)
So, when Bonnie P. says--
> It really would get us back to the roots when attacks were mostly pranks
> played on friends, rather than mostly all-out blitzkriegs by factions on
> other factions.
--not really! It was factional from the start. However, at that time, not
all the factions had been named or organzed. It *is* true that the
NatPackers only got together during the war. In fact, they used a different
name back then, and only picked "NatPack" later. It's true that the FoDs
hadn't yet decided on a name for themselves, and were bandying about
several. Only one person in War One declared an affiliation with Schanke,
and "FoD" was the name that *he* preferred. And there were certainly people
who played unaffiliated.
However, it's also pretty obvious that this only applies to War One. By the
time War Two began, there had been plenty of behind-the-scenes chit-chat
within the newly formed factions. There must have been, since *that* war
opens with things that must have been the result of at least some
pre-planning.
I get the impression--if only from the frequency!--that early wars did not
have dates set months in advance, like the big later ones. So, yeah: the
notion of a war would be put out on list, people would go "Yay! War!", and I
guess it would happen a week or so later. On the other hand, even with only
a few days notice, active factions (as they *were* active back then!) must
have whisked e-mails round their members with lightning speed to make plans
for their first activities.
There's a lot to be said for letting people play unaffiliated if they want.
We had three *active* unaffiliated writers in the last war; and they were
among the most prolific.
However, there are others who feel strongly attached to their factions: in
the last few wars, Libratsie has been the only Rat-Packer, and Alex the only
Ravenette. I guess those names mean something to them.
And I get the impression there are also those for whom war involves catching
up and hanging out with their friends at their faction HQ. (And they can
also be prolific.)
The truth is that war is different things for different people.
"Round Robin revelry"? Absolutely! I can't think of a better description:
that's War in a nutshell.
Greer
gwatson2@r.......
http://www.foreverknight.org/FK4/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 16:49:50 -0500
From: Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
Subject: Re: War: Here's how it would be
Also...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Bonnie R. said:
> They were impromptu weekends of Round Robin revelry, right?
Scaling back may work. However, no way were any of the wars "weekends".
From the very start, they all took at least two weeks. There's never been a
"weekend" war.
(I'm not saying we can't try it. I *do* have doubts.)
Greer
gwatson2@r.......
http://www.foreverknight.org/FK4/
------------------------------
End of FORKNI-L Digest - 31 Jan 2015 to 1 Feb 2015 (#2015-14)
*************************************************************
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
