Heh. Today's food choices can best be described as excessive. Not insane, but somewhat out of bounds. Spinach pie and half an apple dumpling a la mode at the Fest. I'm happy I didn't see the Fish & Chips vendor or the "Queen's Nuts" until after we ate. They were opposite each other, so I dubbed it the "Alley of Good Smells."
Kids had a great time, and we only got rained on a little at the very end.
We got pizza for dinner. Hand tossed sausage & pepperoni has a lot more calories than thin crust veggie pizza--go figure!
3 comments:
You wanna have fun at a Renn Fest? Go dressed as a plague victim - they love that.
Also, point out that the following did not exist during the Renaissance:
synthetic Taffeta
Polyester
plastic
TURKEYS (chow down on a swan leg or goose or some other large water fowl, but, uh...)
There also seems to be a lot of confusion about the time period during which the Renaissance took place. Not a lot of Celts, Woads, Goths (the real ones, not the whiny high school losers), Visigoths, faeries, vikings, druids, or a recent addition to the "Renn Fair" that I've noticed, 18th century pirates. With the exception of pirates, those things existed hundreds of years before in a time know as the Dark Ages, called so because the sun was eaten by Fenrya the wolf, plunging the world into the age of Ragnorok.
Okay, really it's called that because the Catholic church was kind enough to burn any "pagan" records they could get their hands on and discourage any kind of learning for anyone outside the clergy or royalty (and they didn't encourage the royalty, either, but, being royal and all, they insisted).
And before I am poo-pooed for being so cynical, I don't want to ban the Renn Faer, I just want to see people representing The Renaissance accurately. It wasn't the Age of Chivalry (another sick joke, but I'm already digressing), it is a generic term for the expansion of art and music and learning in various places in Europe, especially France and Italy, and it didn't take place in Camelot, which was probably a real place but it would have been a hill fort, was made of wood, would have existed in the 7th century, and they would have spoken latin.
Oh, and if you're going to play Braveheart, please be aware that the kilt is an invention of the 16th century, Edinburgh was NOT a festering muddy dump - in fact, it had a university and cathedrals and was quite metropolitan in those days as it is today - and William Wallace was NOT a highlander, nor was he poor, nor was Lannark, his home town, a bunch of crappy mud huts where the Scots lived like gophers.
Don't get me wrong, I dearly love that movie, but it's got some seriously questionable historical accuracy (Princess Isabelle was about eleven years old when Wallace was executed and had not yet even met Edward the Second, for instance). The Irish soldiers wearing kilts, ironically enough, was right, just not the Scots. They should have been wearing "trews" - as in the song "Donald, where's yer trewsers?", long pants much more common in that time and place. Also, don't go trying to emmulate that accent, either, because it didn't exist in those days. the english language, much less scottish languages (of which there are two very distinct root languages - Scots, spoken in the Lowlands are, where Wallace was from, is a Germanic based language, and Scots Gaelic, which is the Gaelic based language spoken in the Highlands, which, by the way, are no higher than the Lowlands, but WOW is that a whole other story....). And the English that the English speak in that movie was still about 300 years in the making....and it was much more fashionable to speak French, anyway, since England was still under a significant bit of French influence, having given the heave-ho to the viking influence when William the Norman (AKA William the Conqueror AKA William the Bastard AKA William the Silly Git) took over in 1066...of course, he was, being a Norman and all, of Viking heritage, as was Harold Godwinson, his English opponent, who was Danish by heritage
See where it gets confusing?
Wow, Starbucks does angry up the blood sometimes, don't it?
Have fun at the fair!
C.
Decaf.
Jeff & I watched the original True Grit tonight. How's that one for historical accuracy?
Yeah, I got a little carried away, I know.
Braveheart isn't a documentary, it's an action-period-quasi biopic with great scenery, cinematography, story, effects, costume (minus all of the kilts), and should be enjoyed as such.
I have not yet seen True Grit - though I really, really want to being a huge fan of the Coens, Jeff Bridges, Barry Pepper and yes, even M a a a t t t t D a a a a m m o n n n n ...
(you get that refence, and I will mail you a cookie)
Anyway, as with pretty much all John Wayne movies, I can say with certainty that the 2010 version would be more period correct. I direct you also to The Alamo, 1960 vs. The Alamo, 2004, and in doing so, nothing else need be said.
and before I start ranting again, I need to go and make myself a pot of coffee. Fear not, I will harass someone else's blog today.
BTW, if you want the best movie reviews ever, go to YouTube and check out Red Letter Media. He does a great series on those abonimable "prequels" to the Star Wars series and carves up Avatar equally well.
Avatar...what piece of...
Sorry, getting all angried up...must...have...coffee.......
Cheers,
C.
Post a Comment