Gaming Outpost Discussions

1. 

   M. J. Young
   Moderator

   Somewhere around this post in Harry's game thread we started discussing what ought to be included in his upcoming wedding. He is marrying a local girl, daughter of a moderately wealthy pre-industrialist, and the ceremony will have to follow the "traditions" of a citystate which is entirely invented. Neither of us know quite what to expect, so we're turning to you.

   It has been established that "religion" in this part of the world, at least, is something from the ancient past. These are all rationalists, probably similar to the Enlightenment era with less Deism and less notion of the rational creation of the universe. (The universe just is; no one really thinks about why it is.) Thus the wedding is not going to be "religious" and is not going to have any particularly religious trappings.

   It is also established that the event is serious, that marriage is taken seriously, and that there will thus be a significant ceremonial content in the process.

   I've tossed some comments on the other thread to get ideas going, but I'm posting here to get input from the crowd: what happens at Harry's wedding? Think broadly, too. For example, it's typical in several cultures to have a feast after the ceremony, but should the feast be before the ceremony, or the ceremony part of the feast? Quite a few of our wedding "traditions" are incorporated into the reception, and there might be traditions of a similar sort in this world (feeding cake, throwing bouquets, the Best Man's toast, bride dancing with father and groom with mother, the couple's first dance). The thing is, they would likely be different traditions, just as meaningful and just as established in the culture without the meaning.

   So what do you all suggest? Of course, I'll be the final arbiter, and Harry will have some impact on it, but (like Paula Poundstone said of adults who ask children what they want to be when they grow up) I'm looking for ideas.

   --M. J. Young

   Wed Feb 3 2010 3:43 am #
2. 

   JohnA1nut
   Member

   For some reason I may never understand, this reminds me of something a coworker once told me; How to deal with Jehovah's Witnesses who come to your door.

   "Jehovah's Witness shows up, you tell them this. You were going to tell me about your religion? Well, I think it only fair that I tell you about mine. I'm a Satanist (not really) I was about to sacrifice a goat. Come on in, we'll sacrifice the goat, drink some goats blood, then you can tell me about your religion, cool?"

   He claimed no Jehovah's Witness ever stuck around.

   What does this have to do with your wedding? Nothing really.

   Wed Feb 3 2010 4:20 am #
3. 

   Tadeusz
   Member

   we did the link arms and drink from the other's cup thing, and we did the Eric gets on his knees, and the Ladyfaire puts a 'sword' to the back of Eric's neck and then photographed.

   Supposedly the first serious private coinmaker in New Amsterdam married his daughter off (who was fashionably hefty) and had her sit in one half of a large scale, and piled silver coins in the other half until the weights equalled.

   Fireleaping is one tradition, but you say these folk are 'rational'. Hmmm, a set of logical arguements raised by the two as to why they should be married with prechosen from the crowd objections which have to be overcome.

   "The lady and I are interested in many similar things."
   "Objection: Does any woman actually enjoy football despite saying otherwise?"
   Bride: "I played football for two years in high school."

   Wed Feb 3 2010 5:41 am #
4. 

   Oak
   Member

   What is the bias? If the bias is high enough, you could have them express their commitment to each other by swapping minds (his mind into her body and visa versa)... :D

   Wed Feb 3 2010 5:47 am #
5. 

   JohnA1nut
   Member

   Osevens has to overcome some obstacle to prove his worthiness to marry this woman? I've read about things like this. Put the wedding ring 50 feet off the ground, and he has to climb a greased pole, flaming ladder, fight her older brother to submission, etc. in order to earn the right to marry her.

   Wed Feb 3 2010 6:23 am #
6. 

   WilliamTWodium
   Member

   Little things are often sufficient.

   * Wedding pie.

   * There is no priest, of course, but a government official in his place would be too impersonal. Although there is a court clerk standing by (with social standing and presence on par with our wedding photographers), the ceremony is actually officiated by an aged relative of the bride or groom - a grandfather, if possible, but often a favored uncle or a great aunt. (This means that many weddings are the officiator's first time doing one; this is the accepted way of things. It's something one learns to do decades in advance, in anticipation of one's children or nephew's eventual marriage.)

   * The legal documents are signed during the ceremony, perhaps immediately after the vows. They are signed with a special pen (it is a particular someone's job to provide the pen - best man? father of the bride?), which the couple retains; they will later use their wedding pen to jointly sign official contracts of all kinds during their married life.

   * The bachelor's party is two nights before the wedding; the eve of the wedding is to be spent sobering up, and it is very bad form to visit the groom on that day, no matter the hour. (Ostensibly, the day before the wedding is to be spent in quiet reflection.)

   I could probably go on in that vein, if required. I suppose my point is that one or two outlandish things (or none) is usually quite enough, and the rest is made up of very simple, minor changes - at least one or two of which will seem very great alterations indeed to the person brought up under a different tradition.

   It is late and I am rambling. To bed . . .

   Wed Feb 3 2010 8:03 am #
7. 

   JohnA1nut
   Member

   Scott, I'm going to keep saying it until you do it. BECOME A TEACHER!!!!!! (Said with a laugh and smile) You would seriously be capable of making a difference in a child's life.

   The legal documents are signed during the ceremony, perhaps immediately after the vows. They are signed with a special pen (it is a particular someone's job to provide the pen - best man? father of the bride?), which the couple retains; they will later use their wedding pen to jointly sign official contracts of all kinds during their married life.

   Something special about the ink? Perhaps the reason it's important is because the ink is made from their blood or tears? You could DNA test it for validity (if such technology was available, and I don't think it is in that world) What happens when it breaks, or runs out of ink?

   The traditional wedding cake food fight!!!!! The cake isn't for eating, it's for food fighting. The cakes are brought out, one for every 10 or so people. Maybe it's pies, like Scott said. That's where I got the idea, actually. Bride and groom get first throw, after that, it's a free for all. It's considered a good omen if the bride and groom can get through this unscathed, although they are considered legitimate targets.

   (Doing Therapy) And I'll probably post a few more times.

   Wed Feb 3 2010 8:17 am #
8. 

   M. J. Young
   Moderator

   Sorry, Oak--indigs have no psi and no mag. Also, tech is early gunpowder--flintlock rifled pistols are the most advanced guns of the age.

   Good ideas, still reading.

   --M. J. Young

   Thu Feb 4 2010 2:34 am #
9. 

   Nikolaj
   Member

   A marriage revolves around faithfulness (in Dutch the word for Faithfulness and Marriage are the same word: Trouw) and the promise to remain faithful to one person for the entirety of your life. That is to say, this is our view. Does Durnmist have this view? Are their morals like this?

   If so you will have a variant of 'the vows'.

   Do they see marriage as a becoming of one, as the Christian view is? If so, there might be a symbolic giving of artifacts to Bride and Bridegroom which in itself represent nothing but together form a beautiful object.

   That's all I can think about for now.

   Sat Feb 6 2010 12:08 am #
10. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    Thanks to all who have contributed so far on this thread. Let me start a framework tentatively.

    Since there are no religious leaders, the wedding is not a religious ceremony overseen by a religious leader. It could be that a civic leader takes that responsibility, but I'm going to suggest a different angle: the heads of each family jointly officiate.

    It begins with the groom at the front, and he announces to the gathered guests--wait, it must begin with the gathering of the guests.

    It must take place in a location large enough for people to be present--mostly family and friends, but also business associates. The point is that weddings are public ceremonies intended to make a public announcement of a private arrangement that has public implications. The location must be as convenient to the core families as possible, so that as many may be in attendance as possible. It must be announced specifically to all living members of the family within three genetic steps of the bride and groom--great grandparents, great uncles, first cousins, whose family honor might be impinged by irregularities. Bride and groom each see to their own family contacts for this purpose.

    The bride's guests and the groom's guests generally sit segregated from each other, but not formally so--more that there is a tendency for members of each family and their friends to sit together, apart from the other.

    Once all are assembled, the groom shuts the outside doors (if it is in a building) and walks to the front of the room. There he introduces himself by name and family and makes a formal announcement of his intent to become the husband of his intended bride, by name and family, "if she will accept me".

    At this point, the bride emerges from somewhere in the back of the room and stands by the rear doors. She introduces herself and in similar form states her intention to become his wife, "if he will have me".

    Together they say, "I will". They then walk toward each other; he meets her in the middle of the gathering, and escorts her on his right arm to the front of the room.

    From here, I'd like to see the heads of the two families come forward. I see the bride's father or grandfather or other guardian questioning the groom, and then the groom's doing the same for the bride. The questions are pro forma, akin to our "Do you promise...for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor", but are not identical to that and are couched as a sort of interview. The ritual purpose is for the groom first and then the bride to give assurances to the family of the other of the intent and commitment to this union. It should also include a commitment to "care for any offspring this union may produce", and also to protect the interests of the extended family, keeping their child available to them.

    I note that Harry has no such person in this world; I'm sure he is not the only one who has gotten married without any family, so there is probably allowance for a friend or colleague to fill the role of family head.

    I like the idea of using a cord or cloth to bind the couple together. Perhaps once the questioning is done, the two heads pick up the cloth and walk forward, passing the couple so that the cloth presses against them, then as they are behind the couple each hands his end of the cloth to the other and they walk forward again, encasing the couple in the cloth.

    At this point, the groom makes his "vow" to the bride, and the bride responds by making her vow to the groom.

    I would like to include some marker that traditionally indicates that these people are "off the market". Wedding bands do this in our culture, but there's no reason to duplicate it there. However, I think that it's not here in the sequence.

    Once the vows are made, the two heads pause for a moment as if conferring. Then the groom's head announces, "We are agreed", and the bride's head follows with "Our families are joined."

    At that point we unwrap the bride and groom, and the heads of each house give to the opposite spouse the symbol of the wedding (whatever it is). I don't think a tattoo is right, largely because it would be so difficult to include in a wedding, and a scar or brand is far too primitive for this world, so it pretty much must be jewelry or possibly a small visible garment (such as a neck or arm band?).

    That's a framework. I'm open for criticism or suggestion on it, but hopefully we'll fill in the details, including the list of questions, the form of the announcement, the wording of the vows, and the mark of the marriage.

    --M. J. Young

    Fri Feb 12 2010 12:27 am #
11. 

    johnosevens
    Member

    I like the idea of a torc wrapped around the upper forearm or neck as the symbol, if you don't want to use a wedding ring, but that's just me.

    Fri Feb 12 2010 5:08 am #
12. 

    WilliamTWodium
    Member

    I favor an earring, personally, worn on a particular ear. The necessity of having one pierced has the desirable elements of ritual scarring while remaining "civilized" enough for Durnmist.

    There's also potential in cosmetics; though their impermanence might seem wrong for a marker of deep commitment, the necessity of renewing them daily supports the concept from a different direction.

    Fri Feb 12 2010 10:09 am #
13. 

    Tadeusz
    Member

    There's the 'If married, you wear your hair up, if not, you wear it down' for women.

    Fri Feb 12 2010 5:23 pm #
14. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    Amish men grow beards when married, otherwise they're clean-shaven.

    Fri Feb 12 2010 8:52 pm #
15. 

    johnosevens
    Member

    Wodium (Scott, right?) - I'm already pierced twice though (I have two earrings in my left ear). If that were the case wouldn't people assume I had been married already (twice?). I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it just might have implications, is all.

    Tadeusz (Eric?) - Works fine for Arabella (turns out it is with an 'a' - I found a character sheet for her the other day) but doesn't do much for me. Then again, I also wear my hair long. Perhaps braids, or dreadlocks? Especially appropriate considering both were common for sailors, and Durnmist is a port city.

    A1Nut (whose name I do remember) - I would hate to have to grow a beard. I itch terribly when I'm not mostly clean-shaven. I mean, I suppose I would have to get used to it, but wow would that suck, to be scratching all the time. "Sevenwind, do you have fleas or something?" *scratch scratch* "No, sir, I just got married..."

    Fri Feb 12 2010 10:23 pm #
16. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    A1Nut (whose name I do remember) - I would hate to have to grow a beard. I itch terribly when I'm not mostly clean-shaven.

    Not trying to dispute anything, I just wanted to say that the itchiness only lasts for the first couple of weeks. Once you get used to it, the beard doesn't itch anymore. I had the same problem you did, but you just gotta deal with it for a little while. Once it grows out some, the itchiness goes away.

    Fri Feb 12 2010 10:44 pm #
17. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    Hmmm--
    

    ...torc. a collar, necklace, or similar ornament consisting of a twisted narrow band, usually of precious metal, worn esp. by the ancient Gauls and Britons.

    It appears to get its name from the notion of being torqued or twisted (and is apparently considered the alternate spelling of "a torque").

    A twisted solid metal band around the neck would not be removed easily; but it might have other hazards--and it would be very difficult to do this during a ceremony. It might work if it were a hinge-and-clasp sort of device, or a chain.

    I had also considered an earring, but being a bit squeamish about such things did not think that an ear piercing was exactly what I wanted. I also was thinking of a bracelet, but here you have something of the same problem as with a torc--unless perhaps there is a wedding rental business that provides the machine that twists these around arms or necks, probably operated by paid professionals who promise not to injure you in the process.

    --M. J. Young

    Sat Feb 13 2010 1:18 am #
18. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    A twisted solid metal band around the neck would not be removed easily; but it might have other hazards--and it would be very difficult to do this during a ceremony. It might work if it were a hinge-and-clasp sort of device, or a chain.

    Did you see Underworld, Rise of the Lycans? Lucian, the werewolf leader, was forced to wear a steel collar with 4 silver spikes pointed at his neck. As long as he stayed human, he was fine. If he ever transformed into a werewolf, however, the spikes would stab him in the throat.

    The clasp design was built like a pair of handcuffs, with a very loose maximum tightness setting. And like a pair of handcuffs, you could unlock it with a key. Perhaps they each have the keys to the other's collars, and therefore, only the other can release you from the marriage? Just a thought.

    Most newlywed couples want to throw their keys away, as proof of their undying love, however, due to a rise in people being injured in the act of sawing off their collars, you are required by law to keep the keys for at least the first 5 years of marriage.

    And of course, if you make it that long, there is the (completely optional) key destroying ceremony. This is proof of your desire to never be apart.

    (Doing Therapy)

    Sat Feb 13 2010 1:51 am #
19. 

    WilliamTWodium
    Member

    O'Sevens - It could be that traditionally it's the right ear, and so it's not at all unusual for a bachelor to have multiple piercings on the left and none on the right. (And yes, it's Scott.)

    Sat Feb 13 2010 3:13 am #
20. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    So then would he have to take out the left earrings? Makes sense kind of, but I'll leave that up to Osevens.

    (Doing Therapy)

    Sat Feb 13 2010 3:26 am #
21. 

    WilliamTWodium
    Member

    No, the left earrings could stay. You can wear rings on your other fingers if you like, right? Same principle.

    Sat Feb 13 2010 3:33 am #
22. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    Explain to me exactly why a branding or tattoo would be too "primitive" for these people? A lot of things we do now are derived from a more primitive time and place. Clinking glasses to toast, for instance. When two groups of rival knights would meet to discuss peace, they would each pour some of their wine into the other's glasses. That way, if one was trying to poison the other, they would all get it. Kind of takes away the entire point of trying. Why would the branding be too primitive? Maybe in the olden days, you burned off and cauterized your left pinky finger, and the branding is a much, much more civilized derivative of that.

    (Doing Therapy)

    Sat Feb 13 2010 3:33 am #
23. 

    Tadeusz
    Member

    It is Eric. And I was having evil thoughts about ways to make the wedding personally painful or annoying to a verser. Nothing like telling the average American "we do all major ceremonies skyclad" to freak out average American. In your case, I'd be tempted to have you grow a beard just to make things hard...and then two worlds later, just when you and her got comfy, I'd drop you in a place where beards were only worn by the uncivilized brigands who live in the wilderness.

    Sat Feb 13 2010 5:32 am #
24. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    Explain to me exactly why a branding or tattoo would be too "primitive" for these people?

    Well, branding involves pressing superheated metal against the skin such that it is burned in a way that will never properly heal but always leave a scar. That is a seriously painful procedure. I will inject the personal anecdote that I received third degree burns from spilling flaming oil on my right hand, and for decades you could see the outline of the burned area--but I notice today (for the first time) that the area is no longer so identifiable. Now, it got the best modern medical treatment for such burns available at the time, and it healed remarkably well; but as I recall how painful it was, I cannot imagine that this would be part of a community ceremony of celebration. The next stop for the couple would not be the honeymoon hotel but another place that starts with H, the one for which they put big blue-and-white signs on the highways that say nothing more than "H".

    As to tattoos, mostly I just think them barbaric, although I admit that I have the same attitude toward piercings of all sorts, including ears. What is more problematic in this situation is that they are time consuming: everyone waits while the tattoo artist patiently and painstakingly lays the desired image point-by-point into the flesh of the bride and the groom, and even if it's only five minutes for each, it's a very long time of nothing to see or hear at the moment during the ceremony. I'm told it's painful, as well, which is one of the reasons people get them in sensitive areas, because it suggests that they can endure the pain; but that's less a concern here than it is with the branding.

    I think, too, that there has to be a distinction between, let's call it, the obvious and the glaring. Wedding bands are obvious, in the sense that if you know their significance you spot them easily. Branded hands are glaring, in that if you don't know their significance you spot them and wonder about them. If there were a "glaring" tradition, Harry would already have encountered it and wondered at it--why do these people all have this tattoo, or this brand, or this scar. If it's only an "obvious" tradition, such as a particular piece of ornamental jewelry, he might have seen it a thousand times and not wondered about it.

    (There is the possibility that the brand or tattoo or scar is in a location not normally visible in a fully clothed individual, leading to the "you're married?" exclamation when the branded one becomes inappropriately uncovered, but that then requires that the area be exposed during the public ceremony; and if it's on a part of the body that you would not ordinarily display in public, it probably should not be displayed at the ceremony.)

    I'm inclined toward bracelets, perhaps wrist hand bracelets, but I'm not certain about whether they are somehow fused or bent such that they cannot be removed (easily) or whether they are removable.

    --M. J. Young

    Sun Feb 14 2010 11:43 pm #
25. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    A branding is different from an oil burn. Please note, they don't keep a vet on call when they brand cattle. My cousin had his arm branded. A medicated bandage would be about all that was required for that to heal. Just my two cents.

    Mon Feb 15 2010 12:32 am #
26. 

    johnosevens
    Member

    The only concern I would have about having a piece of metal permanently bent or locked onto my body is that, seeing as I'm a firefighter in this world, it's a bit of a safety hazard, seeing as how readily metal conducts.

    Mon Feb 15 2010 1:45 am #
27. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    That's a good point, Harry. Of course, they've never had firefighters on this world before, so the tradition might not take that into account.

    John, what sort of medicine do you think they can put on the bandage, given the tech bias?

    And cowhide is a lot less enervated than human skin, in the main.

    --M. J. Young

    Mon Feb 15 2010 4:43 am #
28. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    John, what sort of medicine do you think they can put on the bandage, given the tech bias?

    My sister used to have an aloe plant. You just break pieces of it off and rub the juice on your skin. We used it for burns all the time.

    (Doing Therapy)

    Mon Feb 15 2010 4:54 am #
29. 

    johnosevens
    Member

    Still, I would mention it. At the very least ask them to line mine in some kind of leather or something, so it doesn't chafe and doesn't conduct as readily.

    Aloe works wonders for burns. I can't speak for third-degree burns or the effects of branding, but I have had second-degree burns (blistered one side of my hand when I touched the muffler on a piece of machinery I was trying to turn off) and slathering it in aloe was about the only thing that helped at all.

    Still, MJ has a point... Wait a second, no he doesn't. I was going to say 'what kind of antiseptic could they possibly have?' then I remembered, I can heal wounds. I don't see why I could specify 'let this one leave a scar' in a heal wounds spell. Our brands would set in a matter of minutes (or hours, considering the added effect) rather than weeks, with no risk of infection. Of course, I'd wind up with yet another version of essentially the same spell cluttering up my character sheet. I swear when I get to a high Psi world I'm having someone Psychic Surgery me to condense those all into one uber-customizable Spell with variable control of /everything/ and variable bonuses all listed out down below.

    Mon Feb 15 2010 5:32 am #
30. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    Not to mention the fact that aloe is also an antiseptic. Fresh lemon juice works wonders for sunburns, but I can't speak for any other kind.

    (Doing Therapy)

    Mon Feb 15 2010 5:38 am #
31. 

    johnosevens
    Member

    Lemon juice into what is effectively a fresh wound sounds like a profoundly bad idea to me.

    Mon Feb 15 2010 2:18 pm #
32. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    Well, all I do know is that I had a horrendous sunburn at summer camp. One of the counselors cut a lemon in half and rubbed the juice on my back, and by morning, the sunburn was gone. Whether it would work on any other kind of burn, I don't know, but it fixed that sunburn within 12 hours. If nothing else, take it as advice on how to fix a sunburn.

    Mon Feb 15 2010 2:46 pm #
33. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    Harry, the question isn't whether you could heal the burn. The question is whether this culture would use third degree burns as a standard ceremonial means of marking every bride and groom to come to the altar.

    Sure, we can understand the brands in the martial arts trial (can't remember what it is right now, but the initiate has to pick up the pot of fire between his forearms to move it, with the result that his arms bear the burn scars thereafter marking him as one who was able to do that). But with such burns there is always a chance of infection, and the infection can lead to severe complications and death. They have no antibiotics if the problem becomes systemic--apart from which, they're not supposed to go from the wedding ceremony to the recovery beds, but to the marriage bed.

    --M. J. Young

    Mon Feb 15 2010 11:15 pm #
34. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    (can't remember what it is right now, but the initiate has to pick up the pot of fire between his forearms to move it, with the result that his arms bear the burn scars thereafter marking him as one who was able to do that).

    That was in Beverly Hills Ninja.

    (Doing Therapy)

    Mon Feb 15 2010 11:21 pm #
35. 

    johnosevens
    Member

    Well, MJ, I concede your point there. I suppose we're back to where we were before: tattoos which are lengthy and boring, torcs which are more or less perfect but might be a safety issue for me, or some version of rings or earrings which are almost as good as torcs but a little too close to 'normal.'

    Tue Feb 16 2010 12:06 am #
36. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    Not that kind of pot....

    I don't know what movies it has been in, but it was in a few older kung fu movies because it was part of a ritual that had to be passed for some oriental priesthood status that included a lot of martial arts--the wooden men, I think, were part of it, that you had to run the gamut between these mechanical fighters to get to the room with the pot filled with fire, and move it with your arms. I'm pretty sure I saw it in an old Jackie Chan film.

    Back on point, I think the guard uniform idea Harry put forward (in his game thread) solves a lot of questions, particularly as both he and his captain will have such uniforms, and that's pretty much the groom's entire contribution to the party. Arabella's father will wear his best suit, and guests will all dress not so much for the formality as for the festivity. I had a friend in college who suggested one reason people dress for church is that they can and they like to, that for most people every other day was part of the grind of working in fields or factories, mud or dirt or dust or whatever, and this was an opportunity to set that aside and look good for a change. That's the impetus behind wedding clothes for everyone who attends.

    As for the bride, she wants to look her radiant best today, largely because she wants the groom and everyone else to know what a beautiful young woman he is getting (and how fortunate he is to get her). A similar motivation would be in the mind of the groom, but the uniform provides that, particularly given that Harry is an officer in the watch and so has the decorated uniform. Of course, he might want to add some gems/jewelry to his garb, since she's also getting a relatively wealthy individual. (This explains why the bride in our world spends so much on that one dress: this is the only day in her life when she wants to look this good, and so the dress need not be at all functional so much as accentuate her beauty to the greatest degree possible.)

    --M. J. Young

    Tue Feb 16 2010 12:07 am #
37. 

    Tadeusz
    Member

    Ceramic torcs? It might be breakable with ????sharp edges???, but it won't conduct heat that well.

    Tue Feb 16 2010 2:55 am #
38. 

    JohnA1nut
    Member

    Not that kind of pot....

    Whatever other movies that trick might have been in, it WAS in Beverly Hills Ninja. Of course Chris Farley manages to spill the pot of boiling oil all over everyone there.

    Tue Feb 16 2010 4:24 am #
39. 

    johnosevens
    Member

    I remember the scene MJ is talking about. It's actually from the movie 'Kung Fu.'

    Ceramic torcs work quite well, if you could get ceramic that didn't need to be baked in a kiln in order to set.

    As for the clothing thing, I think that pretty much solves it - I'll add some appropriate jewelry, get my hair professionally washed and braided (I've been growing my hair out IRL, and in Verse it would probably be even longer), and so on. A genuine barber-shop shave. Why not? Even for a Verser, how often do you get married? Might as well indulge a little.

    Tue Feb 16 2010 11:29 pm #
40. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    Well, we have not yet settled the "mark" or "token" problem, although I'm partial to some sort of bracelet--maybe matching chain bracelets. I'd like to cover some of the other gaps.

    From the previous page, I wrote,
    

    I see the bride's father or grandfather or other guardian questioning the groom, and then the groom's doing the same for the bride. The questions are pro forma, akin to our "Do you promise...for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor", but are not identical to that and are couched as a sort of interview. The ritual purpose is for the groom first and then the bride to give assurances to the family of the other of the intent and commitment to this union. It should also include a commitment to "care for any offspring this union may produce", and also to protect the interests of the extended family, keeping their child available to them.

    This interview needs structure; the questions are supposed to be known in advance, and the responses formulaic. So what are the questions, and what are the answers?

    At this point, the groom makes his "vow" to the bride, and the bride responds by making her vow to the groom.

    There has been no comment concerning the content and structure of the vows themselves. Being mindful that there will be no religious references, what do they say, and how do they say it?

    Then the groom's head announces, "We are agreed", and the bride's head follows with "Our families are joined."

    I know this looks complete, but I wasn't entirely happy with it when I suggested it. My problem is that I wanted the two family heads to speak as one, and I thought that the "We are agreed" statement was particularly apropos because of the suggestion of the contractual nature of the marriage in this seaport trading world; but "We are agreed" was not sufficient in my mind to declare the marriage completed, and so I added the second phrase. That, then, was too much for the two to say in unison, so I split it between them--but then, I was never really happy with who said what.

    I'm thinking as I type, but perhaps it would work better if the first phrase was spoken in unison by the house heads, and then the second in unison by the bride and groom, perhaps as "We are joined" or "Our lives are joined"?

    It's getting closer to completion, I think.

    --M. J. Young

    Wed Feb 17 2010 1:21 am #
41. 

    johnosevens
    Member

    I have no idea about the interview - dialog is a weakness of mine as a writer.

    Likewise with the vows. If I write this myself it's going to come off in a weird poetic structure that's basically just... not right.

    As for the family heads followed by the couple at the end, I like that.

    Wed Feb 17 2010 3:53 am #
42. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    Sigh.

    Well, I'll put my fingers to it another day; today is busy.

    --M. J. Young

    Fri Feb 19 2010 12:23 am #
43. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    Compiling from the thread plus filling in the blanks, I am composing a script for the wedding.

    The guests gather, mingle, find seats. There is a table in the front on which is a long bolt of white cloth and a pair of matching bracelets, engraved with the names "John and Arabella".

    Harry closes the door to the outside and walks to the front of the room. There he introduces himself by name and family, "I am Commander John Sevenwinds, [I am assuming this is how you will identify yourself], and it is my intention this day to become husband of Arabella, daughter of Jacob son of Fabri, if she will accept me".

    Arabella emerges from somewhere near the back and stands by the (still closed) rear doors, whence she says, "I am Arabella, second daughter of Jacob son of Fabri, and it is my intention this day to become wife of Commander John Sevenwinds, if he will accept me."

    Harry and Arabella say together, "We will."

    Harry and Arabella walk to meet each other in the middle of the room, and he gives her his right arm to escort her to the table.

    Captain Peter, in dress uniform, and Jacob son of Fabri, in his best suit, come forward, and stand between the couple and the table, facing the gathering.

    Jacob son of Fabri speaks. "Commander John Sevenwinds, do you promise to care for this treasure of our house to the best of your ability for the rest of your lives?"

    Harry answers, "I do, sir."

    Jacob continues, "Do you promise to be faithful to her, as she remains faithful to you?"

    Harry answers, "I do sir."

    Jacob continues, "Do you promise to nurse her in times of illness, support her in times of want, and live your life with her best interests in view?"

    Harry answers, "I do sir."

    Jacob continues, "Do you promise to acknowledge and care for any offspring this marriage may produce?"

    Harry answers, "I do sir."

    Jacob continues, "Do you promise, as life allows, to protect the interests of the Fabri family, that we may not lose our daughter and sister or her descendants, but ever have her part of our family?"

    Harry answers, "I do sir."

    Jacob finishes, "Thank you, Commander John Sevenwinds

    Captain Peter speaks. "Arabella, daughter of Jacob son of Fabri, do you promise to care for this treasure of our house to the best of your ability for the rest of your lives?"

    Arabella answers, "I do, sir."

    Peter continues, "Do you promise to be faithful to him, as he remains faithful to you?"

    Arabella answers, "I do sir."

    Peter continues, "Do you promise to nurse him in times of illness, support him in times of want, and live your life with his best interests in view?"

    Arabella answers, "I do sir."

    Peter continues, "Do you promise to acknowledge and care for any offspring this marriage may produce?"

    Arabella answers, "I do sir."

    Peter continues, "Do you promise, as life allows, to protect the interests of the Sevenwinds family, that we may not lose our son and brother or his descendants, but ever have him part of our family?"

    Arabella answers, "I do sir."

    Peter finishes, "Thank you, Arabella daughter of Jacob son of Fabri."

    Jacob and Peter pick up the cloth, each taking an end, and walk toward the gathering past the couple, as the couple turn to face each other. Jacob and Peter then each hand their end to the other, and walk back toward the table, wrapping the couple in the cloth.

    Harry then says to Arabella, "Arabella, daughter of Jacob son of Fabri, I give my life to you for as long as we both have life."

    Arabella then says to Harry, "Commander John Sevenwinds, I give my life to you for as long as we both have life."

    Jacob and Peter look at each other as if they are discussing an important matter, then turn toward the gathering and together say, "We are agreed."

    Harry and Arabella then say, "Our lives are joined."

    Peter and Jacob then each pick up one of the bracelets. Peter gives one to Arabella, helping her put it on her left wrist; Jacob similarly helps Harry put the other on his left wrist.

    It needs a finish. Anyone have a suggestion that fits the rest?

    --M. J. Young

    Mon Feb 22 2010 12:32 am #
44. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    I've got it:

    The groom then offers the bride his left arm, and as the two walk toward the door, the gathering rises to its feet and applauds. He opens the door and escorts her outside.

    From that point, it would sometimes be the case that they couple greet departing guests, but other times (as in this case) the families and guests would start moving the furniture and the couple would return to the room, because the party/reception is happening in the same room.

    --M. J. Young

    Mon Feb 22 2010 12:36 am #
45. 

    M. J. Young
    Moderator

    From the game thread, Harry writes
    

    the shape of a Mobius Strip, because it is a symbol of infinity, which just strikes me as fitting on so many levels. (The idea being that they are essentially a long segmented chain, I'm picturing something visually akin to a flexible watch band, that goes around the wrist twice and clips to itself on one side.) Despite this, I will ask that mine be easily removable, since I can't wear it while I'm working for safety reasons.

    I'm exploring this in my mind, and having trouble with it.

    First, a Mobius Strip is only a single circle with a single twist, so I'm not certain why it goes around the wrist twice.

    Second, although watchbands could work that way with their spring-loaded links, with a chain more period it would be very difficult to create the image of something "flat" and thus the more difficult to put a twist in it.

    Third, if it is at all snug enough not to fall off over the hand, the single twist is going to be uncomfortable.

    Fourth, if it unclasps and is a chain, then the single twist is something that has to be done as it is being clasped, and it will require a type of clasp that does not allow twisting at the clasp point.

    In partial solution of the above, I am envisioning a band that is forged of a flat strip of metal, perhaps platinum, with a hinge to one side and a clasp to the other, so that it opens and closes in a straight line. The single twist could not be at either the clasp (or it would tend to unlatch itself) or the hinge (or it would not open in the right direction), and thus must be to one side between the two. It is confined to one point, as would be a gem setting on a ring, and also serves as a setting for a pair of emeralds that sit on opposite sides of the band. They could be at the point at which it is perpendicular to the skin, or they could be placed such that one is atop the band on each side of that point, that is, in the section where the curve is formed. Alternatively, there could be a single, larger, stone, the band being drilled at that point and the stone passing through it. The setting would naturally include an underband of sorts which would help support the stones and incidentally would shield the wrist against the twist. The bracelets are ovoid, so that they "fit" the wrists rather than rolling around them, and thus the setting remains to the outside of the wrist.

    Comments or improvements or obvious problems?

    --M. J. Young

    Tue Feb 23 2010 11:31 pm #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.