Random post-Pennsic thinks, mentor/dependent edition

The first of a few different post-Pennsic posts! With thinks!

So I'm a particularly interesting case for people in terms of being a mentor in the Peer/Dependent sense - I have a kind of neat Venn diagram when it comes to areas of study.

So I'm a Master of Defense. I sword good. I happen to sword in some Very Period Ways - both because they're interesting to me, if we're a society that studies and recreates history then we should fight in a period fashion, and because (shockingly!) they *work*.

I'm a Master of the Laurel. I specifically study, recreate, and teach period combat and combat-related cultural miscellanea. This isn't focused on winning fights, but on knowing a system inside and out, the context for it, and being able to understand it as well as the cultural context surrounding it.

There's a good amount of crossover here. It's not 100% for sure, but it's there.

I could absolutely be approached by someone who wants to become my Provost (ie, dependent of a Master of Defense) and just Get Good At Swords. Sure, they'd absolutely have a very historical focus to the combat (see above, we're a historical studies group and also it works), but I wouldn't expect them to crack a book themselves. Rather, I'd be instructing them in a system because that's the best way (IMNSHO) towards the goal of Get Good At Swords.

I could also be approached by someone who wants to Get Good At Arts and Science and be an Apprentice. I could help with deep dives and an understanding of historical combat systems, the culture around them, and all of that - independent of "apply this system on the list field." I could also help with research in general, documenting your work, directions of study, heraldic-related studies, and a number of other non-combat things, I imagine.

I suspect that anyone who rolled up on me and asked to see if I'd be a mentor-human in the SCA though, would be sitting in the middle of the Venn diagram. I'm niche, and that's okay. But here's the thing that I'm kicking around in my brain - relationship symbols.

So in the East, provosts typically get a blue livery collar. Apprentices get a green belt. Now, on a couple levels it would amuse me to give a dependent a green collar or a blue belt as a token and sign of the relationship - I'm very much a proponent of "the relationship is defined by the two people in it, and they can use whatever symbols they like." On the other hand, I also think that a large part of wearing something like a provost collar, an apprentice belt, a cadet scarf, a squire belt, or whatever else is that it's a visible sign to people that you are dedicating yourself to that particular art. (Or "track" if that works better for you. Whichever.) It's an indication that they have a peer to whom they are responsible, and who is responsible for them. It's a sign to peers in that discipline that this person is trying to become ready to be a peer themselves. In the social landscape that is the SCA, that kind of identifiability can be really important.

So yeah. I could just do a collar and belt for someone and call it a day - though trying to make a green sword belt would be a fun project. But I dunno, there's a part of me which is just feeling like that's Too Much and a single thing would be preferable, despite the social flagging which is helpful.

Or maybe I'm just overthinking things now. That's certainly a thing that happens, especially after Pennsic.