Strange thought running through my head.

I have an interesting thought about how literature can influence perception. I don't have a coherent idea of what to do with this thought, though. Most people view history through fiction, for better or for worse. "Braveheart" was an awful movie in regards to actual history, but most people who watched the movie truly think that the Scots painted themselves blue and charged into battle wearing kilts. Errol Flynn is the image of Robin Hood that most of the world has of a person that mostly likely did not exist, and an image of England that is very incorrect.

On the one hand, we have Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose", a book so well researched that first time readers might think it was an actual translation of a medieval manuscript. And on the other hand, we have Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe", a book that completely rewrites 12th century English history (as well as fires up gross anti-semitism, creating some myths that are still kicking around, today). "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is the high schooler's first look at 15th century Paris, even though most of the themes in the novel relate to 19th century Paris' rush to modernize the skyline. "The Scarlet Letter" and "The Crucible" have left an indelible mark on millions of minds about who the pilgrims were and how they viewed the world.

This thought is kicking around in my head, but I don't know where to take it.

Thoughts about micro-research

 I like writing.

I also like researching.

I like tripping over the rabbit holes. 

I don't have anything in mind for another year-long research project, but I do want to keep writing about useless, yet interesting, things. The little articles I've been writing for the AE Gazette do allow me to spend a week or so to expand my knowledge about something, and then write a couple thousand words about that something. I can take my time on each article and have fun with each one. Two have already been published, a third submitted, and a fourth in the editing phase. The "Ask Another Laurel" project was suggested by Patrick at my Laurel vigil as a monthly joke article; kind of like "The Onion" only for research. The underling joke being, if you don't like my explanation, ask another Laurel. However, on the way home I was thinking about subjects for this project; plausible, yet fake, articles designed just for humor. I was going through my brain trying to think of things to write about. I had thought about writing about how Christopher Columbus was actually trying to sail to Scotland to get some chicken tikka masala and was so bad at his job that he ended up in what is now Haiti/Dominican Republic. 

Yes, chicken tikka masala was created in Glasgow in the 1970s.

But, the more I thought about how jokey I could make it, I kept being drawn back to how bad a navigator Columbus was and why he is considered by some to be the GOAT of sailing, and why people think that he was the only one to think the Earth was round. And the more I thought about it, the more interested I became in using the virtual space to produce some micro-research about things that I find neat and what I think others would also find neat. 

Since Pax, I have compiled a list of topics to present. Enough topics to keep me busy for the next year, assuming that I only write one per month. I have a list of questions that I already know the answers to, but will enjoy expanding my own knowledge as I try to put words to paper. I also hope that I can inspire others to dip their toes into the pool of research. My area of expertise is with Medieval Western Europe; with hope I can inspire some people who know about Eastern Europe, or the Middle East, or China, or North Africa. The SCA is, at it's core, a teaching non-profit. Yes, we do sword fighting and archery and dance and other things. But what sets the SCA apart from other re-enactment/LARP groups is our stated goal to teach about the middle ages. All knowledge is useful, even the ones that come from the most useless sounding questions.