The Two-Legged Stool???

[ElizabethClark]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

First-person is absolutely, 100% possible with people you don't see often. The vast, vast majority of events involving citizens are made up of people who:

1: *Might* see each other twice a year at these events, as they are spread out across the continent
2: Those who've done a lot of first person
3: Those who are trying it for the first time
4: Those who've been in the hobby for years
5: Those who are brand new and have had long-distance mentoring
6: People of all ages and backgrounds.

The major differences? These citizens are determined to research and understand everyday life for a much broader context to the event scenario. They form up household and family groupings long before the event, and work on background by email, on forums, and on the phone. They are determined to add that "real life" aspect to the event.

There's *no reason* military guys can't do the same sorts of things. It will mean expanding a lot beyond military knowledge, though.

[WoodenNutmeg]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

"[...]how many blatantly uneducated/unpracticed, fakey 'Irish' accents can you remember people doing at events and how you might have laughed at them then?"

Wait a second, Johnny...are you telling me those folks aren't really Irish? :confused_

"Why does everybody bring coolers to events instead of eating period food?"

Well, what are you supposed to put your beer and steaks in, Hank? :tounge_sm

"Why don't we actually march around, instead of just wandering back to camp after the battle?"

Are you nuts? What if someone gets a blister? :cry_smile

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

First-person is absolutely, 100% possible with people you don't see often. The vast, vast majority of events involving citizens are made up of people who:

1: *Might* see each other twice a year at these events, as they are spread out across the continent
2: Those who've done a lot of first person
3: Those who are trying it for the first time
4: Those who've been in the hobby for years
5: Those who are brand new and have had long-distance mentoring
6: People of all ages and backgrounds.

The major differences? These citizens are determined to research and understand everyday life for a much broader context to the event scenario. They form up household and family groupings long before the event, and work on background by email, on forums, and on the phone. They are determined to add that "real life" aspect to the event.

There's *no reason* military guys can't do the same sorts of things. It will mean expanding a lot beyond military knowledge, though.

Oh Mrs. Clark... It is possible, but what kind of quality firper are we talking here? Good firper or lame firper? LOL:p

You think it might be a bit different case of firper for the citizens, as citizen sub-community is smaller that the military community in the hobby?

I think it is a bit of an overreach for anyone to say 'just because a military reeenactor understands period civilian life, then his firper will be better or he will be able to do firper'... BUT as you point out, it is a great (and probably the only) start to doing BETTER firper and being more conversant/comfortable in it. So, I think yes, we military boys sure do need to 'do the period civilian homework' more often.

I'm generally more like the above post... for me 'firper is doing'- BUT when the event calls for heavy-firper-for-more-enjoyment factor, I'll chime-in too... no problem here.

Fun discussion, ya'll!:D

All the best- Johnny Lloyd:wink_smil

PS- Oh Mr. O'Keefe... them badly-pretending 'Irish' make most people 'irate' from what I've seen...

[AZReenactor]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Our approach to first person has been pretty simple.

1. Avoid modern topics and discussions.
2. Learn at least a little about the history culture, and people we want to depict.
3. Actually ponder who we would likely be be in that historical context.
4. Be ourselves in that period context.
5. Continue learning more and more about the people and time we depict.

If you are at a quality event doing the things they did, topics don't have to be campy and forced. Focus on the things you do know about, there ought to be plenty going on around you to talk about or for conversation spend time in the age old past time of telling lies and spinning tales. If you use your real life experiences in a period context you find people actually get to know one another over time and that first person and real life can get a little blurry. When you learn to put yourself into a period context and mindset, you may find that it is actually coming back into the modern world after an event that is difficult.

[Charles Heath]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

The quarterly posting.

[Hank Trent]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

I think it is a bit of an overreach for anyone to say 'just because a military reeenactor understands period civilian life, then his firper will be better or he will be able to do firper'... BUT as you point out, it is a great (and probably the only) start to doing BETTER firper and being more conversant/comfortable in it. So, I think yes, we military boys sure do need to 'do the period civilian homework' more often.

Well, that too, but I think what Elizabeth said applies to those who bring up the problem with firper among soldiers, because they're supposed to be portraying people who've known each other for months or years, yet they're strangers in real life. So it's unrealistic to start a conversation with "What'd you do before the war?" since you would have covered that in 1861.

It's an old problem that's already been solved among citizens who want to solve it. My "sister" next month will be a woman I've never met, who lives halfway across the country from me. Same problem as having a messmate you've campaigned with for four years that you've never met before.

I'm generally more like the above post... for me 'firper is doing'- BUT when the event calls for heavy-firper-for-more-enjoyment factor, I'll chime-in too... no problem here.

Well, I'd say that if the goal is accuracy, firper becomes a catch-all label for everything. Talking, doing, reacting, being silent. It's simply portraying someone from the 1860s at a particular time and place, while doing or saying, or not saying, what he might have done and said.

What it isn't, in my opinion, is doing period things silently or while only speaking the minimum, and then when it's time to take a break, talking about modern stuff. That's what I've mostly experienced among the military, and among plenty of civilians as well, but as I said above, I've not spent the time looking for the right military niche, since that isn't my priority interest.

Well, what are you supposed to put your beer and steaks in, Hank?

:D

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Dale Beasley]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Guys,

I don't get into nor know much about the "first-person" gig. And I know even less about "The Two-Legged Stool"...But, My Brother and I as kids had a One-Eyed, three legged Dog that was one bad son of a bitch. The Dog had been shot, and my brother who also grew up to be a Medic in the Army, nursed that dog back to health. That was one good watch dog.

Well the Dogs name was "Rooster"...after the John Wayne character Rooster Codburn.

Bottom line...I am not an actor. I am a Soldier / RN who enjoys Reenacting as a hobby. As far as putting First Person and Reenacting together (which I think are totally separate) the only time is on a forced road march...then "The Disney Magic Begins"

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Understood and wholly agreed, Hank/Elizabeth. Thanks for the insight to all. I understand where you're coming from.

All the best- Johnny Lloyd:wink_smil

[Moose]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Mrs. Clark,
I would disagree. What you seem to speak of would fall under the category of what I would consider “pre-event communication.”

I have never attended an event as a civilian, but from what I understand there is a far greater deal of organization on the part of the individual participants and civilian organizers. What you consider a “household” let us call a “mess” for the sake of argument. What occurs when one ‘household’ chooses not to participate in said research? Or if a loaner shows up and attempts conversation with a ‘household?’ The same thing happens with many ‘messes’ at events. You could do all the pre-event info you want, but if the guys next to you are talking about anything and everything under the sun, the attempt goes right out the window. However, I will agree with you on the fact that many military participants do not attempt background information. And I will also agree that sometimes the military guys just don’t care. Example, at Glendale/Malvern Hill last spring, I did research on the 4th PA Res. for a pay call. Each man was given a 19th c. name at short bio at the beginning of the event and asked to remember his name, because it was going to be used during the pay call. I would say 1/3 used their 19th c. name, the rest either said both of their names or their given name. That means, guys just didn’t care. And for some people, looking at uniform standards is the most ‘research’ they do.

I agree with the point that Troy is making. Its kind of like ‘common curiosity’ first person. I think that if people followed Troy’s example, that it may no be spot on, but an individual who has done the extra work, can attend the event in the capacity they choose and be satisfied.

Cheers,

[AZReenactor]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Joseph,
The name issue is a problem for me. I've done the assigned name thing and personally found it usually more of a distraction than an aid to 1st Person. I can't recall once in real life when I had to stammer and try to recall what my name was, but I have at a number of events where I was assigned a name. Also, with this being a shallow pool people often tend to get to know one another and it is difficult for fellows who've supposedly spent months in the same unit with you to remember your name.

I know fellows here in the west who use an alias, but they tend to use the same alias at every event and sometimes even outside the event when talking with reenactors. (For them I'm hard pressed to recall their real names.) I did find my assigned persona for W64 useful in providing a framework to weave a back story onto but I know I and others had a had time remembering who I was supposed to be and, on more than one occasion, Blinky hit the cups so someone could ask what my character's name was. Personally, I'd have preferred they'd have just called me my real name so that neither of us had to break stride in interacting in a authentic manner.

At home we adopt more of a PEC approach to who we are depicting rather than trying to replicate a specific person. To me, trying to replicate an individual personality from a few snippets of compiled service records, census data, and maybe genealogical data is often akin to trying to recreate an accurate Confederate frock knowing no more than that it was a garment that goes over the shoulders and has sleeves and buttons. It just ain't going to be the same and will always seem fake and incomplete. With all originals unavailable, it semms to me reasonable to take that sketchy information and combine it with a healthy dose of research on period garments and make something that is a likely facsimile, upgrading the reproduction as more information comes to light.

[AZReenactor]

stool samples

Since it has been suggested as worth sharing directly, here is the summary from the 1st California Infantry site:

Our approach to 1st person is too keep it as simple as possible in order to help conversations, interactions, and presentations flow naturally. We use our own names and work to put our modern selves into a historic context. For our historic backgrounds we generally take our real backgrounds and adapt them to an historic setting in order to make conversations more comfortable and consistent. Anecdotes, stories, and personal experiences we discuss in camp frequently have a real world basis that helps make the manner of sharing all the more authentic. We blend historic newspapers, letters, and experiences with modern ones to develop a well rounded persona that we are each comfortable with and reflects who we are as much as who they were.

We have found that this approach allows us to genuinely get to know one another in a real way. The groans that a story has been heard before or the ribbing over a foolish mistake made during some past activity are genuine. The willingness to work together and help bear the burdens of one another is likewise genuine. Just as it did for the men we represent, shared experiences during adversity as well as times of ease help to knit the fraternal bonds between us. Quite frequently we find that we have become so comfortable with our historic/modern persona and those of our pards that the camaraderie of the field and genuine care for one another continues off the field into the real world.

Our goal is not to merely play a role that we discard in the parking lot, but to place our actual selves into a period correct context as a way of enhancing our experience depicting the human interactions of comrades under arms who served day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year together. At the end of the day our gaol is not to be merely a group of history enthusiasts who wear funny clothes and play soldier, but rather, to be a genuine band of brothers.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Mr Caridi, I can definitely see where having multiple messes in an event structure could make it a tad more complex, but if you look at the organization of most citizen-end events, you'll see multiple households, all with common event research (the equivalent of multiple messes), and then within that framework, individual households or sets communicating about even deeper background for their particular goals at the event.

What I'm talking about is a lot more than knowing the names of an actual regiment. It's about knowing what daily life was like "at home", what subjects a person likely studied at school, what he did for work, what he thought of the mineral boom and westward emigration, how he planned to support himself after the war, what books he liked to read, what his favorite dessert was, where he went skinny-dipping in the summer, how he got groceries at home... all the "life" stuff. It's *that* background that many, many military impressions neglect entirely, and it's that very background that makes it easy to "be" someone else for a few days.

If small groups of people are not willing to buy into the historic event scenario, then that's not a first person issue--it's a problem with those registering for the event, and should be addressed by those organizing the event. Citizens handle it by having individual registration, not group registration, and every single person agrees to sign on for the research and scenario.

Absolutely, if a person has *not* done research, then they can ameliorate the worst offenses by just being still, and not adding modern chat to the mix. That's the base minimum.

I think a lot of military impressions could benefit by going citizen for an event or two each year, at events that have actual citizen structures, not "tea party/fashion show and shopping." It's an eye opener!

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Hallo!

"What I'm talking about is a lot more than knowing the names of an actual regiment. It's about knowing what daily life was like "at home", what subjects a person likely studied at school, what he did for work, what he thought of the mineral boom and westward emigration, how he planned to support himself after the war, what books he liked to read, what his favorite dessert was, where he went skinny-dipping in the summer, how he got groceries at home... all the "life" stuff. It's *that* background that many, many military impressions neglect entirely, and it's that very background that makes it easy to "be" someone else for a few days."

Quite true.

Everyone was a civilian FIRST before they became a soldier. And those who survived the experience went back to being one again after serving.
Unless a specific detailed character is part of the event, one often can not see the forest for the trees, and get a nasty bump on the noggin running into them.

IMHO, one of the reasons is that the focus is too artificially narrow as in inverting the telescope. Meaning, as Elizabeth well shares, if one works at developing more of an everyday grasp of basic "social history" in terms of "Life In The Past," it is a different creature than "military history"
As a result, the basic skeleton can be adapted and adopted to a wide range of event scenarios by adding additional elements to it without the intensive change of saying having to be an actual person such as Budd Wilson the pig farmer one month, Thaddeus Wilcox the hotel clerk the next, or George Smith the blacksmith the next.

I am not sure it is all that productive to focus on the worst, or the failed and botched "firper" experiences other than taking away lessons-learned for the next experiment. Meaning, I can share numeorus "failures" beginning with
lads asking questions no one would ask someone you have marched, slept, and fought next to for two or three years like "What's your name?" or "What did you do before the War?" OR "Where are you from?" Or needless detail such as what are the birthdates of your parents, siblings, or children.

At a beginning or basic level, IMHO, the things that are "universal" to civilians in uniform make the best "firper" in reaction to everyday life- such as
complaining about the weather, or how far was marched, or the crapiness or scarcity of rations, or rumours about where they are marching toward or why, can be better than the most detailed but unrelated and non-relevent minutaie.

One I will add to a list... ask someone who can read to read aloud a letter that you cannot if you do not know how to read or write. It doesn't require any great knowledge or skill to just LISTEN...

IMHO, the easiest and at times most realistic "firper" is to shutup and just say nothing modern. And then maybe join in someone's elses' when the moment and comfort/risk level is right with a "Yup" or a "Nope" once in a while and not forcing the theatrical and the awkward sound of too much of the wrong effort in the wrong directions.
Too many folks do not, can not, appreciate the differences between bad forced acting and believeable inter-personal action and reaction because their military history is strong but their social history is weak or lacking.
And as a result, "firper" ceases to become a tool and learning experience and becomes a misunderstood and hated "all-or-nothing" pain in the onus.

It seems these discussions always start and seem to end with the Lucky Charms Leprechuan. :) :)

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt
Victim of a Lucky Charms Leprechuan at Antietam 135 Mess

[AZReenactor]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Curt, Excellent suggestion. Too often people forget that, in the era of mass media, reading aloud was a very common practice, not just to those who couldn't read but as a form of social entertainment as well. We read aloud quite a lot at Winter '64. I recall reading a letter to a comrade who couldn't make out the small hand writing and reading several articles from the Harper's Weekly that came in the mail. Had quite a lively discussion on the soundness of the steam powered heliocopter [sic] notion that was in there and even had follow up discussions with others who had received the same paper. One of the biggest regrets (and a very authentic complaint from soldiers) was that the serial fiction story in there lacked the beginning and ending. Some good period conversations and, best of all, no one ever once mentioned pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, green clovers, or blue diamonds...

One I will add to a list... ask someone who can read to read aloud a letter that you cannot if you do not know how to read or write. It doesn't require any great knowledge or skill to just LISTEN...

[Moose]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

All,
I do not disagree with the last few posts. The events I spoke of were to merely illustrate my points. To put it simply, the posts are mostly in response to the thread originator. One can choose to do research into every day life, experiences, customs, traditions, and personalities of a mid-nineteenth century individual (as Mrs. Clark and Mr. Schmidt have so described), and others may choose a less detailed approach but still staying with in the time line (as Mr. Groves has stated).

But, if taking the original poster’s example, if one develops a large and intricate persona with many twists and turns in an event (I wasn’t there so I am not speaking first-hand knowledge) where I assume the pre-event info was not a massive data dump of personal information for the participants to use to cater a persona to fit the given scenario, then you run the risk of being misunderstood, frustrated, and leaving the realm of a first person portrayal.

The use of W64 was an example of how a large data dump for a specific time and place on a large scale can be successful (no matter what degree of success you may measure), but only because the amount of pre-event info and the length of the event.

The use of Glendale/Malvern Hill was an example of how a simple scenario, trying to tie in some small amount of first person into an event can go to pot if people are unwilling to give it a shot.

And Mrs. Clark, I agree I feel everyone should attend a civilian event, and given the chance, once my civilian kit is more complete, I will gladly join you.

Cheers,