The Two-Legged Stool???

[SCTiger]

Shutup about the gear and save it for the sutler!

The thrust of of this thread was 'why don't we invest the same energy' in our first person roles as we do military knowledge, field skills and gear? If we were as concerned with our characters and background development as we were in the researching the proper type of leather or the correct buckle for the ANV, we would have personas that would be so convincing, they would be almost scary.

So it wasn't a theoretical question on how to execute a proper first person role, everybody on this forum has their own formula or technique to achieving that goal. It was a question about researching the intangibles. It wasn't even about whether we should or should not. If you look at the AC forum on any given month, there are more threads on "oilcloths" or "knapsacks" and "corps badges" then any real discussions on developing a proper 19th Century mind set. Quarterly discussions on first person? Probably not even that much.

You approach the average Joe Campaigner and ask him about his Enfield rifle, he could probably drone on for five hours over the various, types, models and even painful minute details about barrel bands. This is the real reason that modern weapons aren't allowed at events, you may want to commit suicide if you are suckered into a never ending lecture with a gear zealot. Those types of discussions will also dominate the campfires and "down time " on the march or in the field. The worst offenders will know every detail about how item "X" was made but, they will posses scant knowledge about the person they are. You might get a blank stare, if you ask too many detailed questions, beyond the census data. Really deep first person interaction? Oh no, get ready for the "Silent Bob" treatment for the next 36 hours. Now there's an event worth driving to! Cricket, cricket.

Nothing wrong with material knowledge, but to Johnny Reb/Billy de Yank, his letters are filled with discussions about "home", missing his wife, are the crops in? Do you want me to make you a ring? Are you well? How is my mule doing? Who got elected Post Master? Did you pay that loan off? They rarely write about equipment, weapons or any details about uniforms. When we do find those tidbits mentioned, it's like finding gold for the material knowledge.

I am guilty of doing the same banal thing, I will scan pages of letters looking for the words "weapon" or "accouterments", and in the process I am skipping the real story.
How they wrote, thought, felt and the words they used. So I read all of the material now. Keep reading enough and it gets absorbed in to your mind and personality.

Now in conclusion, (put down the pistol) there is nothing wrong with analyzing and improving our knowledge on the material stuff. I love it. Good materials make any event visually correct, good first person will make the event a "three legged stool" and that's the type of event I want to invest in.

[coastaltrash]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Greg,
Really good post. Seems a far way off from the guy at Chickamauga in 2003 with his knapsack so stuffed with items that the seams looked stressed and a large bedroll on top that looked more like a modern sleeping bag than anything else.

Comparing letters home to what a soldier would say to another soldier is likely comparing two totally different things. What I find comical is the people who do the serious research into building a persona for the weekend, but can't tell you what Brigade they belong to or which conflicts the group was divided into. From the accounts I've read over the years, these guys acted no different than guys now, in fact, I have yet to see a hog race take place at a CPH event, in which one participant is killed. Never saw any of us do half the jokes you see in journals, because none of us are beaten into 3 years of the same day in day out crap. A guy that is from the same town isn't likely to sit around yammering for hours on end about his wife to a guy who has been with him in line for the past 3 years, maybe scant mentions, like you do with someone you work with.

Keeping modern talk down is about as much as you'll get out of the average campaigner. I think with the new blood, we're doing good in the fact that most have gotten past the gear and hit the better event circuit.

[SCTiger]

Better is the eternal enemy of good enough.

I think with the new blood, we're doing good in the fact that most have gotten past the gear and hit the better event circuit.

Your right Pat, and hopefully we`will continue to have enough of the better events. It's great to even have this discussion, in years past it was mostly complaints about not having enough events and what exactly a good event was. We don't have these long, rhetorical debates about "saving the hobby" or performing "missionary work." The access to "better" events took us out of that circus.

Now we are developing our impressions more and worrying less about re-enactor politics, and that's a good sign.

[JimConley]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Ah, it has been a little while since the first-person discussion came about.

This is a tricky subject and objective because while it holds validity, there are also other avenues and concerns that impact what is being strived in this whole "authentic" thing.

This is directed mainly towards military impressions, but I think that we can all agree on these basic ideas that are intended to set us apart. There are so many aspects of an authentic impression that it is hard for everyone to be on top of each and every detail at each and every event.
To me, more than first person, these two areas need severe progress before the rest:
1. "The Look." Not every soldier was 5'7" and 138lbs, but we look at what they were wearing at certain periods, in certain areas, and how they wore it. Just as important as what they were wearing is how those uniform and equipment items were made. I don't care how good your first-person is or how many books and letters you've read about the campaign, it's pretty tough to sell an impression in sutler row grade or poorly homemade garments, even worse accoutrements, and a hat or cap that looks like it came out of a John Wayne movie. The originals are out there, thousands of photographs, secondary research, and a handful of people making excellent reproductions, yet why are a lot of people still showing up to these events in poor kits? We're told that it is better to accommodate a good attitude in lieu of a "proper" kit. I'm all for helping someone out that is piecing together a better impression, but it is exceeding that. Impression guidelines are put out for every "authentic" event and it's time that those are enforced. Additionally, there should be a minimal level that is expected. Some organizations will not publish a "vendors list" because it then becomes political by endorsing some and not others, or they feel as if their membership should already know what is acceptable. I disagree. And, how many of those groups that have published a list of vendors for their impressions actually stick to them? Are people too caught up in their old ways and old kits, or they don't care enough to strive for improvement? And what of the influx of new fellows? What are they to think when they see bad kits and bad habits at these "illustriously authentic" events? Would that not make them feel as if improving their impression is not as important as maybe they thought?
This was stated in the initial post:

The "Material" research is covered so thoroughly, I believe we focus all of our attention here and everything else can be damned.

I agree that the majority of the focus here on the AC boards may be more directed towards material discussions, however I do not think that it is being applied. My messmates and I are always looking for ways to improve and extend our impressions, shouldn't we all? Is that not a huge part of the whole point to this arrangement?


2. Drill. Some organizations push this more than others. Some guys study manuals religiously, and some get by. Hey, if drill is not one of your key interests in this circus, fine. But you had better be sure that you've been around long enough to perform when the time comes because the boys of '61-'65 could do it in their sleep. I think that the great majority of us all need to put everything aside, COs put down their swords, shoulder a musket and drill until we hate it (myself included!). Very few things look better than a company that performs the manual of arms in unison, knows how to stack arms, keep proper intervals, knows what face a 1 or 2 steps over and up, can wheel, and can actually perform as skirmishers.

Now, on to the first-person topic at hand. It is difficult to carry on first-person for an entire event without it becoming silly, or even laughable. There are always the little quips that are all too remindful of Gettysburg and Glory (the films). It is also very difficult, especially in military to have a truly accurate character for the specific impression. First, records need to be dug up to find out what kinds of professions were common amongst the men being portrayed. From there, one would have to dig even deeper to learn the practices of the chosen profession(s), and likely quite a variety of them to necessitate the multiple unit impressions that one does in a given year. What social class would these men have fallen in? Did they have money or were they poor? How advanced was the level of education in the areas from which they were mustered into service? What were the ages of these men? What were their personal politics as produced by their level of education and social class? How large or small were the communities from which they came? Etc, etc, etc.

It is hard enough getting people to improve upon their kits, drill, and practices out in the field, let alone getting them to have the motivation to become an accurate character for events. Am I saying that we need not bother with such details? No. But, there is quite a ways to go with other aspects of "authentic" efforts. The men of '61-'65 interacted with each other the same way that we do with friends. They enjoyed different types of music, shared stories and laughs, taunted each other, had inside jokes, played games, and just generally banded together. To me, the best first person is not talking about the grand spectacle of politics and ideals that we students associate with the war, rather simply interacting with your comrades as people do and as they did. Familiarize yourself with slang terms of the period, read about how they passed the time together, and leave modern talk at the gate. It does not have to be perfect, and we should improve on it, but it also does not have to be cheesy. The best conversations I have had around the camp fire were when all the modern topics were put aside, we shared some stories and jokes, and even when we were not talking in the dazzling first-person, we were talking about the war, accounts, research, etc.

Jim,
Founding the Pessimistic Misfits Mess


Bring on the disagreements and misconceptions...

[UnicornForge]

I fully agree that this is a difficult and likely controversial subject. When I visit a friend's sutlery in Gettysburg (who claims to be the first and longest sutler in business in town, but I digress) the topic of conversation of those that gather there invariably turns to authenticity, or the lack thereof.

At these impromptu discussions, there seems to be a general acceptance that to be honest we are all farbs. Most participants agree to this notion because they acknowledge that they are not anywhere near one-hundred percent authentic. Many who drop in for conversation admit to belonging in the invalid corps because of their age, but being in the invalid corps would preclude them from participating in most reenactment opportunities. Just about everyone admits to not having behaviors common to WBTS army camps: they shamelessly admit to habits of bathing, not having lice, having most if not all of their teeth, not cursing, not gambling, not whoring in camp, using iron instead of wooden tent stakes, and not making period correct ethnic slurs that would have been common at that time and place. Most of the impromptu-panel don’t smoke, gasp, even during reenactments! Some of these men even admit to allowing their spouses walk through an army camp unescorted, where they are likely to be mistaken for one of General Hooker’s ladies! Some of these men even let their wives and girlfriends, extreme horror, become camp-followers! And I have only heard one reenactor admit to letting his wife portray a camp-follower that was accepting payment for her highly-personal services.

The question is whether the public is ready for a reenactment of the language and attitudes of that time period. I don’t think so. If we are going to have families of spectators come through camp, the behavior, language used and attitudes towards life in general, women and ethnic groups in particular, that were typical of those times are going to continue to have to be sanitized. The viewing public and organizers of events are going to require it to be so. Plunk a real soldier of that time period out of the time machine and set him down in front of spectators, and he is likely to be found to be extremely offensive in language, attitudes, and behavior, and likely to get into a severe fist fight with members of the audience, arrested, and jailed.

“Would you like to buy a collar for your servant miss? Or would you like to take it in trade?” (wording cleaned up) I am assuming that readers know what a servant's collar referred to in that time period. When I have finished building my government documented military wheeled Traveling Forge, I plan on having servant collars and other necessities available.

[Hank Trent]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

The question is whether the public is ready for a reenactment of the language and attitudes of that time period. I don’t think so. If we are going to have families of spectators come through camp, the behavior, language used and attitudes towards life in general, women and ethnic groups in particular, that were typical of those times are going to continue to have to be sanitized.

I think you're right, though it does depend somewhat on the individual visitor and what orientation if any they've received.

But even at events where there's public interpretation, there are all those times when the public isn't present or out of hearing, and that's when there's more freedom to apply a period attitude and vocabulary. Not to mention, of course, at non-spectator events.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

In respect to firper... it always tempers my judgement that people of the period spoke differently than the way they might have written. We use 1st person accounts as our best resource as far as documents are concerned, but had we had the ability to hear a 'tape recording' of actual Civil War soldiers on the day of the battles/campaigns in the 1860s (not necessarily Union/Confederate veterans films postwar- though those are a good start too), we might be completely suprised at the vernacular actually used but not recorded for posterity.


All the best- Johnny Lloyd:wink_smil

[UnicornForge]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

I agree. However, swearing and ethnic slurs, etc are, at least for me, difficult to turn on and off. Plus since I am an old f@&+ that only does living history as a smith, I don't go to non-spectator events.

I think you're right, though it does depend somewhat on the individual visitor and what orientation if any they've received.

But even at events where there's public interpretation, there are all those times when the public isn't present or out of hearing, and that's when there's more freedom to apply a period attitude and vocabulary. Not to mention, of course, at non-spectator events.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[ElizabethClark]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

The old straw man of "we're all farbs because" just doesn't fly, particularly here. Honestly. Yep, I bathe. I've never had lice. I don't cuss, or drink, or gamble. And you know what? A heck of a lot of the Original Cast was the same way, and a heck of a lot weren't.

The fact that I was born in the 1970s DOES NOT absolve me from trying to "get it right" to the best of my ability--and that includes understanding a historic role in a much larger context that "clothes and drill."

That larger context (the stuff that citizens in living history research Every Single Time) will be useful for first, second, or third person interpretation. It goes way beyond "firper", way beyond immersion events.

If a military man only knows clothes, drill, and "army life" (and maybe a laundry list of made-up "personal details"), he's Woefuly Short of any sort of actual history. Without that larger context, he's just camping in funny clothes again.

Guys, quit using "we're all farbs underneath" as an excuse. That's a "not this forum's point" issue. Learn about the era beyond military life. It's not impossible, nor even particularly difficult.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Hallo!

Moderator hat on...

"We're all farbs underneath." is a given.

What is not a given on the AC Forum is that that should be operationalized as an acknowledgement of the need to strive to improve, learn, evolve, and move further down the Sliding Scale of Imperfection toward the never-reachable 100% of Perfection.

And not..

An excuse, cop-out, or rationalization for choosing a Mental Picture that is closer to the 0% end of the Sliding Scale, or the Militant Farbism Mantra that since we can never be actual Civil War soldiers and civilians living between 1861 and 1865, we can excuse or overlook much that we can do and should be doing because... we donlt use live bullets and explosive ordnance or choose to come down with Period diseases such as dysentary, thyphoid, or cholera, or we have modern surgical scars and modern dental work, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Not picking on anyone's particular posts or ideas, just smelling the wind and heading off what we see coming...

Moderator hat off...

Not that Mental Pictures choosing to be closer to 0% are bad, wrong, or wicked- just that those choices are not what the AC Forum is about or strives for.

Curt

[JimConley]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

The fact that I was born in the 1970s DOES NOT absolve me from trying to "get it right" to the best of my ability--and that includes understanding a historic role in a much larger context that "clothes and drill."

If a military man only knows clothes, drill, and "army life" (and maybe a laundry list of made-up "personal details"), he's Woefuly Short of any sort of actual history. Without that larger context, he's just camping in funny clothes again.

Elizabeth,
I must disagree that someone with skilled or effective knowledge of clothing, drill, and army practices falls short of experiencing "actual history." From what, may I ask, have you determined this? It seems rather audacious and assuming of you to minimize or write off the extensive effort that is necessary to collect such knowledge and skill, continuously expand upon it, and apply it when at an event. And right now, these things, that obviously seem elementary or simple to you, are not being exhibited when and where they should be. By all means, there should be a larger context. But why continue to broaden the context of the impression when the things that I am speaking of are being overlooked as "basic" and "drawn out," while simultaneously not being carried out with any form of minimal standard, developed upon or progressing, and unquestionably being disregarded.

As I stated before, I do not care how good your first-person, your "character," or how extensive your context, you cannot sell an impression in a meager kit. Just as you and your friends would not allow someone to engage in 20th century topics in your first-person experiences, why should we then continue to not uphold a standard of material authenticity and practices when they are looked upon as fundamental, yet are so apparently lacking?

I wonder how researchers, collectors, and reproduction artisans like Fred Gaede, Les Jensen, Tom Arliskas, Mike O'Donnell, Larry Strayer, the late John Kurtz, Jerry Raisor, Charlie Childs, Karin Timour, Neil Rose, Brad Malone, Nick Duvall, Greg Starbuck, Tim Allen, and a whole slew of others would react if they were told that their efforts were not experiencing any form of "actual" history and that they have contributed to little more than men camping in the woods in their funny clothes. No, it is much more than that. And, it is time that people realized that and understand the emphasis!

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Regarding Elizabeth's post and Jim's rebuttal to it:

I think the context of the event is important. A well-developed first-personna is probably not going to contribute much to the experience of participant or spectator at a NPS LH event. ...at least not without careful interpretation for the latter group.

However, I think those fellows awake in the Confederate camp after the storm at "High Tide", who were able to enjoy the fruits of the efforts of The Liberty Rifles' (and Friends) putting on a concert and play, got a real sense of the potential for first person activities that extend beyond the fields of drill and battle. While not an "immersive" experience, it was great to see a group of top-notch living historians grab a concept and run with it like that. It was a highlight of 2008 for me.

At some events, Jim is correct. At most immersive picket post style events, a soldierly portrayal will entail little else but the "here and now". There's not much time for talk of politics, the crops back home, or even for a song.

However, other events have room for such things. Also, a joke, insult, or comment told with the humor of the period and natural, unforced delivery adds real depth to the experience (in my opinion). To do such things requires a little preparation and an amount of knowledge of how people back then spoke and their opinions on certain topics. That stuff does not come quickly or easily.

IMO, unless your are interpretting for the public, your knowledge of your uniform and kit goes "out the window" at the start of an event... other than as it applies to its essential function.

[Charles Heath]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

This conversation really does cycle around quarterly, and a 700-page thread could be consolidated with the slings, arrows, and few gems scattered over the years. In the first quarter of Season 2009, perhaps we would do well to look around at what makes this span of time so very different than decades past. Insert that famous Bill Clinton campaign line right here. You know the one.

We have collectively reached a point where our end of the hobby has too many events and not enough pairs of feet to vote with their attendance. Up until the 2008 season, we had a good handle on how many people were active in this wing we tend to lump together as "ceepeeaytch," but that tool is no longer available. At the height, we had about 450 active participants. The low point, and I do mean low point of early 2009 indicates an estimate of around 325 at best. This doesn't include guests, try-ones, day trippers, and those who stare wide eyed the first time they see slab bacon emerge from a box.

I see folks on this thread who rarely, if ever, attend an event of any kind trying to tell us what it is we must do, what we should do, what we gotta do, and in their hands they have an empty pan of "mental picture." If you can't manage to drag yourself to an event a few times each year, well, then that's all you have, and the world was once filled with underdeveloped Polaroid images.

The word "immersion" has been minced and well beaten. "Semi-immersion" is receiving a similar treatment, and "non-immersion" may be the most truthful of the three. Other hobbies have immersion events (no aqua involved) and it may do some of us good to take a gander at what they offer, and what that term really means. I'm not so sure this end of the hobby really and truly remembers anymore.

The truth is somewhere around 2/3 of the number mentioned above doesn't want to deal with first person. You'll rarely see anyone jump out of the woodwork to slam first person efforts, but talk to these folks in private. Frankly, the amount of work involved to make first person interpretation work isn't appropriate for every event, and for some events first person interpretation is actually detrimental to the event itself. I'll let you figure out that one.

To return to the theme of too many events and too few reenactors, the current situation where each and every three man mess (not completely mutually exclusive of six other three man messes) has to promote a monthly (or more frequent) immersion event at some stellar site within their tri-county zone of influence is not doing us any favors. When one looks at the list of the next Mucktard Mess event organizers, the names suddenly don't seem to have been associated as participants with any event of quality beyond the Sutler Row Sittin' Section at the last Wookiefestival Encampment & Farbfest or Battle of Something Local mainstream hootenanny. The end result being people who will argue for 30-minutes that green coffee beans are split peas. There's a mental picture for you.

So, just when do we stop and decide to fix what needs fixing? We need to do this before we lose the folks who have experience with campaign, progressive, and hardcore events. Quite a number of folks won't understand a word I said here. For those who do understand, you'll realize I just put the stake in the heart of the beast. Rather than have the usual Keyboard Kampaigners post the same tired ass quips about mush and slosh, maybe it's time for those actually active in this wing of the hobby to pony up.

[44thGa]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

Very well said, Mr. Heath.

[btfire]

Re: The Two-Legged Stool???

There are plenty of good posts both for ad against first person interaction. First, Pat. Your lack of first person really was not a lack at all. Asking about someone we both know in that event was quite plausible. Both units were from Tennessee and the companies were raised not too far from each other. A little farther than some may travel, but plausible still.

Now, there are many posts quoting a lot of reasons why first person is hokey, when in fact I think it is not. We can never be a person from the 19th century unless we are really old. What we can be is ourselves applied in the period context. I can never be any other person than myself, and that is all I really strive to be. I spend research time into my own back story, which rarely changes from event to event. I can apply many of my own experiences to my "character" which do and do not get into conversation. If I am always myself, how can I go wrong? I cannot.

The key to dropping myself, or you, into a 19th century mindset has been written about in this thread by people more in the know than I, so I will not rehash.

We can all spend time researching the life in the mid-19th century, it requires no more energy than the material. I have not attained the level of "three-legged stool," but I continue on my personal quest.