Camp Chase Gazette and the Watchdog

[David Lanier]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Gentlemen (and ladies):

While I agree with these comments on the "passing" of the relevancy of the CCG, my nostalgia for its heyday is tempered by certain considerations. Someone remarked above that advertising drives publications. I've been involved in editing for years, and I can attest to the truth of that--the rule of thumb is to "see how many ads you can get, then fill up the remaining space with copy." The audience for CCG is mainstream, because it's a larger audience with a larger number of potential (or actual) advertisers willing to pay for space in the publication--which in turn allows the publication to remain in business.

The progressive/authentic "wing" of reenacting is much smaller by comparison, so the "reading public" for a journal aimed at this group is limited (though we can always hope it will continue to grow). In addition, another difference is that a great many of the merchants who cater to the authentic-minded living historian are on the Authentic Campaigner vendor list--and many of them are even regular contributors to this forum. The need for them to pay for advertising to "hook" the intended or likely purchasers of their wares is diminished.

Though we all have a special place in our hearts and minds for the 19th century (obviously, or we wouldn't be on this forum), we live in the early years of the 21st. Technological developments have ushered in a new age of communication. This website allows for nearly instantaneous publication of event information, research, dialog, and even posting of images. No conventional printed magazine could equal--or even come close to--this. Face it, and revel in it: this website is the publication of and for the authentic Civil War-era living historian.

A big amen to that. I'm an editor too. There's no way for printed publications to keep up with such a rapidly changing hobby. This is an excellent forum. I am awash in a sea of poorly written magazines that nobody reads and for which everybody wants $45 a year. If I want cheezy ads, I'll read the pop ups. I don't. That's why I'm here.

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Books don't crash...

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

To echo an earlier post from Elizabeth, I, too, do not take CCG as I no longer do military (though I didn't read/take it even when I did). I do take Citizens' Companion and the surplus articles that Susan Hughes has is running low. Those out there who have an interest, start writing and get the articles in (and yes I have written three articles and plotting my next).

I will speak as having had heavy hands in several unit newsletters, and again I echo Liz "People are lazy." The same people were writing articles over and over and the editors just got tired and the same people have lives that include marriage, school, children, and doing events. If the membership of a magazine is not willing to write articles, your editorial will fail as you just can't keep up the steam to edit and the same writers can't always write (plus it doesn't make it a very interesting and diverse set of information).

On the note of the CCG, if the editors are not interested in catering at all to the more authentic side of the hobby then I can understand people not willing to write. However, as Chris Daley said the net has been a great factor in replacing CCG and CWN (so far as reenactors go, though CWN goes into more stuff than just reenacting).

In the end, I believe, it is up to each individual to decide if CCG is worth their concern or money. If the answer is no, then you just will have to say "Au revoir."

[Phil McBride]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Ola from Tejas,

As one of those listed as a "regular contributor" to the Camp Chase Gazette, I've been reading this thread and the following one with great interest. The CCG has published nine articles I've written under the past three editors. While Nicky Hughes was editor, they published pieces I wrote about Pickett's Mill 2001, TAG 2003, Port Gibson 2003, and a couple of others about how units move can forward.

I've been in contact with the new editor about doing an article about the upcoming Franklin event from the perspective of enlisted men in two of the campaiging battalions that are attracting the participation of nationwide authentic groups. The editor has expressed strong interest in the article, and I'm assuming if I get it written promptly after Franklin, he'll publish it promptly, unless I, and the guy on the other side, forget how to write.

My question to the readers of the AC forum, is simple: Tell me specifically what you would like the CCG to publish in the way of articles to support the "better half (or tenth) of the hobby. I'll listen and along with one or two others who contribute to the CCG, we'll give it a whirl.

On a personal level, I agree with those who believe it is very much in the best interest of the campaigner/authentic end of the reenactor spectrum to have events we like well reported in the CCG. We must recruit fresh fish, all the time. And, like it or not, there is only one national reenacting periodical, the CCG. So, I have tried to offer them articles that adhere to the "higher road" of reenacting. I suspect they will continue to include our "slice of the pie" perspective as long as someone submits adequate articles to them reflecting that perspective.

So, again, what specifically do you think are good topics to write articles about, knowing just what the CCG is, but also acknowledging, they generally see the benefit of not shutting out the authentic end of the hobby?

Respectfully,

Phil McBride
The Alamo Rifles
Bexar County, Texas

[DougCooper]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

We always seem to assume that a magazine must "cater" to an audience to be successful...and that is partly true.

But if CCG were to gradually get more authentic in the approach, what would happen? Would the mainstream world suddenly stop subscribing? I think not. Where would they go?

My great hope is that CCG will realize it does have a leadership role in the hobby - and can be an agent of change if done slowly and inexorably. The readership must dwarf the avg # of online AC readers. I remain convinced that there really is a large group of folks out there who can be lead down a more authentic road, and CCG COULD be part of that process.

Frankly, placing photos of farbs in bad wool on the cover every month should be tossed immediately in favor of more authentic impressions - would be a good place to start. Continue the recent "what makes a good...." series of articles, and perhaps most important, "insider" articles on events like Phil is talking about, are vital as an educational tool for the campaigner dimension.

Advertising pays the bills...and so you have a dilemna where the C & C Sutlery and the like continue to have a place in the mag. Not much we can do about that. Oh and instead of waiting for folks to tell the mag about events...the mag out to go looking for information.

Clean up the covers, continue providing input from campaigners and who knows, we might all see something of value down the road. If not, we will continue to have a website (AC) vs a mag (CCG) that look like completely different hobbies.

Instead of reflecting something, lead something!

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

I would like to see "nutshell" unit histories to help the general reenacting population that there were other units in the CW besides the 20th Maine, "Hoods Texas Bigade", "Iron Brigade", "Irish Brigade", 1st and 2nd USSS, 79th NY, "Stonewall Brigade", 5th NY, "Barksdales Brigade", and any other unit that "everybody" within our hobby tends to represent to the general public as "common".

[Wild Rover]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Well, here is my view- It doesn't help us improve. Here is my example- I purchse many suscriptions to Sales and Sales Managment magazines, hoping o find new techniques or remind me of those I have forgotten to make more money.

They always feature top performers, with pictures of them on the front and long intervies and success stories within. They do not put a picture of a vaccuum salesman barely making quota nor do they interview him nor explain his techniques.

That is comparable to our hobby in a twisted manner. Any hobby magazine should feature the best and tell how to get there. Whether it is people, evens, or preservation issues. Not should writing about the hobby, and what is going on, but rather working as a tool to improve the hobby. No an in you face style, but a rather a "if you do this then"...no bashing, bu just tips and ways to constantly improve, and one that reaches out to all levels.

Pards,

[1stMaine]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Comrade Anders,

You hit the nail square on. I had a similar experience with magazines. I paint wargames figures for both myself and a number of customers. It's not my sole source of income, but a portion. It's important to me to stay on top of both the historical data regarding uniforms and equipment of various periods, but also of the various schools of thought on painting. Shading, washes, oils versus acrylics, even primer coats have certain advocates and can remind one of the mainstream vs authentic arguments. But I digress...
There is a particular magazine that I always enjoyed which consistantly featured the top artists and images of well-designed and painted miniatures. It was a pleasure to read, and I would constantly peruse the images and text for new ideas and techniques to better my own skills. I wanted to purchase this through a local wargames store, but the owner would consistantly refuse to carry it. When quesried, his response was that the standards set in that magazine were unobtainable by all but a very few individuals, and he would lose customers who felt that what they were seeing was an unrealistic standard. In other words, he was afraid of losing business because the bar was set to high, and folks wouldn't even try to meet it.
This is the very same problem we face in this hobby. We have set a high standard, but there is a resistance to it by segments of the hobby that either are afraid of losing customers if that standard is set as a goal, or by those who simply don't know how to set about improving. The latter also includes those who might like to try and improve, but have been turned off by fear of criticism from the more vociferous members of our segment, those who seem to delight in embarrasing or denouncing those who don't "measure up" to their own standards. The answers to those problems, are, of course, self-evident, but are best suited for another thread.
The CCG has chosen to keep the bar low and thus (hopefully) maintain a certain level of readership that will lead to increased advertising sales and thus profit. Rather than feature the best of the best, it delights in a self-imposed mediocrity. We cannot expect it to change without considerable application of leverage. I question whether it is indeed worth the effort.
As has been expressed in earlier comments, this forum is proof enough of both the technical advance and the level of authenticity which this portion of the hobby has risen to. It seems to me that we do not need a paper or hard copy periodical, as this forum is both timely and easily accessed. Images are better and more cogent to our needs, as are the various folders/sections.
Anyway, that's a long enough post for this morning.
respects,

[Glenn Milner]

Re: Misconceptions & CCG Role

Hello All,
I think some of us are operating on a very basic misconception, here. The misconception is this: Most mainstreamers are lost and uninformed people who, once shown the authentic path, will magically be converted into zealous living historians. This is just plain wrong, IMO.
The focus of most mainstreamers is the least cost, minimal effort path onto the field and into the basically made-up social events attached to it. This is the end-all goal and most will never look beyond it. I think it might astonish some of you to ask around and find out that a majority of mainstreamers have never read a Civil War history book of any description. The few that wake up and seek authenticity on their own will find it. For the remainder, it's simply not an issue after the initial kit is purchased.
Is this a right/wrong issue? Not really. It's two totally different activities with two totally different goals that ain't even close to each other. CCG is a mainstream publication with no role in authentic reenacting. The idea that articles on authenticity in the CCG will recruit C/P/H ers is ridiculous, IMO. All that accomplishes is the annoyance of CCG's main subscription base. You can't serve two masters.
Glenn Milner

[flattop32355]

Re: Misconceptions & CCG Role

The focus of most mainstreamers is the least cost, minimal effort path onto the field and into the basically made-up social events attached to it. This is the end-all goal and most will never look beyond it.

While I will agree that a segment of our 25,00 - 30,000 hobbies is made up of such persons, I would respectfully disagree that these are in the majority of the mainstream. I should think that we are people with an interest in the civil war as a key event in our history, but who can see no obvious reason to spend "X" number of dollars on an article of kit that we can purchase for a substantially less amount from a non-"name" source and is still well made; who enjoy sitting around a campfire with their comrades speaking of period era subjects without the pressure of keeping up firper or fear of slipping up by broaching a modern-day subject, such as, "Who do we want to be our first sergeant next year", or "Who's gonna make it to Franklin? Should we carpool, or go individually?"

[/QUOTE]
I think it might astonish some of you to ask around and find out that a majority of mainstreamers have never read a Civil War history book of any description. Glenn Milner[/QUOTE]


In the interest of accuracy, or if you will, authenticity, is this last statement simply opinion or based upon reliable data? While I might agree that many, possibly a majority, of mainstream reenactors have not dug in-depth into the mysteries of cartridge box anatomy or some other subjects, I would question that they have never read anything on any period subject at all.

In all possiblility, it could then be said that many c/p/h/a reenactors have not delved into the depths of most period subjects, but rather go on hearsay evidence of others in the segment as to what is correct, etc. To a point, this is normal; why not use information from sources you consider reliable rather than start from scratch on all points yourself? Then, if you seek further enlightenment, dig beyond what they have done.

As for myself, I can stare, right now, on at least ten period books stacked on my chess table awaiting their turn to be opened. They include books on soldier life, battle histories, and customs of service manuals. One was used to give a lecture at an officer training weekend on "Acoustic Shadow and It's Affect on Command" (How many "authentics" are up on that particular period subject? ;)). They are a small part of my collection. And I know of others in the mainstream with even larger libraries. And we are all (sigh!) 'streamers.
And we could care less if we ever go to a ball.

To lump all mainstreamers into the pile of mediocrity (or lower) is as wrong as lumping all c/p/h/a folk into the pile of malcontents or social misfits. Both views are incorrect for the spectrum, though individuals may fit the stereotype.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Misconceptions & CCG Role

Originally Posted by Glenn Milner
The focus of most mainstreamers is the least cost, minimal effort path onto the field and into the basically made-up social events attached to it. This is the end-all goal and most will never look beyond it.

I should think that we are people with an interest in the civil war as a key event in our history, but who can see no obvious reason to spend "X" number of dollars on an article of kit that we can purchase for a substantially less amount from a non-"name" source and is still well made; who enjoy sitting around a campfire with their comrades speaking of period era subjects without the pressure of keeping up firper or fear of slipping up by broaching a modern-day subject, such as, "Who do we want to be our first sergeant next year", or "Who's gonna make it to Franklin? Should we carpool, or go individually?"

Seems like one's putting a negative spin on it and one's putting a positive spin on it, but you're both basically saying the same thing.

I agree that there's no need to purchase a designer name brand if you can get an equal quality item for less, but I noticed you didn't go so far as to say the cheaper kit was equal to a name source for less money, just "well made." In other words, if it's made well enough for whatever one's comfort level is, there's no need--even in theory--to spend more for what seems to be a miniscule increase in accuracy. Or, as Glenn said, the least cost path to get on the field, but not necessarily a desire to pursue an accuracy level beyond that, even if it's not immediately affordable.

And if sitting around a campfire talking about future reenactments and material culture from a historian's viewpoint isn't a made-up social event, I don't know what is. Any documentation that the real soldiers bonded that way? No? Then it's a social creation by reenactors, for reenactors. Which is fine if that's what reenactors enjoy--it's what most c/p/h reenactors do too--but it's not "accurate" except in the "if they'd had it, they'da used it" sense. In other words, the only defense is, if they'da known about reenactments and material culture research, they'da talked about it.

Satisfaction with easier less-accurate activities and kit that's well enough made even if not the best, is in my opinion exactly the difference in attitude which separates the progressive side of the hobby from the side that prefers the status quo. They may even look the same on the outside, but it's what they see as the ultimate goal that makes the difference.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Dale Beasley]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Ok.....from the cheap seats.....

1. I would like to see more Unit History.
2. I would like to see Reeactment Units highlighted, i.e. cover a different unit each month.
3. I would like to see, like many of you said, ways to improve the hobby.

[Glenn Milner]

Re: Misconceptions & CCG Role

[/QUOTE]
I think it might astonish some of you to ask around and find out that a majority of mainstreamers have never read a Civil War history book of any description. Glenn Milner[/QUOTE]

In the interest of accuracy, or if you will, authenticity, is this last statement simply opinion or based upon reliable data?

IMO=In My Opinion

As for myself, I can stare, right now, on at least ten period books stacked on my chess table awaiting their turn to be opened. They include books on soldier life, battle histories, and customs of service manuals. One was used to give a lecture at an officer training weekend on "Acoustic Shadow and It's Affect on Command" (How many "authentics" are up on that particular period subject? ;)). They are a small part of my collection. And I know of others in the mainstream with even larger libraries. And we are all (sigh!) 'streamers.
And we could care less if we ever go to a ball.

So, you have a body of knowledge but _choose_ not to act on it. IMO, that's even worse that mainstreamers who don't read on the subject at all. Same result achieved by a different path.

To lump all mainstreamers into the pile of mediocrity (or lower) is as wrong as lumping all c/p/h/a folk into the pile of malcontents or social misfits. Both views are incorrect for the spectrum, though individuals may fit the stereotype.[/QUOTE]

I stand by my original opinion. Most mainstreamers are mediocre reenactors by choice and see no reason to fix something that, to them, ain't broke. That doesn't mean that I'm saying that mainstreamers are bad people. I'm saying that they are, by choice, very inaccurate reenactors who have focused on the superimposed 21st century social aspects of collective camping in strange and uncomfortable clothing. It's simply a different activity with different goals. I will occasionally go to a mainstream event to socialize with old friends. But I don't call it reenacting. I call it what it is: camping and socializing in strange and uncomfortable clothing.

If the CCG wants to sell subscriptions, it should cater to its mainstream base and their goals. IMO, it's a waste of time for them to be worrying about pleasing people who, for the most part, will not subscribe to their magazine anyway.
Glenn Milner

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Hallo Kameraden!

"In the interest of accuracy, or if you will, authenticity, is this last statement simply opinion or based upon reliable data? While I might agree that many, possibly a majority, of mainstream reenactors have not dug in-depth into the mysteries of cartridge box anatomy or some other subjects, I would question that they have never read anything on any period subject at all.

In all possiblility, it could then be said that many c/p/h/a reenactors have not delved into the depths of most period subjects, but rather go on hearsay evidence of others in the segment as to what is correct, etc. To a point, this is normal; why not use information from sources you consider reliable rather than start from scratch on all points yourself? Then, if you seek further enlightenment, dig beyond what they have done."

The differences in Mental Pictures, interests, applications, and hobbies embraced and practicesd by the F/M/C/P/H/A Community and their adherents, with all their cultures, segments, sections, wings, degrees, variations, norms, regionalisms, individuals and individual and collective exceptions has been beat to death in many a thread, post, and fora.

To quote FORREST GUMP: "F/M/C/P/H/A is as F/M/C/P/H/A does."

While I appreciate the opinions and discussion shared, this thread is drifting away from Topic/Question, and perilously close to the "Militant Farb" and "Flame Bait" side of discourse (which for some strange reason always seems to distress the Moderators so).

And as a Confederate reenactor once proudly showed me his bookshelf, it consisted of two books. One was the BIBLE, and one was THE LIFE OF JOHNNY REB by Bell Wiley. (And I could argue that he read and practiced neither...but that is grist for another mill and another forum.)

Lads, please stay On Topic and On AC Forum here.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Moderator

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

After reading all the posts on this thread so far I felt the need (smack me here...) to chime in.

Most of the notes here appear to be sort of geared toward this view: "CCG is catering to farbs and printing farb stuff so I'm not subscribing anymore." I think this view, if I'm reading it correctly, is somewhat mistaken.

CCG is indeed a for-profit magazine, true enough, but as editor of a unit newsletter myself (6 times a year, about 25 to 30 pages of original 9-pitch text per issue) for the past eight years, I believe I know a couple things about running a reenactor periodical. Maybe I'm mistaken, but here goes....

To me, CCG looks like nothing other than a professionally printed newsletter, albeit with advertising. It really is nothing more than a "hobby-wide" newsletter that, like all others, depends on the contributions of its admittedly thin-ranked readership to survive. If no one writes for it, then the editor is forced to use substandard material or, as in the case of the most recent CCG issue (Mr. Hooper's first as editor), lots of big photos of dubious "authenticity" level to fill in the huge gaps of missing text. "We" seem to moan and groan that CCG isn't "authentic" enough for us, and bemoan the quality of its articles, and proudly assert, "I've just canceled my subscription because it's so terrible!" "We" tend to act like the state of this publication is someone else's problem, instead of our own.

Nicky's only been gone for a few months and there's only been one issue under Mr. Hooper. Already the nostalgia for Nicky is in high gear. Don't get me wrong--I miss him and I'm a bit dubious of Mr. Hooper's knowledge of reenacting. Nicky was a very good editor and sure knew his stuff. That said, remember the two years Nicky handled CCG? Remember how overall there were better-quality articles, but still probably at least half of them were what most of us would call "substandard" and "farb" and "stupid"? Why was that?

It was because few folks were writing articles and sending them in to Nicky, that's why. Many was the time he expressed to me that he had a serious shortage of even semi-quality articles, and so he made do with what he had because he had no other choice.

Just where do "they" who run a hobby magazine like CCG get articles from? Certainly their magazine's miniscule staff doesn't write them. They depend on us to write them. And yeah, we can sit back and say let the farbs write them, but then again, the farbs supposedly don't know as much as C/P/H reenactors, do they?

There's a lot of knowledgeable people on this forum and I've read some fantastic, scholarly works by many of them. Most of these folks have not written for CCG, at least in the last few years.

We have the ability to "fix" this magazine and make it what "we" want--something a bit more scholarly and a bit less farb-oriented. I think if that happened--and admittedly I'm doing the pie-in-the-sky thing here with these musings--everyone would benefit. "We" would have a magazine we feel is much more worthwhile, the newbies who read it would learn more, and maybe the farbs-by-choice might see that the rest of the hobby doesn't agree with their lazy attitude toward history.

So, we can wait for "them" to fix the magazine, but we all know that ain't gonna happen. When they had a good editor recently he did a good deal but was unable to make it happen alone. Right now I think CCG is a huge void that's waiting for someone to fill it. Why shouldn't "we" be the ones to fill it?

At the risk of being a broken record, get writing.