Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Hello. Just something to think about in reference to what was mentioned above...

For me personally, I like attending ANY "mainstream" event because we can see a) numbers on a battlefield- it really jogs the imagination as to what it might have been like, doesn't it? b) recruit other mainstreamers to a more authentic impression in a friendly way and c) meet new people that are interested in the hobby and learn from each other's experiences. It always benefits the individual to learn something more- even if it is what NOT to wear as much as WHAT to wear.

Large numbers on a field gets the public excited in-general about history and telling our side of the coin (which is so often different from the "farb" history books kids are learning these days). Large numbers when an event is trying to preserve a battlefield/area means money is going to preserve that area and raising awareness among the general public that these areas are in danger and worth preserving.

Large numbers can be a good thing...

What turns-off "mainstreamers" is when progressives pass judgment over their kit and enter the realm of basic name-calling and stereotyping. "Holier-than-thou" attitudes abound! I've seen individuals do this and this is just plain rude. That is the area in which no one should go.

Besides, momma said you win more people with honey rather than vinegar. LOL

Authenticities differ as in we all reach our own individual conclusions as to what is "authentic" for our own impressions/regions/time periods. When you get right down to it at the lowest levels, it becomes a basic educated guess. Don't ya think?

Reenacting research gets to be a soft-science at its lowest level. We know from documentation that there were no telephones in the 1860's, but as to if the ANV wore commutation jackets more often than depot-issued jackets, well the answer becomes a bit subjective. That is, unless you are an -actual- veteran of the WBTS and were there during the times in-question. (Please lend me your time-machine if you were!) ;)

Those men that actually fought the war, and ONLY those men, have the right to say if someone is "wrong" or "right".

Small-scale living histories should ESPECIALLY strive for the highest-authenticity because at a small-scale event it is more achievable than at a large-scale event. (But however, -everyone- at ANY event should strive for their personal best. No excuses for something glaringly farb!)

(See also The Campaigner Manifesto)

I think individual impressions are getting much better, but large-scale units are deteriorating. I think it will eventually change, as does the nature of the hobby. Will there be a shift back to unit-focused authenticity, I don't think anyone could say. We'll just have to see.

Ya'lls thoughts?

Thanks.
Always your comrade-- Johnny Lloyd

[Charles Heath]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Ya'lls thoughts?

Johnny,

I know you mean well, but the "large numbers" post really flirts with the AC Forum no-farbism rule in ways that decorum prevents us from mentioning in polite company. Once in a great while, it's good to go see the circus of the big numbers just to see remind ourselves what the heck it was we were getting away from in the first place, but the cost is incredibly high.

Of course, these days the proverbial "big numbers" are much smaller than the days when that meant five digits or more.

[billwatson]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

"Those men that actually fought the war, and ONLY those men, have the right to say if someone is "wrong" or "right". "


I think the problem with that assessment is it establishes the only acceptable standard as one that is simultaneously unachievable. Surely we can move the ball a few yards, even if we can't score a touchdown? We can say "no shelter halves in 1861," for instance, and we can check the records to confirm nobody received shelter halves in 1861. And likewise, step by step, with other researchable assertions and affirmations and restrictions, until we derive some idea, specific to some times and places, of what probably was right or wrong.

And for some folks, figuring all this out is fun, so it's in progress for the rest of us to benefit from.

There are a lot of folks who take the argument you just made and use it to justify both historical interpretation and physical impressions that are the utterest nonsense.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

"Those men that actually fought the war, and ONLY those men, have the right to say if someone is "wrong" or "right".

Well, I think we can use that standard and agree that those men DID say what was wrong and right in their photos, extant uniforms, period regulations, descriptions, diaries, letters and post-war accounts.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

When you get right down to it at the lowest levels, it becomes a basic educated guess. Don't ya think?

At the lowest levels of research, possibly that's true. But it doesn't actually take a whole lot of study for a person to look up close and personal at a physical artifact, and determine how precisely they feel that artifact has been reproduced. There are forum members here, for instance, who've copied extant women's bonnets, aprons, accessories, and dresses right down to the guts, and looking at them side-by-side, the only difference is the patina of age. It doesn't take an educated guess to say that the precise reproduction of material culture can be visible, and that things not reproduced with that precision don't measure up as a reproduction.

I don't know that having a large number of people for "numbers'" sake really does it, history-wise. Were that true, we could get impressive moments covering the field with Shriners and go-carts. We'd get the feel of 20K men, at least, even if none of them look like or act like historic people.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Hallo!

"When you get right down to it at the lowest levels, it becomes a basic educated guess. Don't ya think? "

IMHO, no, I don't.

One problem with that philosophy is that when everything is possible, nothing is probable.
And some folks use it as a so-called Militant Farb argument against efforts at research, documentation, and emulation of those elements of CW life that are both discoverable, desirable to replicate, and physically possible to replicate.

And, IMHO, it is Slippery Slope better left outside of the Authentic Campaigner board.

It comes down to where our personal and collective Mental Pictures of what we see ourselves doing and where we see ourselves fitting in on the Sliding Scale of Past Imperfect; and the differences between what "valid and reliable" research, documentation, analysis, and discussion can tell us about the CW era man/woman/soldier/civilian, material cutlural, and everyday life.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt
Gave up Missionary Work and Converting, many scars ago Mess

[FederalDrummerBoy]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

From what I have seen, here are some problems in the hobby that are in need of correction:
*Lack of knowledge by some officers and others on how to perform drill in the field
-To their credit however, this can be clearly linked to the fact that many of the Authentic groups are smaller and farther apart than many other groups and are obviously unable to drill together frequently. They pull together several messes of 10 to 20 guys at an event to form a company of 50-100. The knowledgeable officers of the authentic group are often commanding troops they have never met or commanded before. This leads to a rusty feel to any drill movements performed as opposed to a fluid and routine feel. I don't neccessarily know if there is any easy way to fix this problem. Infact, besides having several drill only events with incredibly large turnouts, this with probably never quite be fixed.

*Complete lack of knowledge by 99% of the reenacting community, authentic or mainstream, of first, recognizing and secondly, understanding how to react to duty calls performed by the field music. It is a real letdown to the musicians who practice these calls routinely at home, then show up to an event only to play them with no response given by the enlisted men or even the officers for that matter. This happens at every single event I have ever attended. The principal musician will have to ASK the officers if they would LIKE to have Breakfast call, the Pioneer call or the Assembly played. Then after the music is played, such as Breakfast call, the troops just listen contently with no real sign of recognician or urgency. The troops should know these tunes and respond to it accordingly to them and an officer should come to the field music and order them to do this without the musicians having to ask.
-To everyones ' credit, again much of this problem is relfected by the fact that the authentic side of this hobby is made up of smaller messes that usually do not have a frequent quality field music presence and therefore have no way of really fixing this problem. I would love to try and fix this problem and to see an entire battalion respond to duty calls like the troops would have back then. This would be so much better than having to ignore the music and wait for the officers come around and verbally order the men to do the thing that was just ordered through the music.

I guess for me it's the method part that makes the event flow well, good military organization, drill, and understanding by all participants. At least you will understand how the military oprated then and with a high majority of good impressions among other things, the rest will fall into place naturally.

In a suggestion on how to fix the problem of bad things showing up in impressions at events, maybe instead of just registering for the event, you would be required to list your unit name. The units invited would have to agree to the names on the list and vouch that all of the individuals are up to par with their 3-leg impression. And the units would also agree not to let recruits that are too new in the hobby attend higher level events right off the bat. More details would be needed of course...

All in good intentions,
__________________
Alex Kuhn
CCFD

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

To all:

Good discussion on this one. Stuff like this needs to be aired-out in a logical and unemotional fashion. Only by scientific debate can we explore all possibilities effectively. Some of these ideas have bugged me as well as they have bugged you too:

1)- There are a lot of folks who take the argument you just made and use it to justify both historical interpretation and physical impressions that are the utterest nonsense. -Bill Watson

Exactly Bill, good point! To do that flies against the very spirit of authenticity...

I'll agree -wholeheartedly- that there are certain individuals that take that one exception to the rule to do what they want to because it is cool or they personally like it. Nothing to do with what was commonly used or experienced... It's annoying and just plain wrong to do. They use the "fudge factor" to not do their research. This hurts our further deeper understanding of the period.

Anyone for some jaguar-skin pants? "Not unless that person is your impression you are portraying." Point-in-case ... lol ;)

Gentle persuasion is needed, but there are some people (who seem to be few in my personal experience) that would STILL refuse to improve their impressions based on hardcore evidence.

2)- Well, I think we can use that standard and agree that those men DID say what was wrong and right in their photos, extant uniforms, period regulations, descriptions, diaries, letters and post-war accounts. -Paul Calloway

You're right Paul. I feel this is best accomplished when we don't just concentrate on one picture or document and use it as a generalization of the whole, but take a look at many examples and get a common consensus as to see what would have been probable. It's a case of "probable" versus "possible"- but we also have an idea of what didn't happen -at all- due to known anachronisms.

An example of evidence proving popular thought wrong with research: I remember a friend in my unit wearing his US belt buckle upside-down when he galvanized and someone got on his case for doing so saying there was "no proof" that such ever went on. I have personally seen period pictures of this happening. (In fact, there are some on another thread on this website.) Most likely, it is safe-to-say that is wasn't too often, but it -did- happen in certain circumstances. This is just an example.
I think discoveries like this make it interesting and wonderfully exciting to do research. Too bad more "mainstreamers" don't feel this joy as part of the reenactor experience.

Devil's advocate on this one: Remember also (even I have to remember it too), not -everything- survives 140 years. I shudder to think of exactly how many images, documents, eyewitness accounts, and original gear has disappeared over the ages past that could have given us a valuable clue on how our ancestors actually lived their day-to-day lives or as to what -exactly- happened at a particular moment in time. It was a war and stuff gets destroyed-whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Can anyone tell me where The Citadel's "Big Red" original palmetto flag is from the firing on the Star of the West on Jan. 9th 1861? We know they had one from written historical accounts, but the original was lost to the ravages of time and war.

Coming from experience: Heck, I'm beginning to forget the littlest details in the war I fought recently in Iraq! (Guess my memory is bad... laugh.) I couldn't imagine recounting some of those same details in my personal memoirs 20 or 30 years down-the-road as many CW soldiers did postwar. Also- some people may have embellished their memoirs to make themselves feel better for a mistake they made or had forgotten some crucial details so many years later. Photographers propped their war photos and destroyed visual evidence for that "perfect" shot and this was an accepted practice of their time...etc. Just as in court when proving a case: We have to accept -all- evidence in it's proper context.

This is NOT to say 1st person/2nd person/3rd person accounts are wholly erroneous, but we as authentics MUST carefully examine evidence for ANY bias whether it be intentional or unintentional, what we want to personally see or what was actually there when proper research was conducted and thoroughly exhausted.
Think heavily about under what circumstances your evidence was collected or recorded too!

It's like being a reporter too: Don't go looking for a story; The story will reveal itself to you when you dig long and hard enough with the evidence present. -Always- check for our own and others' bias.

Sir, It is an interesting educated debate. My opinion is about as good an anyone else's. I'm certainly not asserting myself as right all the time. lol ;)

3)- I don't know that having a large number of people for "numbers'" sake really does it, history-wise. - Elizabeth Clark

Exactly. No, it doesn't ma'am, but it sure does attract public interest and money to an event and money helps us further preserve museums and battle sites, so in that sense, numbers can be a good thing merely as a useful spectacle. Unfortunately, history so often suffers in this case. (See also some History Channel specials and movies you know well about for an example of this...)
It also attracts new recruits and sparks interest in our hobby to those that don't know of it yet, further making it more enjoyable to share thoughts and ideas with a larger community. Are there new progressive recruits out there just waiting to be discovered and waiting to be excited over recreating the past as accurately as possible? I think there always are.

Possibly numbers are -sometimes- a necessary evil?? lol :confused_

The key to "converting" those new recruits to smart purchases is showing them how fun and satisfying it can be to do research at museums, battlefields and libraries to make a more accurate impression.

Lordy, please DON'T put Shriners on the field in go-carts... funny image in my head. There were NO motorized infantry back then... lol ;)

5)- One problem with that philosophy is that when everything is possible, nothing is probable.
And some folks use it as a so-called Militant Farb argument against efforts at research, documentation, and emulation of those elements of CW life that are both discoverable, desirable to replicate, and physically possible to replicate.

And, IMHO, it is Slippery Slope better left outside of the Authentic Campaigner board. -Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

Right Curt, one can possibly and easily "think oneself out-of -existence" with this one. So safe to say- this portion of the debate we can agree is not useful. Yes, you are correct that people use this to get totally lazy. See above. ;)

We know not everyone is going to wholly agree, but educated, logical debate is as much important to our proper research as going to a museum.

Lots of love for ya'll! Thanks for the listening ear and fellowship. :D

Your comrade always- Johnny Lloyd

PS- What does "IMHO" mean? Really, I don't know. "In My Humble Opinion??"

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

I guess for me it's the method part that makes the event flow well, good military organization, drill, and understanding by all participants. At least you will understand how the military oprated then and with a high majority of good impressions among other things, the rest will fall into place naturally. -Alex Kuhn

Right you are brother. Music is so important and makes things especially real and interesting at an event.

For me: I'd rather have a darn good -few- soldiers than a lousy -multitude- of reenactors in my unit any time!

-Johnny

[DougCooper]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

My concern is long term growth of the campaigner end of the hobby, and Charles' post struck a chord. I don't advocate that we cut back our slate of events in order to begin attending large events to recruit, but I do think we need to do something. We must come up with a mechanism that facilitates the conversion a friend calls the Hobby "Circle of Life"

"We need mainstreamers to become progressives and progressives to become authentics and authentics to help mainstreamers...and so on"

The number of new folks joining the hobby is tiny, and frankly, I don't think we can count on the 150th for an effusion of new members, or wait that long. Of the tiny number that join, many join mainstream orgs, not knowing any difference. If they chance upon the AC, great, but I think it is safe to say that the internet is not the place where we have the greatest chance to put someone on the road to our side.

That is best done in the field. If we aren't on the same field, we have to get them on our field. We have largely left the larger events where the serious recruiting pool exists. If you think back, most of us on this side started on the other side and it was in the field at big events where we saw a difference. We got curious, asked around and found our way into the light. I was lucky, and blundered into a campaigner unit from the get go...at a huge event. Most of us are not that lucky. Today most of are not at the larger events to be that example. Instead, we have our events, but convincing a newbie or experienced mainstreamer to cross over sight unseen is tough, unless we make room.

We have a choice if we truly want to grow our numbers - meaning train more folks as campaigners, not just get more folks - don't dilute the avg impression, train folks up to the better impression. We can either:

1. Begin attending large mainstreamer events in large enough numbers to create a battalion and do serious recruiting

2. Design and run larger campaigner events, maybe one per year, coordinating all of us - East, West and Trans-Miss. This instead of the hodgepodge of efforts that though they work to deconflict, rarely work to combine into one campaigner wide effort.

3. Adopt the Co I concept at each campaigner event where it makes sense (battalion level).

Of the above, #3 may be the easiest to implement, first coined and perfected by Bill Watson.

I think we need to formalize this concept at campaigner events that feature multiple companies in a battalion, creating a training unit whose mission it will be to move folks along. Lowering standards for the entire event does not work and we don't want it. Lowering standards for one unit to allow newbies to feel part of something does make sense. You simply build it into the guidelines and assign some of your best leaders to run it.

There are plenty of folks out there who are good leaders and are willing to make this happen. A single newbie who signs up with an experienced campaign company may do OK (if he can meet the standards), but there is strength and esprit in numbers - an entire company of folks at their first campaign event, lead by good officers and NCO's, will help each other and adopt the right attitude faster.

This is not new, and has been tried with good results at events like McDowell, etc...as well as being the foundation for recruit training in the real deal.

Some of us want to do all 3 of the above, some maybe 2 and others, just one. Still others of us don't care about the subject at all and only want to attend small hardcore events - not caring about numbers or the long term - and that's cool.

But as I look out at the future, it sure as heck would be nice to be part of a functioning, well drilled battalion again on the field with other functional, well drilled battalions. That actually used to exist, and we were in charge of them for the most part. That is how you had a 125th or even 130th event worth the effort - and exactly why you don't have it any more.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

It also attracts new recruits and sparks interest in our hobby to those that don't know of it yet, further making it more enjoyable to share thoughts and ideas with a larger community. Are there new progressive recruits out there just waiting to be discovered and waiting to be excited over recreating the past as accurately as possible? I think there always are.

Possibly numbers are -sometimes- a necessary evil?? lol :confused_

The key to "converting" those new recruits to smart purchases is showing them how fun and satisfying it can be to do research at museums, battlefields and libraries to make a more accurate impression.

If I were a new recruit at a mainstream event, I'd think, once I do all that research, what would I do with it? I could study all that at home alone. When I see everyone acting like mainstreamers at mainstream events, I think, this is it? You stand around and talk to people, and shop at the sutlers, and fight a battle for an hour, go to a ball and a potluck supper, and that's how you spend your weekend? Why do I need to do more research and get better clothes to do that?

Of course, for many people, that is it and they're perfectly satisfied with it, hence the popularity of mainstream events. And for many c/p/h types, the mainstream weekend is also fun, so they want to take the opportunity to act like mainstreamers at those events. And, truth be told, the mainstream experience of hanging out and modern socializing is so fun that many will also try to insert it at c/p/h events if given half a chance.

So there's a paradox. If you go to a mainstream event and behave like a well-dressed mainstreamer, no one gets to see the essential difference between mainstream and c/p/h events. Talk is cheap; as a recruit looking for something better, I don't want to just hear about how great this other kind of reenacting is, I want to see it actually being done.

But if you go to a mainstream event and try to behave as accurately as possible, there's a good chance you'll either be ostracized or have to isolate yourself to accomplish it, and that's speaking as a civilian--I don't know how a soldier could do it at all without someone to give him orders.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[TKlas]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

My concern is long term growth of the campaigner end of the hobby, and Charles' post struck a chord. I don't advocate that we cut back our slate of events in order to begin attending large events to recruit, but I do think we need to do something. We must come up with a mechanism that facilitates the conversion a friend calls the Hobby "Circle of Life"

"We need mainstreamers to become progressives and progressives to become authentics and authentics to help mainstreamers...and so on"

The number of new folks joining the hobby is tiny, and frankly, I don't think we can count on the 150th for an effusion of new members, or wait that long. Of the tiny number that join, many join mainstream orgs, not knowing any difference. If they chance upon the AC, great, but I think it is safe to say that the internet is not the place where we have the greatest chance to put someone on the road to our side.

That is best done in the field. If we aren't on the same field, we have to get them on our field. We have largely left the larger events where the serious recruiting pool exists. If you think back, most of us on this side started on the other side and it was in the field at big events where we saw a difference. We got curious, asked around and found our way into the light. I was lucky, and blundered into a campaigner unit from the get go...at a huge event. Most of us are not that lucky. Today most of are not at the larger events to be that example. Instead, we have our events, but convincing a newbie or experienced mainstreamer to cross over sight unseen is tough, unless we make room.

We have a choice if we truly want to grow our numbers - meaning train more folks as campaigners, not just get more folks - don't dilute the avg impression, train folks up to the better impression. We can either:

1. Begin attending large mainstreamer events in large enough numbers to create a battalion and do serious recruiting

2. Design and run larger campaigner events, maybe one per year, coordinating all of us - East, West and Trans-Miss. This instead of the hodgepodge of efforts that though they work to deconflict, rarely work to combine into one campaigner wide effort.

3. Adopt the Co I concept at each campaigner event where it makes sense (battalion level).

Of the above, #3 may be the easiest to implement, first coined and perfected by Bill Watson.

I think we need to formalize this concept at campaigner events that feature multiple companies in a battalion, creating a training unit whose mission it will be to move folks along. Lowering standards for the entire event does not work and we don't want it. Lowering standards for one unit to allow newbies to feel part of something does make sense. You simply build it into the guidelines and assign some of your best leaders to run it.

There are plenty of folks out there who are good leaders and are willing to make this happen. A single newbie who signs up with an experienced campaign company may do OK (if he can meet the standards), but there is strength and esprit in numbers - an entire company of folks at their first campaign event, lead by good officers and NCO's, will help each other and adopt the right attitude faster.

This is not new, and has been tried with good results at events like McDowell, etc...as well as being the foundation for recruit training in the real deal.

Some of us want to do all 3 of the above, some maybe 2 and others, just one. Still others of us don't care about the subject at all and only want to attend small hardcore events - not caring about numbers or the long term - and that's cool.

But as I look out at the future, it sure as heck would be nice to be part of a functioning, well drilled battalion again on the field with other functional, well drilled battalions. That actually used to exist, and we were in charge of them for the most part. That is how you had a 125th or even 130th event worth the effort - and exactly why you don't have it any more.

Hi Doug,

I think your post is very interesting. This is one of the reasons the Hard Heads and comrades in Wisconsin have supported the AoP & Dom over the years to bring along others whom are interested in an accurate battalion effort at the type of events we normally do not attend. This is the one time per year we do the sticky area of "carpe eventum".

On a smaller scale, several of the Hard Heads are still part of the Citizens Guard, Company "A" 2nd Wisconsin Vols. which is similar to the Company "I" approach except in the Upper Midwest. This is the unit that many of us "campaigners" in the mid-late 90's cut our teeth in and is still going, but on a much smaller scale due to the points Doug has mentioned. The group tries to reach those new progressives interested in an accurate portrayal, attending mostly local c/p/h offerings. We instruct, research, drill, and make sure guys are squared away to attend better events to the best of our ability.

This is the unit that born the Hard Heads -1999, the Granville Mess -2006, and other independents in the ONV. For some of us, this is our way of encouraging new growth in the c/p/h hobby since the Hard Heads do not actively recruit new members for many reasons.

The thing that I always caution is this can be done, but as stated many times, you need to be honest with gents, maintain good standards, have inspections, and bring these gents along - the Stool Parable. Even the Citizens Guard has their own version. http://business.centurytel.net/2ndwi...olparable.html You may even find through this process that not everyone is cut out for our end of the hobby which has happend in several occasions in the Citizens Guard over the years. This concept - the Citizens Guard - is far from perfect, but it works for many at this moment to get quality gents attending better events.

I would be blind if I did not point out the excellent strides Mess #1 has done working on getting guys interested in the c/p/h end of the hobby while having excellent impressions. They are a fine example of what can be done! These guys attend almost every A/C or high quality offering and are growing with quality gents - that is the key.

I am sure there are other success stories out their as well.

[billwatson]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

"So there's a paradox. If you go to a mainstream event and behave like a well-dressed mainstreamer, no one gets to see the essential difference between mainstream and c/p/h events. Talk is cheap; as a recruit looking for something better, I don't want to just hear about how great this other kind of reenacting is, I want to see it actually being done." --Hank

Seeing it done can happen, too, if guys are willing to persevere in doing the right things when all those about them are not. I remember events where really crack units participated, even though the event itself was open to all comers. I recall a Battle of Franklin at which a Confederate unit in heavy marching order loped up to the assault jumpoff, dumped packs and blanket rolls, left an old guy there who really did look sick to his stomach, then swung off for the half-mile assault. They were totally in the moment, there was not a wasted motion or word, and their mere existence was a palpable reproach to all others who were dilettanting about with half-assed gear, sloppy drill, and Monty Python routines. It put some starch in my shirt, you betcha, having spent some time with a couple of those guys at the Andersonville movie shoot and listening to the talk about the better way. Now here they were, doing it.

The problem is that this kind of thing takes a heavy spiritual toll on the guys who do it. The Franklin battle was a pretty good event, as events with thousands of participants go, but even so the differential between the willing and able and the unwilling and unable was pretty marked. At other events it's worse. Add to it the animosity incurred from those who very much do not want to see any examples of a better way anywhere near their own men, the affront to sensibilities by groups that aren't even trying but are living out some kind of fantasy Civil War, and the sheer effort it takes to keep yourself in the zone when the help your getting is limited to your own group, and the whole thing becomes a bummer. Do it a a couple of times a year and you can become suicidal, forget about leaving the hobby.

Having said all that I'm heading to Gettysburg in two weeks to just fall in somewhere and recruit, one on one among likely-looking lads, for Company I at September Storm. There are plenty of guys who want something more intense, they just aren't going to go find it if they don't hang around cyber forums. The whole existence of history-eavy reenacting has kind of fallen out of the pages of the most circulated hobby periodicals, and if we aren't at the mainstream events any more, we have no visibility. We are at our own events, we are on the internet, we have a marketing void. I'm not sure how to fill it except to apply the water hole theory: Lions hunt at water holes because that's where the zebras are. Nobody is going to come to us if they don't know we're around, and most guys don't reenact in cyber space.

And showing, not telling, is the most powerful method. So I'll be one guy with no cooler, no tent, no flashlight, nothing a soldier in 1863 wouldn't have had, I'll be more comfortable than 95 percent of the people on site, and when someone wants to talk about what the hell I'm doing, I'll hit them with a recruiting poster for September Storm. If I get five more guys, it's a good weekend.

I'm not advocating this as a universal practice or even a practical idea, I'd just like to revisit the other world and see what's what. If my eyes are not blinded and I'm not struck dumb with astonishment, I'll report back.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Now here they were, doing it.

I totally agree that, given the right choice of circumstances, it can be done, and it can be fun. I went to Selma this year, had a lot of fun, and I'd be willing to be judged on the quality of my impression there the same as I would at any c/p/h event.

And showing, not telling, is the most powerful method. So I'll be one guy with no cooler, no tent, no flashlight, nothing a soldier in 1863 wouldn't have had, I'll be more comfortable than 95 percent of the people on site, and when someone wants to talk about what the hell I'm doing, I'll hit them with a recruiting poster for September Storm. If I get five more guys, it's a good weekend.

Yes, that shows an honest sample of what the person will be getting if they switch events. But it's not quite what I mean.

Doing things in a period manner, while talking about future or past events and the different levels of the hobby in general, is pretty much what I've found the average experience to be in the military at c/p/h events, unless one works hard to insulate yourself from it, or is really lucky.

But I'm talking about going beyond that, and giving an example of what I noted in another post way up-thread (around page 6).

I asked on a civilian-focussed email list recently about upcoming events "where you're expected to give the illusion of being someone from the specific time and place being portrayed, for the duration of the event."

I don't really know how to combine the "recruiting" side with the "reenacting" side during events. I guess you can't, without compromising one or the other. But I'm primarily there for the fun of reenacting, regardless of the kind of event or who else is there.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Old Reb]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Hank,
What a novel idea! Participating in this hobby for fun! I like it! I like it much.