Immersion: fun or scary?

[One is the Left!]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

One of the great thing about being farm-raised in the sticks is you get to have conversations with old farmers and find out how little some things have changed. A recently-departed friend of the family and I once had a conversation about his youth on his grandfather's farm. Up early to tend the animals, take care of basic chores, breakfast, off to school, back home, walk the fence line to look for breaks, homework, animals, supper, family time and bed. We're still people, folks. All that changes are the tools. Go find something you'd like to do as an impression, talk to someone that does that *now*, and go see how they did it *then*.

For example, back home the size of our herd has been much reduced due to the long downturn of the economy. These features have combined in an opportunity to let two of the pastures go fallow. Imagine our surprise to find a beautiful crop of Timothy (a kind of hay) growing. A neighbour told us that hay can put down roots farther every year it's growing, and suspected ours were decades old and probably had roots several feet down. We've managed to get several cuttings in this year, and are hoping for one more before the hard frost. We were lucky, as a blight of pests went through our county and whiped out a HUGE amount of the hay crop, which has caused the price to spike.

Now, tell me what part of that couldn't be true through the centuries?

[Hank Trent]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

Excellent point- if I'm wearing authentic period clothes, the appropriate character is expected by the audience, or why bother? Why couldn't the character be aware of and understand the modern world (classroom), but still be living in the nineteenth century? For example, use Power Point to project period images but refer to it as "the Magic Lantern?".
Recently I was giving a tour of the kitchens at Ft Clinch. A little girl asked "do you mean now now or back then now?" I had totally confused her.

Yep, there are two basic ways of doing it: use the premise that the audience is back to the 1860s, or the premise that someone from the 1860s has been brought into the present.

It's all about suspension of disbelief, so whatever works, works. But I think the key either way is not to get hung up on stuff that doesn't matter, because that's how it can turn hokey really fast. Personally, I'd try to avoid interacting with modern things any more than necessary, but if it works, it works.

One thing that doesn't work, in my opinion, is emphasizing how bizarre the situation is. In real life, someone from the 1860s brought to 2012 would be as interested in learning about the future as teaching about his life, but asking about computers and electric lights and marveling at the horseless carriages has two problems: it gets way off topic, and it makes the 1860s person look stupid, so people will be less apt to want to learn from him. Same way, in real life, someone in the 1860s meeting people with modern clothes and modern gadgets would primarily react to how strange the visitors were, but that also causes problems: it makes the modern person feel self-conscious, the period person seem stupid, and it keeps the focus on modern things rather than the past.

As Curt says, with a fixed audience, where everyone is stuck for the duration, there can be a variety of reactions. Like any form of public speaking, hecklers, bored people, etc., are all just part of the game. It's harder, because the audience can't self-select, unlike at a reenactment, where those who are interested can stay and those who aren't can walk away at any point.

In mixed visitor/reenactor situations, I've found that some visitors do just walk away--which is true for third person interpretation too--while others like to stay and listen or talk. No interpretive style works for everyone. But in my experience, more visitors "get" first person than reenactors, so unless there's a specific expectation among all the reenactors that it will be a first person event, it's usually easier to interact with visitors rather than fellow reenactors. I think it's because visitors are used to plays, movies and video games where the way a person is dressed matches who they "are," until they go to enough reenactments to be taught otherwise, while reenactors know that reenactors just act like modern people.

As a visitor, here's the most frustrating thing for me. I'm listening to a great first-person presentation, really appreciating the skill of the presenter and the "back in time" fun. Another bored visitor, who really doesn't give a hoot, asks a clueless modern question, like "where do you get your reproduction stuff?" or "were more people killed in World War II than the Civil War?" Rather than brushing it off with a first-person non-answer and getting back on topic, the reenactor breaks character in front of everyone and spends time dealing with the modern question, letting the least appreciative visitor ruin the presentation for his best audience, under the guise of adapting to the audience. Don't do that! You can't please everyone and you don't have to answer every question--in either first or third person.

If you're at a reenactment portraying someone from the 1860s for visitors, here's your audience. Please don't suddenly ruin that spell for people like her (or me), who appreciate what you're doing, to please some schmuck who couldn't care less:

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/no-more-authentic-camp-music-at-reenactments-boys.75849/#post-517752

...I'm siding with the non-farby folks in that I want the real thing....the atmosphere, smells (nice or not), and sounds of a real Civil War army camp, whichever side is being portrayed. I don't want the musicians to suddenly stop and give me a lecture [about the historic context of their music]. That would be totally out of character, and would break the "spell" I was hoping to be under. Yes, I'm a nerd, but to a history nerd, something like this is just as bad a someone wearing jeans and boots, with an air mattress and a plastic lawn chair.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Philip cav]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

I did try doing first person last weekend, neither the spectator nor the reenactors "got" what I was doing. But then again, it depends on what the location is. .

[Elaine Kessinger]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

I recently had situations at two re-enactments... Both were in "civilian tent town" camps of the "everyone at their own level of progression" mega-events. Both times it was explained that first person was encouraged within the town, but wouldn't be enforced.

Understand that when I "do" a first person impression, I go all out. I have everything explained in my own head, documented to the best of my current research, appropriate attire, kit, and paperwork to go along... and really try to make sure the person I am portraying would make sense in that area or make a logical contribution to the town.

The first event... no one understood who I was trying to portray, neither were they willing to interact to try and find out. The group I fell in near had so few willing to attempt any first person that I felt utterly ridiculous trying to move forward with first person.

The second event... had no military interaction on Sunday so cars could be brought in first thing... our group could not continue our interactions on Sunday because of the cars in camp.

Point is... if you have an environment that discourages or fellow participants that discourage... it is that much harder to continue first person or immersion.

[Jim of The SRR]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

I find that I CAN do first person very naturally. However, I find that the environment around me is what encourages me to engage in it and do my best or not. For example, if I am at an NPS site with cars around me and modern buildings, I find it nearly impossible to stay in first person very long. Typically, I look at these opportunities as 'plays' for the public and nothing more. But, if I am in an environment like Bummers or Westville, I find it VERY easy to stay in first person. I really feel in the moment because the number of modern intrusions are minimal, if any. I also find that most people needlessly fear first person. I also find that there are many people that SAY they are serious reenactors, but truly unwilling to test themselves outside the beer, battle, ball events. Now for my shameless plug and gauntlet throw-down. If you REALLY want to challenge yourself and have a fun and immersive experience, I encourage you to apply for invitation to attend Surrender of Secession - Westville, GA 1865. Time is running out as registration closes OCt 1st and we will likely hit our cap before that date. For details go to www.surrenderofsecession.com

Jim Butler

[Hank Trent]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

Here's an anecdote that still puzzles me. It was Perryville merchants row, several years ago, where civilians were in various historic buildings, first person interpretation set during the battle in 1862, one or two interpreters to a building, along both sides of the street, with modern visitors randomly strolling along the sidewalks, stopping in as they pleased. The battle reenactment was happening over the hill on the battlefield the same weekend, as I recall, but was totally separate.

I was a local doctor, my wife was his wife, and I was at the drugstore on one side of the street while she was at the doctor's office waiting for me to return on the other.

At first, I started inside the drug store, and visitors either didn't come in, or just looked around, or focussed on the modern display-case-modern-label medicines which didn't really fit with first person, so I moved outside to the sidewalk in front, greeted them there, and did my thing, then let them wander in to the artifact-museum set-up behind me if they wanted. That worked perfectly. I'd greet some and they'd just return the greeting and wander on, but others would stop and talk, with intelligent questions, good observations, totally getting it.

After a few hours my wife came over to take a break, and we discovered that something wasn't working on her side of the street. She was getting all the "are you hot in those clothes?" visitors, nothing good. While we were puzzling over that, a guy came by, I greeted him, and next thing I knew, he was asking about slavery, and we got into a discussion about the colonization society, politics, some other things, and then he left. She was shocked. "That's how it's been all morning," I told her.

I suggested maybe greeting people more actively, since things had improved after I moved out front. She tried that, and later reported one lady just got mad because she wouldn't break character.

We never did come up with an explanation. Was it the difference between a male and female interpreter? Some subtle body language or tone of voice? Some subtle arrangement of the buildings? Visitors did the loop either way, so neither of us was getting the visitors consistently sooner or later. It was a puzzle.

But it shows that sometimes, for an unknown reason, in some situations, interpretation either will work or won't. and there's not much you can do about it unless you can pinpoint the problem.

But that leads to another point. Random members of the public are one thing. But what's sad is when fellow reenactors are the ones actively preventing someone from doing a more accurate impression. As Elaine says, "Point is... if you have an environment that discourages or fellow participants that discourage... it is that much harder to continue first person or immersion." Reenactments have maximum authenticity levels, just as they have minimum ones. Despite what the organizers or the rules say, some events simply don't allow reenactors who want to try to be more accurate than their participants approve of. Like the old saying, "Still going to the wrong events?"

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Abrams]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

When Mike Comer invited me to try out my first "immersion" event at Marmaduke's Raid a few years back, I was a bit confused. "No spectators?" was my first observation? Why would we do this without an audience? "Ain't that a bit like playing army in the woods like when we were a kid?" Even less fun to not portray an soldier, but just a civilian with nothing to do, and no one to see it? Sounded a little weird to me, but I thought what the heck, Mike has never steered me wrong, and told me attitude was more important than gear, so I gave it a go.

I had a lot of trouble staying in first person. My gear sucked. I was new to the hobby, and therefore not well educated on 19th civilian century living.

I was surprised. It was a blast. People were forgiving of my slips, overlooked my gear short-fallings, and it was not as hard as I thought it would be to remain in character. We talked, lived and did what they did back then, with only the stuff they would have had, and it gave me a much better feeling of what it was like to have lived in the 19th century. Mike was right. I had fun. I learned a lot. I got much good advice and encouragement to continue immersion.

Independence Village offers a really unique setting to do immersion events. Period buildings/cabins set where modern intrusions are minimized. These buildings are centered around a schoolhouse/church with a center green area the kids can play in. If you like to keep really active with things to do, help us carpenters do repairs. Run a business. Set up your own scenario/profession that can keep you occupied. There is plenty of work the village needs, so if you do not like sitting around jawing, there is gainful employment available.

Want to just relax? Be a visitor traveling through, or become the town lazy-body that tries to play checkers or euchre at the village inn/tavern. You could become the town drunk, but be warned-the village is a temperance community and the sheriff has a working jail-with padlock and leg irons, and we do not tolerate roust-abouts or public drunkenness.

Check it out. Good folks in a good setting. If you have ever even thought about trying an immersion event, I highly recommend this one.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

I find that, for me, Firper when dealing with the public and educational programs is kind of awkward. My main objective when doing Living History is to educate. I don't want 'playing a character' to get in the way of that. Plus, I like the look on the public's faces when they actually LEARN something from the presentations of what military/civilian life was like 150 years ago. For me, it's fun giving the general public an idea of why we do what we do in this end of the hobby. Face it, the public has MANY stereotypes about 'Civil War reenactors'- some good and some not-so-good. I think we should strive to give a positive light in interractions with them and show what we do as culturally important to American Heritage; If we don't practice it, we forget it as a society- and you sometimes don't learn everything in a book. Let's show them that we are intelligent and can be scholarly, and not just yahoos that want a 'beer, battle and ball'.

Being at an immersion event is entirely for the personal experience of others in our hobby and myself to get a 'feel for what it was like 150 years ago'. I like firper there. since I am a visual learner, many times I have either learned something new through firper discussions/interractions or been inspired to research something new that I might not have thought of before on my own historical research. I can read something over-and-over again, but when I see or practice something learned, it makes more sense.

Interesting discussion. Thanks.

[Pvt. Shattuck]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

I decided not to Firp today because of the classroom environment. Some of the kids would've loved it, but a few bored, inattentive, distracting kids would have spoiled the fiction. Just distributing hardtack for the students to taste caused 10 minutes of chaos.

[kaelin]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

First person has worked best for me when surrounded by "the" element or "the" environment. I gave up doing first person with the public when I started to get the "he takes himself waaay to seriously" or the "he's crazy" looks.
I did not want to be that guy that gave us a bad name on this end of the hobby. For the most part we all understand each other and we can do these kinds of things together...most of us can. Yes, there are exceptions on this end.

I may not be very good at first person, and others are. Either way you have to know when you can and can't do first person. For each of us that will be different.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

Hallo!

In my cynical, jaded, and burned-out view...

I got to the "Point" where the cliche about the "wrong events" held true. Meaning, IMHO, and IMHE, the "best" potential for more success versus failure of "Firper" is in the "Immersion" setting/environment AND when in the company of lads and lassies who are there for the same experience.

Yes, one can successfully do "missionary work" or "island in the mainstream" and carve out a meaningful and enjoyable niche in the Usual world of Noper and Thirper- even alone, or in the company of a like-minded pard or two.
Perhaps best if one works or arranges a "scenario" for it in advance of the event. One of my favorites (unannounced and spontaneous) was out between the lines at Spotsylvania as an officer trying to prevent men from trading with the Yanks out in the dark of night. And two or three of those lads later said it was their best experience ever for themselves.

But again, in my biased view and experience, being in the company of like-minded people- veterans and newcomers alike- enable, support, nuture, and encourage both the practice and the growth in progressively acquiring both levels of skill and the experiences to make it all easier and easier and not so
daunting or scary. (Especially the nagging Self Doubt and the fear of Risk-Taking.)

Some folks reject it out of hand (like my wife) a snot part of their Mental Pictures. Others are uncomfortable with it becauue it is not part of what they want to do. Some others feel compelled to disrupt, ridicule, and attack it when the see it being done.

Seek out the Like-minded. (They are out there.)

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt

[Mark Choate]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

Kaelin,

After seeing your immersion work (and the others at South Union) last October when we did "Perilous Times," I can say with conviction that you do an incredible job in first person. I really felt as though we were interacting with a community of Shakers.

Great job and great setting!

Mark

[Rick C.]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

I have a friend who does immersion events down south. Way to far to drive for a weekend from Ohio. I am new to Civil War but been around reenacting for about 10 years. How can I get involved/invited to an event over in Illinois.

[Silvana Siddali]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

Mr. Compton, just send me a private message and I'll get you fixed up. Or else go over to the Civilian Authentic Events post and check out the post on our September event. You sound like a kindred spirit.

I've been reading these posts with tremendous interest and wanted to add one really special memory -- though this is so bittersweet that I have to say it's difficult to write. As many of you know, our dear friend Melissa Walker has recently departed this life. When she was at Independence, she was a Quaker lady who visited me while her husband was off doing his antislavery activities.

Now, Melissa and I kept up our first person the whole time she was there. She was a lovely, kind, gentle lady and I couldn't imagine a more wonderful house guest. Late at night, after we had turned in and blown out the candles, we would lie awake a while and talk over the doings of our neighbors and the events of the day until we both fell asleep. Sometimes we'd hear an owl or watch a racoon wander by if the doors of the cabin were open. The Ragsdales' little boy kept us awake one night calling for his daddy over and over. These memories will remain with me for ever, of course. The fact that we remained in 1861 the whole time just made it really magical.

God rest her soul in peace.

[Spinster]

Re: Immersion: fun or scary?

And that's an example of how ongoing community is built in immersion events. Going about daily life in those contexts builds a trust level that promotes wider interaction.

Working in community with common goals promotes an atmosphere in which multiple aspects can be played out. Not all requires talking.

When I'm tired, I tend to hide behind my knitting. Awhile back I spent the bulk of an event mending one pair of socks--reknitting the toes completely, inserting new heels, and then 'running the heels and toes' to reinforce them, and finally adding a pad of carded wool to help ease a heel spur. One companion remarked 'You've worked on those for three days pretty solid. There's a whole lot of love in those socks'. And, looking at the larger relationship in context, and it's duration, yes, there was. Plus, I'd spent an event immersed in a simple task, answering questions from a first person position, during what was an otherwise unremarkable mainstream event.

Folks who are willing to stretch themselves a bit will find the immersion community forgiving of the errors of beginners. And, in the end, will find that they have learned so much in such a short period of time, that they are better reenactors in any setting.