Quote :

Bill wrote :   The spectators always seem to have a good time and hopefully they learn something about our period. I'm one of those folks who enjoy the living histories, designed for the spectators, where we get down time in the evening. I find it a very nice way to spend a weekend.

But that's my point. I don't think those events are designed either to maximize the spectators' experience concerning the Civil War, or to use the strengths of living history as a teaching tool.

Reenactors do think it's a "nice way to spend a weekend," and it fits in the comfortable mold of fair or festival, so it's a self-perpetuating activity. Personally I think it's a boring way to spend a weekend if I had to do it the way everyone else does it, but that's neither here nor there.

For example, I'd love to attend the Battery Hooper living history mentioned in this thread, portraying Linda's great great grandfather, who was documented to be in the area visiting his son (Linda's great grandfather). The son was a private at Battery Coombs in 1863, just a short distance away, and the man I'd portray had also been in the area himself the previous year as a squirrel hunter (home guard type). Linda of course would portray her own great great grandmother. What an opportunity!

We have the letters that the family wrote to the son, so we know some of the things that were on their mind. The son was gone from home for the first time. Would he be corrupted by temptation in the army? Were there contagious diseases in camp? Was he well liked? Was he obeying his officers and doing his duty?

One doesn't usually think of how parents at home reacted to their sons leaving for the Civil War as a step toward reaching maturity, but I think it's a worthwhile and universal side note, especially now that parents have their own sons away at a real war.

Yet, among the face painters and bluegrass music and festival atmosphere, at least as pictured as on the web site, how does one encourage spectators to shift gears, to realize that history is "living" right before them, to pay attention to subtleties, to make an emotional connection to these parents they can talk with 140+ years ago whose son is also off to war, who are proud and fearful and cheerful and worried, all at the same time?

It can be done--I've done it at such events--but it's in spite of the surroundings, not because of them. And as soon as the spectators leave, the vast majority of other reenactors couldn't care less. That's why I'd rather talk to the spectators at that kind of event; they don't understand there's supposed to be a ceiling on accuracy and are more apt to have open minds and appreciate different kinds of living history interpretation, while the reenactors "know" what's expected and what isn't, and have their mind made up what they do and do not want to experience.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Herr Schmidt und Herr Trent:
  I have to admit, I'm guilty as charged. I should have expounded a good deal more in my previous post about activities other than those focused on the spectators that would fall under the mantle of "living history."  It is my understanding of the term - and very possibly a flawed understanding, at that - "living history" that it covers a broad spectrum of costumed historical activities that may be oriented toward the general public, or just as well oriented toward the participant. We tend to apply the term to those activities that are other than the typical "battle reenactment." That's not to say skirmishes or battle reenactments should be considered something other than "living history," but more as a way of distinguishing between the "fighting" and other activities.
Whether a public program is conducted utilizing first person interpretive techniques or third person; done in a "time travel" fashion or in an organized presentation much like a typical lecture but by someone in period attire; or it is an event intended for as close to total immersion and recapturing, as closely as is possible, the sensations, feelings, emotions, etc., of the time portrayed, it tends to fall under the general term of "living history."
 In my humble opinion, examples of public venues where the term "living history" is applied while utilizing different forms of interpretive techniques and historical surroundings would be at places like Colonial Williamsburg; Jamestown Settlement; Plimoth Plantation; Old Sturbridge Village; Landis Valley Farm Museum; Bedford and so on and so forth. I'm sure you get my drift.
 In recent years, there have also been a good number of immersion type events that would also fall under the label of "living history." I know the Trents have been particularly involved in such activities, as have others on this forum.

Inasmuch as my wife and I do a variety of different types of historical programs, including third person presentations discussing historical things and events in modern terms, I suppose that label of being "historians in funny clothes" frequently applies to us. We, however, tend to prefer the label "historical interpreters", if you don't mind.
Now, since we're in to debating and discussing terms used in this pastime of our, why not delve into the term "reenactment?" At many events I've often wondered just what it is, exactly, that is being "reenacted." I sure you get my point.
 Bill, I hope you enjoy Gruber. I've got lots of good memories of doing programs there. Don't hesitate to use the creek to cool off and watch where you step; there's period correct goose poop aplenty! Have a good event and share your knowledge with others. That's what it's really all about anyway.
Respects to all,

It's interesting how fate plays a role in so much that we do.  When I was 8 years old my father got a new job that took us to a small town in NE Ohio. We rented a home for six months while trying to find a permanent one, and our landlord looked at my father and said, "Are you related to the guy who built the mill about 4 miles south of town?"  To make a long story short, we discovered that we had returned to our ancestral home (entirely by accident) and that indeed my 4th great grandfather was the man who built the mill.

That old mill was bought out by the Carroll County Historical Society and over the years restored to it's post CW era glory.  Every year the old mill grinds away during the festival and produces some fine meal. One of the things that always bothered me though was that my grandfather was seldom ever mentioned in the brochures, and if he was it was just a little blurb. In 2007 I decided to change all that.  I wanted to educate the public and remember my grandfather in a manner that would be sweet and most becoming. I contacted the society and asked if I could portray my 2nd great grandmother come from Gallia County to celebrate the fall harvest at the family mill.  I was the only person there dressed in CW garb.  

I explained to the society in my request what my two main interpretive goals were:
1. Give a brief history of the mill, as it would have been done in 1863, including that it was built by my character's husband's grandfather, and still continues (in 1863) to be run by the family.
2.  Since my character had 12 children, and the festival had hundreds of children, I talked about children's chores -- matching chores to the ages of the children I was talking to.  Their little eyes getting quite large when they learned what they *should* have been doing at home, and of course the little wheels in their mother's heads were spinning thinking of how much their children *could* be doing.

I stood outside the mill entrance and welcomed the folks out.  In order to encourage interaction with the public I asked children how old they were and then told them that I had a child just their age, or a year or two older or younger, easy to do when you have 12 children.

In many cases this lead to talking more in depth about various aspects of the mill, about the mill race and dam,(now part of the parking area)and the creek (that has been rerouted several hundred yards), about having a son in the army, and about travel from my home in Gallia County up to Carroll County for the festival.  To me, it was a success because the spectators were in a festive mood and when they came to me I addressed them in the same festive mood.  It met my interpretive goals, and all worked out great!  So first person interpretation to the public can work, and be educational regardless what kind of an event one is attending.

I have a sincere interest in attending the event at Battery Hooper, near where my great grandfather served (he was actually about 4 or 5 miles further toward the river at Battery Coombs.  I've done an extensive amount of research on both my 2nd and my great grandfather, as well as their battery, (one of the companies was actually stationed at Battery Hooper), and travel between the two places, and much more.

My interest in the event would be to focus upon the things that were most important to my 2nd great grandfather at that time, which was the spiritual and physical well being of his son. But I'm thinking that this is going to require a bit more serious of an interpretive mode than what the Mill Festival required.  And I was concerned about how to approach the public in order to get them to listen and learn about the concerns of the citizen of the era.
1.  Three months ago my son's infantry regiment was changed to artillery.
2.  Talk about my concerns (his spiritual and physical) and my joys (now he's heavy artillery he will be less in harm's way)
3.  Travel from Gallia County, OH to Covington, KY.

And from there on out, I can converse with the public in any direction they wish to go.  

You know, maybe it's because Battery Hooper holds a very special place in my heart with it's connection to the 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery, but I want to be able to do the best interpretive work that I possibly can.  I want to be able to share and touch on all the really cool little details that I know.  I want mother's of real soldiers to be able to understand my character's fears and pain.  I want to have my grandparents come to life (figuratively, not literally) for the public.  

I do hope that I hear back from Judy, I discovered I could get her email address via the forum, duh.  Admittedly I wrote her last night, and she's probably at an event.  

My main issue with Battery Hooper is I'll have to rearrange a doctor's appointment, which I hope I can do.

Linda.

Quote :

BobWerner wrote : It is my understanding of the term - and very possibly a flawed understanding, at that - "living history" that it covers a broad spectrum of costumed historical activities that may be oriented toward the general public, or just as well oriented toward the participant.

Yep, apparently even MOMCC and ALFHAM haven't come to any definite definition of the term. For a discussion on what the term living history means, see: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/momcc/vpost?id=1458198   I like what Rob Martin had to say on the subject.

Quote :

My conclusion is - and mind you, this is my very personal opinion, and not one necessarily endorsed by MOMCC or my employer, Conner Prairie - "living history" is an outmoded, obsolete term.  It means all things to all people.  It umbrellas very well-researched, properly outfitted museum and reenactment events as well as those attempted by weirdoes in coonskin caps (or spandex pants and beer can armor).  The brand is confused, and it's too late to set up distinctions in the public eye between good living history and very, very bad living history.

I agree that it's basically an obsolete term, just like most any term within reenacting.  Every term means something different to people in different groups.

Linda.

Quote :

Curt Schmidt wrote : IMHO, I find it interesting that "living history" is being used to describe "talks" or "presentations" to/with the Public- rather than immersion or projection events/functions where there are no Public and the purpose is to "live (verb) the history" for oneself and one's comrades.

I had a great post in the making, but lost it during an unexpected reboot of my PC.  

I will not even try to recreate it...too frustrating.  Instead I will just say, Mr. Schmidt...you have succeeded in hijacking the thread!!  

Linda:
 That discussion at http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/momcc/vpost?id=1458198 hits the nail pretty much on the head. We know what we're doing has something to do with history (the more the better, naturally) but somehow applying labels to it proves to be confounding (almost as thoroughly so as the multitude of labels applied to that activity we refer to as "reenacting.") As long as we demonstrate a clear commitment to the history side of it all, the rest is of no real consequence. Whether it's for ourselves and our companions, or for the general public; whether in first person or third, it's that commitment that matters most.
Respectfully,  

--Last edited by BobWerner on 2008-07-19 19:31:02 --

Quote :

BobWerner wrote : Linda:  That discussion at http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/momcc/vpost?id=1458198 hits the nail pretty much on the head. We know what we're doing has something to do with history (the more the better, naturally) but somehow applying labels to it proves to be confounding (almost as thoroughly so as the multitude of labels applied to that activity we refer to as "reenacting.") As long as we demonstrate a clear commitment to the history side of it all, the rest is of no real consequence. Whether it's for ourselves and our companions, or for the general public; whether in first person or third, it's that commitment that matters most. Respectfully,

Well said!  

You won't believe this was the basic premise of what I had hoped to post earlier.  No matter what the hobby, there are varying degrees of involvement.  For history events we usually use the term authenticity.  I have always wondered what people think is more important, knowing the subject matter real well or having the best, most accurate equipment money can buy?  But that is for another thread!  

Quote :

BobWerner wrote :   Bill, I hope you enjoy Gruber. I've got lots of good memories of doing programs there. Don't hesitate to use the creek to cool off and watch where you step; there's period correct goose poop aplenty! Have a good event and share your knowledge with others. That's what it's really all about anyway. Respects to all,

Bob,

I'm well aware of the Gruber goose poop. A shovel is an important piece of equipment if you are camping at the Wagon Works!

Funny story. We were camping along the creek a couple of years ago. I got up early in the morning to relieve myself: but I forgot a little detail. It was the first day of trout season. I had a huge audience for my first pee of the day.  

Tomorrow will be fun. I just wish it wasn't going to be ninety-five degrees!      

Quote :

hanktrent wrote :  I understand there's a social phenomenon called a "Civil War living history," where there's a recognized set of things that occur: People set up tents and somebody sets up a table with a display or somebody else lays out their stuff and does a haversack talk, a woman talks about clothes, modern stuff is brought but hidden except when somebody brags to the public about how cleverly they've hidden theirs, soldiers drill and fire a cannon at specified hours, there are vendors selling a mix of period and modern things, there may be unrelated carnival-type activities or amplified old timey music or non-reenactor craftsmen. There's a lot of shopping and sitting around. After hours the pretense of doing things historically is scaled back as much as possible until the public comes back...

Hank,

I believe it was Grumpy Dave who coined the term "SOYA LH," but in any case, you've just described 99.9% of the so-called living histories, at least in the mid-Atlantic where "flea market junk," and living history are welded together for some reason.

Hmmm, I owe you an email about something else, too.

Quote :

Bill wrote :   Tomorrow will be fun. I just wish it wasn't going to be ninety-five degrees!

Yep, it was hot, but Bill and crew managed to find a nice shady spot to set up in.

Since Gruber Wagon Works was only about a 40 minute drive from my home, I decided to investigate this "living history" and was generally pleased by what I found. Although I was only a 'tater, I enjoyed most of the time I spent at the site and was particularly pleased to finally meet Bill in person, as well as some of his comrades. The Confederate camp at Gruber was small, but easily approachable by the general public. The gray-clad reenactor/interpreters were quick to engage with the site's visitors and did a fine job of interacting with them and sharing their knowledge. Unfortunatley for them, the good folks at the Berks County Heritage Center didn't do such a good job advertising the program, for some odd reason, and spectator numbers were pretty low. That said, for those who were present, it is my humble opinion that Mr. Rodman and company did a good job of entertaining and enlightening the public with historical facts of the American Civil War. It sure appeared to be a successful undertaking that I would place under the label of "living history."
 That said, the other side of the field contained a Federal group that didn't meet what I would consider to be the basic minimum level to be engaging in such an undertaking. Lots of what I call "fact-turds" were being tossed about quite freely. It was such that I later commented to Mr. Rodman that if a certain Grumpy Dave person had been present, he would have been poking sticks into eyes, or something like that. The Feds were pretty bad and I think probably lived up (or down) to the negative stereotype we sometimes tend to envision when discussing this type of program.
 Since we had been discussing "living histories" and the many different forms thereof, this event got me to wondering what steps we might take to improve things and, perhaps, better define what it is we do. Any thoughts?
 Anyway, my compliments to Bill Rodman and his gray-clad comrades for their fine service on Sunday.
Respectfully,

Quote :

BobWerner wrote :    Anyway, my compliments to Bill Rodman and his gray-clad comrades for their fine service on Sunday. Respectfully,

Bob,

It was great meeting you yesterday. Since this was a 4th. Texas event, I was in line, doing my usual "Bad Private" impression. This was definetly not a "SOYA" event for us. We had an early morning drill. (We always seem to have an early morning drill, which I always bitch about. That's my job.) During the day we did five firing demonstrations, mainly to get people down in the camp. We would send one guy over near the area where people were milling around and he'd fire his rifle to get their attention. They'd wonder down, we'd do a firing demo and than drag them into our camp. We had one Common Tent set up as an officer's tent and another as a soldier's tent. It's always funny when you tell folks that four soldiers were expected to live in one tent and that was in garrison! People can say want they want, but the rifles do get the spectator's attention! Without the shooting, we wouldn't have had many vistors.

Participation from both reenactors and spectators was down this year. My guess is that 95 degrees kept people at home. I know that the weather and burn-out from the two Gettysburgs was a major factor in our low turn-out.

I can't speak about the Federals across the field, other than nothing seemed to be going on over in their camp. That would make for a long, long day!  

Oh yeah, the home-made ice cream was outstanding!  

  Hallo!

  Not breaking out the Curt-Heinrich Broken Record Mantra of Mental Pictures here...  

  Seriously, it is interesitng how the CW Community invents and reinvents itself.
  And I would say that the Living History and the living history are perhaps a "six of one and a half dozen of the other" kind of thing.

   Man and bhoy, having spent part of three decades doing both and those in between, I am having a hard time with the "six" and the "half dozen."  Meaning, I view a "reenactment without a battle" as a "reenactment' still, not a "Living History" as the physical presence of a Modern Public whether as passive from-a-distance viewers or engaged up-close and personal participants of talks/presentations for program or site interpretation, the very presence of the Public funnels the function away from "History" and into "Information" or "Education."  

 I am not saying one is good or bad, or inferior versus superior, etc, etc., or that I am right and everyone else is wrong- just that it is interesting how the "jargon" has evolved in form and function.

 And my personal bias is that "Living History" is an immersion/projection experience for the participants, not an interpretative or illustrative experience for the visitor/spectator.  But I do see, and appreciate, the "six of one."  

  Not that it matters, and a rose by any other name still smells.
   ;)    

  Curt

  (Who still has a hard time with some gun shows billing themselves as Living History events - because a few costumed folks are seen walking up and down the aisles between the tables or hanging around the snack bar...   )

Quote :

my personal bias is that "Living History" is an immersion/projection experience for the participants, not an interpretative or illustrative experience for the visitor/spectator.

Curt,

I think living history can be with or without spectators.  With spectators tends to be called living history interpretation, without is living history immersion.  

Take for example, the Governor's Scholar program that has been held in Kentucky for many years.  The idea was that the reenacting participants would study up on their roles and present a living history program to these chosen Kentucky teens at Perryville battlefield.

I remember portraying (not in the same year) the Dye family at the Dye home, and the Bottom family, at their home.  The teenagers never saw any of the interpreters out of character from the minute they were dropped off at each stop to the moment they left.  Granted it was more theatrical than pure first person immersion, and during "down time" we discussed what we thought worked and didn't work and what we might want to try for the next group.  Of course the luckiest group was the last one because by then we had it all figured out.  

At the Dye home, the idea was to have the children first meet an officer with a map looking over the farm, and talking about how it would make a fine headquarters for the army.  Mrs. Dye, that would be me, was inside the house (now modernized, though the same structure) and the soldiers knocked on the door and told me that they were confiscating the house and the land around it for their headquarters.  Of course, Mrs. Dye had a few things to say and in the end turned over the house to the soldiers.  As she walked away and disappeared behind the barn, a few soldiers began to take over the house, and the children were loaded up on the bus and sent to the next stop.

At the Bottom home we were interpreting the lack of water and the hospital set up in the Bottom family home. Again, everything was in character all the way through.  As the children travelled around the battlefield each stop they experienced something different.  One was a burial detail, etc.

The teens started out at the first site where the events that signaled the battle began and then followed the route of progression of the events, until they reached the last post. Each stop was a different set or group of interpreters, and each stop taught the teenagers what happened at that specific location.

To me, these are living histories because history was brought to life before these shining Kentucky youth.

There were some other events that I would call living history interpretation, but this is the first one that came immediately to mind.

Linda.

This topic has forced me to rethink just what it is I have been doing all these years and if I might not have applied a few errant labels. In spending some time digging into some of the books I have on the subject of historical interpretation and in searching on the net, I can't say that I've come to any solid conclusions other than that of definitions being rather broad or quite vague.
 From Stacy F. Roth's Past Into Present I borrow the following from Chapter 1 - The Terminology of Living History and First-Person Interpretation "One of the challenges of describing activities related to living history is the lack of a fixed terminology."  Needless to say, that was the opening sentence. A bit further on I found: "Living history programming encompasses a palette of methods: demonstration, discourse, roleplay, reenactment, and theatrical performance."
 "Jay Anderson has defined 'living history' for those of us in heritage-dependent disciplines, industries, and avocations as a simulation of life in another time for the purpose of research, interpretation, and/or play." And a bit further on: "For the layman, an interpreter, as defined by those in our field, translates material culture and human or natural phenomena to the public -as Freeman Tilden implied- in a meaningful, provocative, and interesting way. In living history programming, presenters employ a combination of discourse, demonstration, and interaction within a historical or simulated environment. Living history interpretation is a complex art that requires a combination of skills from many areas, including - but not limited to - communication, history, practical technology, and theater. Its practioners must possess both a broad and a specific understanding of history, material culture, and related subjects, and they must convey that information effectively to the visitor." And, if you'll bear with me, Ms. Roth goes on to differentiate a bit with her following observation: "'Reenactor' describes those for whom living history is both passion and recreation. They frequently belong to re-created military units and other groups that organize simulation events. Their number has mushroomed over the past two decades. Writing in 1985, Jay Anderson predicted that the reenactment movement would double by 1995. If the proliferation of reenactor periodicals, vendors of reproduction clothing and equipment, and computer forums that have appeared over the past decade are evidence of a trend, numbers have more than doubled. Although many reenactors do first-person interpretation as described in this work, the majority opt for third-person or have limited interpretive contact with the public. Some reenactors have become increasingly aware of the function of interpretation in recent years, a trend borne out by newsletter articles that include tips on approaching the public and by the legions of hobbyists who have taken to working with historic sites for special events and weekend programming."
 Other works seem to echo these same sentiments and date as far back as at least 1970 with the founding of the Association for Living History, Farm and Agricultural Museums (ALHFAM). Actually, I was surprised by just how much material is out there on the subject. Jay Anderson that Ms. Roth referred has authored several publications on this topic. There are a good number books, periodicals and articles just on the subject of "living history," but it doesn't seem that anyone has managed to put together a comprehensive list of definitions for us.
Sounds like a job for Charles Heath  
Sorry for the length of this, but I thought some might find it of interest.
Respects to All,  

--Last edited by BobWerner on 2008-07-21 21:55:15 --

Quote :

Curt Schmidt wrote :   Hallo!    The physical presence of a Modern Public whether as passive from-a-distance viewers or engaged up-close and personal participants of talks/presentations for program or site interpretation, the very presence of the Public funnels the function away from "History" and into "Information" or "Education."

Curt,

No matter what we choose to call them, I agree that events with spectators are indeed for information and/or education of those spectators. I, for one, don't think that's a bad thing!

Most of what I've learned from spectator events has been from the process of getting ready for the events. Oh yeah, and finding out the correct information for the questions I couldn't answer!

As I like to say, if there are spectators, we are the actors putting on the show. It's up to us to put on the best show possible, no matter how we choose to do it.
 

Bob,

Since Phil Campbell is otherwise busy, I'll make the infamous "quarterly posting" at this point:

http://www.interpnet.com/

Quote :

http://www.interpnet.com/

Thanks Charles, I tried to find the definitions on ALHFAM's site, but couldn't locate the page I was looking for, thus I gave the message board site instead.  However, this is just as good as what I was looking for.    

Quote :

First-person Living History Interpretation The act of portraying a person from the past (real or composite). The intent of this style is to present the attitudes, briefs, viewpoints,language, and mannerisms of another period in history in a way that is immediate, entertaining, and thought-provoking. Through the portrayal of a character they create for the visitor the illusion that their historic personage has returned to life. Also known as “character interpretation” or “first-person interpretation.” (Association for Living History Farms And [Agricultural] Museums) Living History An attempt to accurately replicate the past through the use of a physical environment and the sights, sounds and smells of the period being represented. The two major types of interactive living history interpretation are first-person and third-person. (Adapted from Association for Living History Farms and Museums) Third Person Interpretation A mode of living history interpretation, whether costumed or not, in which the interpreter remains contemporary to the audience. Rather than becoming one with the past, the interpreter maintains a historical distance and is analytical and descrïptive of the period being represented. This mode of interpreting places interpreters squarely in the role of historians – looking at the past from an objective viewpoint and within a context relative to events before and after the period being interpreted. The third-person interpreter uses quotes, terminology and activities of the past, not in imitation, but as artifact in and of themselves; aspects of the past that can be examined with as much validity as any three-dimensional object. (Association for Living History Farms and Museums)

Thanks again,

Linda.  

edited to correct an error on the linked website. The reference should have read in each case, Association for Living History Farms And Agricultural Museums  

--Last edited by Linda Trent on 2008-07-22 10:27:30 --

[cit]Curt Schmidt wrote :
as the physical presence of a Modern Public whether as passive from-a-distance viewers or engaged up-close and personal participants of talks/presentations for program or site interpretation, the very presence of the Public funnels the function away from "History" and into "Information" or "Education."[/quote]

Whatever words one uses, I also see a definite difference between having public, and not having public, and for lack of a better term, I'd say that when there's public, it's living history interpretation, with the emphasis on interpretation.

So you do have to keep in mind the public, no matter how subtly. Maybe it's speaking loudly enough for them to hear, or deciding whether it's safe to use the "n" word in character, or seeing they're puzzled and rephrasing an answer, or not being able to judge them by their clothes or actions and pretending they're not really that strange. Even if they're only observers from a distance, the organizers themselves have arranged the activities to accomodate the view of the spectators. Whatever, the goal is to communicate or illustrate something to the public.

Living history, without the interpretation, the kind Curt's talking about, feels completely different to me. The goal is to try to duplicate real life. It's like walking into a store in the modern world--you're not "interpreting" a 2008 person to the greeter and the clerks and the cashiers. You're just doing what you do.

I think it would be possible to have both at the same event, interpretation to the public when they're present and then, so the rest of the hours aren't wasted just killing time until the public returns, living history the rest of the time. In the last couple years, I've been to Immortal 600 and Perryville on the Farm which did that, and probably others I can't recall.

However, I've been to events where there weren't spectators, that were neither way. For the bulk of the event, you couldn't interact with the other reenactors as if it were 186x because they were simply modern people in old-fashioned clothes, nor could you consider them like spectators and "interpret" to them because most of the time they had little interest in pretending to be around anyone from 186x. I don't know what to call that kind of reenacting. Well, I do, but this isn't the place.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Quote :

hanktrent wrote : However, I've been to events where there weren't spectators, that were neither way. For the bulk of the event, you couldn't interact with the other reenactors as if it were 186x because they were simply modern people in old-fashioned clothes, nor could you consider them like spectators and "interpret" to them because most of the time they had little interest in pretending to be around anyone from 186x. I don't know what to call that kind of reenacting. Well, I do, but this isn't the place.

Oh, why not just say it? It's called bad reenacting. Whether we're interpreting to the public utilizing first-person or third-person techniques, or immersing ourselves in recapturing 186x, the level of effort that goes into the endeavor will directly relate to the overall experience we all take away from it. This is where we get back into the discussion about attitudes and commitments, but that is subject matter elsewhere.
Great thread! My compliments to you all!
Respectfully,
Bob

After reading the latest posts on the Neshaminy thread and this one on living history a question popped into my mostly empty head.  If the object of the event (no matter how it is defined) is basically fund raising, what limitations does that present for those hosting it?  

--Last edited by Curtis Makamson on 2008-07-24 08:53:49 --