I would like to add a few more thoughts to the thread on first-person
 interpretation...to the list, since an interest for doing so was expressed.
 
Alicia Browne asked if visitors feel uncomfortable around costumed
 interpreters or frustrated by some of the past-present comparison
 limitations of first-person.
 
It is impossible to make a blanket prognosis on how visitors react to first-
 person interpretation because of the number of variables involved, including
 the visitors' familiarity with the medium, personal taste, the site's
 orientation, site subject matter, interpretive parameters, the style of
 first-person used (there is quite a variety) and perhaps most importantly --
 the skill of the individual interpreter(s).
 
There are as many styles of first-person interpretation as there are
 individuals who do it. A skilled interpreter is a master communicator,
 educator, historian, and performer who knows how to draw people into their
 period with a range of techniques. These techniques can differ very widely--
 so much so that methods which work for one interpreter do not necessarily
 work with another. It is a highly individualistic art. A skilled interpreter
 can also manage to answer many "inappropriate" visitor questions by
 rephrasing the question, using analogies, or sometimes simply answering the
 question. There are other ways that sites get around the past/present
 comparison problem--with programs that include question & answer sessions,
 with additional third-person interpreters present, with exhibits or
 alternate programming, by allowing interpreters to break character, and
 through forms such as "ghost interpretation," in which the interpreter
 "knows" subjects that extend into the present. Sites, too, have their own
 very distinct styles.
 
As part of my graduate work (and somewhat of an ongoing personal obsession),
 I have spent several years observing interpreters and visitors together,
 interviewing interpreters, conversing casually with visitors about their
 opinions, as well as practicing and directing several varieties of first and
 third person interpretation. My partner Dave and I do both forms at schools,
 museums, and festivals on a contract basis through our own outfit, called
"History on the Hoof."
 
In attempting to devise a set of theories on first-person, I have found that
no given theory works in all cases. Even when there is an interpretive
phenomenon that doesn't work most of the time (such as insulting your
visitors), there is usually someone who manages to make it work for them.
 
There are several interpretive behaviors that often make visitors
 uncomfortable, such as a silent interpreter (or one who offers only very
 brief information.) Interpretation is a field for talkers and explainers.
 Word-stingy staff can make people feel like they are intruding. Also,
 interpreters who pretend to not understand a question without giving any
 clues to the visitor on how they can "play the game" are exasperating to
 many and leave visitors without knowing what to say.
 
First-person interpretation, as practiced at living history sites, is not
 though lots of "authentic details" are part of its magic and allure. It is a
 method of making the past meaningful and interesting to a diverse visiting
 public. I think that the medium's detractors, in claiming that museums
 cannot do "realistic enough" depictions of the past, overlook this point.
 
Alicia, you will definitely want to read Ken Yellis' papers on the use of
 Worldview and first-person theory, as well as the other articles he
 mentioned in his post.
 
And a few more for your reading list:
 
Jay Anderson, A LIVING HISTORY READER (Nashville: American Assoc. for State
 and Local History, 1991).
 
_________. TIME MACHINES (Nashville: American Assoc. for State and Local
 History, 1985).
 
John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking, THE MUSEUM EXPERIENCE (Washington, DC:
 Whalesback Books, 1992).
 
Warren Leon and Margaret Piatt, "Living History Museums," in Warren Leon and
 Roy Rosenweig, eds., HISTORY MUSEUMS IN THE UNITED STATES: A CRITICAL
 ASSESSMENT (Chicago: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1989).
 
Kathleen Regnier, Michael Gross, and Ron Zimmerman, THE INTERPRETER'S
 GUIDEBOOK: TECHNIQUES FOR PROGRAMS AND PRESENTATIONS (Stevens Point, WI:UW-
 SP Foundation Press, 1992, 1994).
 
Tom Vance, "Developing A First Person Program at a Small Site," Association
 for Living Historical Farms and Agricultural Museums PAPERS VIII (1988), 161-
 
80.
 
 
In 1992, I presented a paper on "Communication Skills Necessary for First
 Person Interpretation" at the annual ALHFAM meeting in Winston-Salem, NC.
 The 1992 conference is the next to be published. I assume (?!) that it will
 be included, but who knows? ALHFAM annuals are a good source of information
on both first and third person programs. It would be worth your while to
browse them.
 
Stacy Roth
 
Stacy F. Roth                     |    [log in to unmask]
 P.O. Box 383                      |    Voice: (215) 943-1232
 Langhorne, PA 19047               |
 
 
 
 
 
=END=