--- Carol Kocian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>       Frequently there is a mix of people in each reenactment unit,
> some who will interact with the visitors and some who will not.  In
> the case of military reenactment, some groups want the most firepower
> (soldiers with muskets), and aren't concerned with the attitude of
> the person as long as they will follow the safety standards.  When a
> historic site hires/invites a group, they get the whole gamut.  Even
> if the group is paid for their appearance, the individuals themselves
> are volunteers.

And, personally, I think it is up to historic sites to encourage reenctment
units to be as historically accurate and "visitor friendly" as possible. If
this starts to happen, I think the overall quality of reenactment units will
improve.

>       I think it was Joseph Ruckman who once pointed out that the
> difference between first and third person is "I" vs. "they".  "This
> is my musket, and it works this way," instead of "they would have
> used vegetables in season."  Developing a character, and then having
> a portrayal that interests the visitor - this is something that one
> can build up to.  Some groups do have training sessions where they
> teach these skills.  I think the bad first person interpretations are
> those where the presenter is too involved with the details (the
> accent, a set script) to realize the visitor's reaction and interest.

(Wow, didn't know that Joe was that famous. He sometimes comes out with one of
my units, Ship's Company. :)

You're right and I think there are varying levels of "1st person"
interpretation. It's one thing to talk about your personally stuff in the
present tense like you are from the time like your example: "This is my musket
and this is how it works." Where my pet peeve comes in is when the person
switches over to trying to be all first person like, "And during the
bombardment of Ft. McHenry, I hunkered down in the bunker with 30 other guys.
Our cannons were useless because they couldn't reach the ships that were
bombarding us." That kind of interpretation is kind of stupid because the
person obviously wasn't there and is making up their own interpretation of what
happened which is probably a mix of first hand accounts and their own ideas of
how they would have felt if they were there. Instead, I think it is better to
use actual first person accounts of people who were there such as "Well you've
heard the national anthem right? Francis Scott Key was on a ship in the harbor
as he watched the bombardment. The 'rockets red glare' was referring to
Congrave(sp?) rockets that were relentlessly shelling the fort for 48 hours.
How do you think you would have felt if you were here during that?"

> Amusingly enough, next to asking directions to
> the restroom, visitors most frequently ask me where I'm from and how
> I got into reenactment.  It doesn't take any specialized knowledge
> for me to answer!

Wow, the most asked question I get is "Are you hot in those clothes?" (It's 110
out, are you hot in your clothes? ;) Sadly, the next one is, "When was the War
of 1812?" *sigh*

>       Sometimes it's a momentary lapse in attention or judgement from
> their parents.  I was at the Maryland Sheep & Wool festival, where a
> friend's 5-year-old daughter could touch the yarn and textiles that
> the vendors had on display.  There was a display building of finished
> objects, and she was confused when she was corrected for touching.
> Older children should know better.  As a reenactor and researcher, I
> may be more sensitive about not touching things.

I can understand that. It's when the parents are blithely looking on as their
kid is untying someone's personal tent that's obviously been tied up to keep
people out while they ignore the display tent that's obviously open for people
to look into.

>       Another difficult subject as well!  There are some women who do
> a good job of it, down to applying razor stubble and keeping their
> eyebrows unplucked.  Others need to have their blue eye shadow.
> Unfortunately the derogatory term is applied to all, similar to terms
> used for those who concentrate "too much" on historical correctness.

But the interesting thing is, I'm sure most people would get really upset if a
guy chose to dress up as a woman and obviously looked male. Yet there are those
who won't bat an eyelash at a "chick in drag" who can be spotted from the
battlefield. I keep threatening to recruit transvestites for laundresses and
tavern wenches just to see people's reaction. ("But that's not period!!" - And
Molly Marine over there is....) And personally, I spent my childhood with a
really awful page-boy haircut and was always mistaken for a guy to ever want to
purposely try to look like one again. Then again, I'm shaped like an eggplant
so I doubt I'd fool anyone unless they were really nearsighted and I was far
away. ;)

Deb

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).