> --- Carol Kocian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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?"

Actually the second example isn't really first person at all. Talking about
someone else in the context of the example is really third person
interpretation. The first example is first person and first person does rely
on the interpreter's knowledge of a whole bunch of different things. For
example, the Fort McHenry example would require the interpreter to know
technical details about the fort, the fine details of the engagement, any
additional fortifications or breastworks, weaponry, forces, names of fellow
soldiers, etc., etc. Having a primary source such as letters or reports,
etc., should form the basis of the character's experience.
But the whole interpretation must be tempered by the scope of knowledge of
the individual being interpreted. IN other words, the character's personal
world view. You can only present what the character would know and have
experienced personally. And yes, there can be the addition of some fictional
details as long as the important stuff is correct: were there really 30
other men with the character? Were there really bunkers? Did they even call
them bunkers? Was the term "hunkered down" in common or regional usage at
that time? Could that minor event have a basis is recorded fact? First
person interpretation is supposed to be a personal view of the broader world
around. Two people describing the same event will always describe it in
slightly (or not so slightly) different ways. A person watching the
bombardment of Ft. McHenry from the fort itself will see it in a much
different light than Francis Scott Key watching it from a boat. Same event,
much different perspective. That's the beauty of good, effective first
person.

But there are pitfalls.
The "This is my musket" example is another example of using first person
interpretation as a good teaching tool without the need to do a lot of
orientation so the visitors understand what is happening.
Truly effective first person has to be done in controlled circumstances.
Either in a vignette setting or, in the case of an overall historic site
interpretation, in a fully immersive setting.
Vignette settings can be anything to one designated house or room, or any
other designated location where visitors can meet and talk with a "figure
from the past." That person must have an extensive knowledge of his/her
character, his/her character's background, life, occupation, the intimate
details of that occupation, political views, etc., etc. All of that, even
though most of it well never be discussed, will shape the interpreter's
understanding of, and interpretation of , the character and their place in
the world.
For a site to do effective site-wide first person requires that all the
interpreters have the same deep understanding of their characters as well as
their characters' roles within the community. They need to be able to
interact with both visitors and other staff "in character." It is far easier
to build a first person site from scratch than to shift an existing program
to first person. A transition is far more difficult because it requires
interpreters, whose jobs had been essentially to teach and explain, to
unlearn a lot of their mechanics. They have to learn to stop thinking like
teachers and start thinking like a person from a different world. Language
will be different in first person. Mannerisms, speech patters and dialect
will be different. There will be a whole different set of political and
financial rules. Even everyday things will be different. To effectively
interpret in the first person you need to know the little details and be
able to consistently present them, even if they have nothing to do with your
message. For example, are the words you're using period appropriate? Are you
using the correct utensils while you're eating? Are those utensils in the
correct hand and being used correctly? (Read: knife and fork.) If someone
asks you what a mundane kitchen object is will you actually know what it's
called and how it's used?
Think about it.
Anyone can stand around and say, "'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?'" That's educating. And
there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's also called third person
interpretation if you wear appropriate dress and are in an appropriate
setting. Many historic sites do third person for a reason. It's easy to do.
It requires less training. It can be partially or fully scripted (I prefer
partially if scripted at all). It creates a teacher/pupil relationship
between the interpreter and the audience that invites probing questions and
is intended mostly to deliver information directly to the listener.

First person adds a whole 'nother dimension to that. It puts the interpreter
into the place of an actual person from the time period. That person can be
a real person or it can be a composite character made up of different
general traits from a specific area using bits and pieces of information
about multiple people in the community interpreted. An actual person can
present some unique difficulties. A well-known person requires an even
higher degree of knowledge and understanding of that person's life to do it
effectively. The more famous a person is, the more the interpreter must know
about them.
A lesser known or average person can still present a problem. At a local or
regional level there's always the possibility that a descendant will pay you
a visit and see you interpret their granddad or great grandfather. And they
may take you to task if you are not completely accurate or if you have your
facts wrong. Or if you don't interpret that person the way the family
"remembers." So and so may have been a complete habitual drunkard sob in
real life according to abundant primary records, but... the descendants may
not be aware of that and may have a vision of great-grandpa as a kindly old
god-fearing, church-going tea-totaller who was also the first to lend a hand
to a neighbor in need. Don't think that doesn't happen.
Composite characters eliminate that problem to a great degree. By combining
the attributes of a number of people, or even of a whole community into one
generic person, you create a character who is authentic to the time and
place you're interpreting, but who never actually existed. In a sense, a
composite character can represent the best or worst aspects of a community
and you don't have to worry about stepping on people's ancestral toes.

In either case, the goal is to educate by getting the audience to understand
the period or event better by having the information imparted to them from
the perspective of someone who was there. It's a lot of work. There will be
a lot of information to learn that needs to be selectively unlearned
depending on the character's level of education, literacy, travels, family,
etc. You want the audience to learn by empathy.
Real, quality first person is not easy to do and should be approached
lightly. But it can be highly rewarding.


Scott D. Peters
Research Director/Archivist
Ocean County Historical Society
26 Hadley Ave., P.O. Box 2191
Toms River, NJ 08754-2191
(732) 341-1880
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]

"Telling the Stories of Ocean County"

Historically Speaking
ALHFAM -FPIPN (First Person Interpreters' Professional Network)
vice-chair for trivia, errata and miscellany
[log in to unmask]

"The ordinary distinctions in society are often vague, and imply no just
pre-eminence: rank and titles are
adventitious things and instead of designating merit or virtue, are
frequently the baubles of imbecility, or
the sparkling decorations of meretricious pageantry"

William Griffith, on behalf, and by order of the New-Jersey Society for
promoting the gradual Abolition
of Slavery, Twelfth Month (December) 20th, 1803

=========================================================
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).