First exposure to reenacting, or, the Battle of the Raccoons

A raccoon with a killer eye, preparing to attack Mrs. Flattery

As mentioned in a previous post, I’m still relatively new to first-person interpretation. My experience so far spans less than a year, although since it was a regular part of my previous job (at some points I was in first-person 3 or 4 times a week) I round it out to a full year. Recently Mrs. Flattery convinced me to participate at some Civil War reenactments, which I had never tried before, and after experiencing two different events I thought I would share my outsider’s opinion on it. I prefer not to bad mouth any of the locations or any of the specific people that were there, so I’ve decided not to say where these reenactments took place. I also apologize for the lack of pictures in this post: for some reason it never dawned on me to take any while we were there.

Mrs. Flattery and I portrayed civilians at both events, which of course got me some good-natured (I hope) jokes from the soldiers at my expense. My story was that the Mrs. would not allow me to enlist this early in the war, as we had just bought a new farm and she couldn’t be left alone to manage it herself (as an aside, after planning things like that out I believe Mrs. Flattery and I actually explained that to a whopping three or four people – ah, first person really starts to make you paranoid about the questions you’ll get). We had our own fairly large wall tent and Mrs. Flattery made historic meals with the help of a friend who joined us at the reenactments.

Not our wall tent, but a similar one (image from http://www.pantherprimitives.com/military.html)

First, I’ll start with the cons that I noticed. If it seems like I focus more on the downsides in this post, it’s because I think criticisms usually require more explaining - overall, both events were very fun experiences for me. Let me also stress that these are my own personal opinions about the downsides to reenacting; in other words, I have lazy moments and there’s a lot of work involved in historical camping. The main con for me was the set up involved. Part of this problem was situational: we were only able to stay one night on the first weekend, which was a lot of set up and tear down in just 24 hours. But even during the second weekend the amount of work involved always had an air of futility about it. I’m the kind of guy who likes to finish a job and have the peace of mind that it is done and over with, so even after we got the tent set up the tearing down stayed on my mind the rest of the weekend. It kind of had that old high school “Sunday isn’t really a day off when you have to go back to school Monday” feel to it.

A few of the people there made the experience a little less fun as well. One man came storming through our area about 5 minutes after we finished setting up the tent and started asking everyone nearby what group they were with. He then announced that we were all in the spot that his unit “always camped in” and stormed off (I don’t know which he was implying: either that he thinks so highly of himself that everyone should have known ahead of time where he planned to set up, or that we all should have packed up and moved 50 feet away for him. Either way he’s an idiot.) On the other extreme, some people obviously just did not care that much, especially about historical accuracy, which kind of makes the event as a whole look slightly worse (apparently both events were known as being slightly farby). Overall though, most people there were pleasant and tolerably dressed and I tried not to let one or two bad apples ruin the experience for me. And to me, that’s the important thing: reenactments are supposed to be informative and fun. The “battles” themselves were largely unimpressive, which may have been the fault of the locations or the type of reenactors there, but the reason this was an issue for me was because any public that had a budding interest in the Civil War or reenacting itself probably left with a stale outlook on that moment in history or the hobby. And I was not alone in my opinion, as I heard a number of spectators make similar comments to each other about how the reenactors didn’t seem to care or even enjoy it all that much. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, though, as the location of the “battles” may not have been ideal and the weather on some of the days was pretty rough.

The locations weren’t necessarily bad, however we did run into an incident with raccoons at one of the events which Mrs. Flattery dubbed “the Battle of the Raccoons”. On the second weekend we were camped at a spot next to fairly thick woods, and after getting the tent set up we went to get food (we didn’t cook Friday night since it was hard enough just getting things situated). When we got back, Mrs. Flattery noticed a raccoon was digging around our tent. After I chased it off I discovered that it had pulled my bag out from the side of the tent, somehow figured out how the zipper worked and unzipped it, and began rummaging around. Other reenactors nearby had similar problems. A whole bag of peanuts and saltine crackers were the casualties in this blitzkrieg, and the next two nights we built “Fort Flattery” by piling up boxes and firewood around the perimeter of the tent.

Two last gripes: the drives to and from were difficult and the firewood was crap. But now for the upsides and things that I enjoyed, which in the grand scheme of things outweighed the downsides for me.

As I stated earlier, most of the reenactors were friendly enough and it was a blast being around so many people with similar interests. There were also a wide range of portrayals there, from infantry and artillery to civilians and even “prostitutes”, and it was nice seeing a variety. The camping was pretty fun, and Mrs. Flattery made a mean breakfast and lunch – she hardly took a break the entire time. And I have to admit that even the setting up was fun in a way, especially when you saw the camp site start to take shape. There were a lot of knowledgeable people there, and I was particularly impressed by the talent of two guys who played a fife and drum remarkably well. Lastly, both weekends had relaxed atmospheres which was a big relief for me considering this was my first exposure. Some might have complained that they were too relaxed, but for me it was acceptable.

Anyway, there were a number of minor downsides, but overall it was a fun and enjoyable experience. The downsides (with emphasis on the cost involved) were enough to prevent me from reenacting every weekend, but I plan to attend more in the future and maybe even try my hand at “fighting” (that is, if the Mrs. lets me).

A Mess of Things

Someone please hit me over the head and put me out of my misery.  My thoughts are spinning 'round and 'round, swirling in a vortex filled with floor cloths, dress designs, domestic manuals, oil lamps, stone churches and chickens.  Yes, chickens.

Mr. Flattery and I are in the midst of planning out our new first person characters for this upcoming summer season at The Museum.  We will be working in the house I have called "my" house for the past year and a half, but this will be the first time we are officially together.  Heck, this will be the first time I have been officially placed with anyone, our staffing doesn't normally allow more than one person per site, but this year my house is getting re-vamped to better represent a working farm and thank God and all that is holy, someone in management actually realized that there is no way one person could manage all there is to do alone.

The museum has been portraying "The Years", meaning an 1861-1865 cycle.  I came in at the end of  '64, Mr. Flattery at the end of '65.  Now we have cycled back to '61 to coincide with the 150th anniversary of the Civil War and will get to experience things from the start.  A fresh start and a new farm project, I have a feeling we have our work cut out for us.

I have the tendency to go overboard in my planning for anything and everything, and creating a new character is no exception.  There is so much to think about, I've always said doing first person requires you to have a lifetime of memories to draw from that don't actually exist, and one must be able to do so at a moment's notice.  For us our personas will develop during the summer months and will culminate in the fall with the "Supper Season".

The museum hosts historical dinners set in different eras, one of which takes place in my (sorry Mr.Flattery, OUR) house.  They last about 3 hours during which you are in character constantly.  You had better have a lot to talk about or it's going to be a loooong night.  It's not a one-shot deal either, for each era there are around 6 different dates visitors can choose from to attend, so we can be doing this 3 hour-dinner upwards of 6 times.  Again, very important to have plenty of conversation material.

If you have seen the cheerleading movie "Bring it On" you may remember the head cheerleader Torrance (played by Kirsten Dunst) saying that for their squad, cheering at a football game is more like a practice.  What they are really preparing for is the big cheerleading championship they win every year.  That's how I feel about this year- the summer season is really a long drawn-out rehearsal for the Suppers.  We lost several of our experienced first-person staff recently and I'm feeling the pressure to be in the lead for the new people.  Is it hot in here?  I feel a slight panic attack coming on.

I do sincerely apologize if my this post is not very eloquent or even making any sense, but as I said my mind is a swirling vortex.  As I am writing I keep thinking about how I want to do more research on painted wood floors.  By the way,thank God for my iPhone.  Whenever one of these research attacks hits me and it feels like I want to know the answer RIGHT NOW I can always pull out my iPhone and Google it.  Ahhhh, Google. I have a feeling Mr. Flattery is going to have to sedate me on a regular basis to prevent first-person-persona-planning overload. I have even begun to have conversations in character in my head.  Is it possible for my new character to develop into a multiple-personality disorder?  Again, someone please knock me out!

This One's For You Nell!

I'm just popping in for a moment to post this video I came across years ago for you all to enjoy.  Many of you may have already seen it, it became rather popular among those within the living history/reenacting community.  If you haven't seen it, watch it, it's hilarious.  If you have already seen it, watch it again, you know you want to.  It's that good.

LNwCOB - 1864 Baseball
Uploaded by ccob. - Check out other Film & TV videos.

Personally, I am always distracted by the ladies' costuming and the reaction of the girl in the pink dress trying to do first person despite Conan's derailing, but I can watch this over and over.

Introduction/A Newbie's Thoughts on First-Person Historical Interpretation

I should begin by stating that I am still completely new to the first-person style of history, especially compared to those who have been doing this their entire lives. I have probably amassed something like a month's worth of reenacting experience my entire life, so it's needless to say I am no expert at it (and I still don't consider myself a reenactor - at least not with only a month's worth of experience). However I thought it would be interesting now that I at least have my feet wet to contrast my thoughts on history and historical interpretation today with how I felt about the subject at around the time I graduated college in 2009.

I started off wanting nothing to do with first-person history or reenacting. In fact, when I applied for my job at the living history museum I basically told my boss that at the interview. I went into college hoping to eventually become a professor or perhaps a museum historian. I focused on the American Civil War, although at the undergraduate level your "focus" usually means the difference of two or three classes. Throughout my years at Ohio University I heard numerous sarcastic remarks from professors and students about the idea of "playing history", and I more or less agreed (my apologies to anyone who is offended, but even today I find the number of people who push themselves too hard and get heat stroke at reenactments a little over the top). Without getting into too much detail, the prevailing attitude I witnessed at college seemed to be that serious historians go to grad school and eventually become professors or go into research of some sort. Not all the professors thought this, but my strong impression was that most did. A very small part of me agrees with the argument even today, although my moral objections to grad school (it's a money-making scam) prevented me from pursuing that route. The reason I partially agree today is that it is incredibly hard work to get through graduate school, and I give those who are dedicated enough to pursue that route a lot of credit. They must be serious to put themselves through that. Since graduation, however, I have come to realize more and more that universities do not have a monopoly on the proper way to teach and learn history.

There have been a number of experiences that have changed my mind since leaving college. For example, I used to avoid books on the Civil War by Stephen Sears. Why? Because he did not have his Ph.D (or at least that was my impression at the time, feel free to comment if you know otherwise) and a small part of me wondered if that would somehow change the truth of what the author was saying. Then I read Controversies and Commanders, a book where Sears debunks or confirms a lot of the prevailing legends about certain generals in the Civil War using actual facts and evidence instead of generalized statements like "McClellan was a bad general because he lost" that I saw in the books of even some of the most distinguished authors (as an aside, my favorite part of the book was his defense of General Hooker. Aside part 2: McClellan was bad, I'm not arguing against that). Not bad for one of us simpletons without Ph.Ds!

My experiences volunteering and working at museums has caused the biggest change in my views on history. Most, if not all, of the employees and volunteers there have nothing more than their bachelors degree, and sometimes not even that. And yet I see way more passion about the subject than I did from many of my fellow students at OU, and in some cases they're even more passionate than the professors. Of course some of the interpreters are a little iffy about the information, but a lot of them are incredibly knowledgeable about the subject, and not just with random facts and talking points. When I was still very new at the historic village I work at, my co-writer Mrs. Flattery trained me on one of the houses I was to be in charge of interpreting. When I asked her how she knew so much about the house, I found out that much of the information came from her own reading and research on the internet (things like the misreading of "Flattery" happen to everyone, by the way). She wasn't just told what to say by the higher-ups or some employee manual. She went and found her own information beyond just the dates and bland facts about the house and was able to create an interesting interpretation that actually helps visitors see the importance of the structure and time period, instead of random talking points about the date the house was built and how many rooms there are.

This leads me to another realization I've had since graduation: it's not just about what I think is the most legitimate way to interpret and portray history, it's also about what the audience wants. I don't mean we should cater to the masses and make everything like Pirates of the Caribbean; what I mean is that people have different ways of learning history, and there is no one method that is best for all. My preferred way of learning history is to find specialized books on related topics and getting as in-depth about it as I can. It's not the only way I research or learn history, but it's how I usually approach a new topic. To other people, though, that gives them too much unnecessary detail for what they need and they get bogged down with all the various aspects of something as big as the Civil War - there are bookshelves worth of related topics. In that case, reading as many generalized books about the subject as possible may be a better route, where you get only the information that is necessary or relevant while still avoiding some two-paragraph treatment of the subject from a high school textbook. Other audiences approach history in a casual and curious way, or perhaps they learn best visually: in that case, I think reenactments or historic villages is the way to go. There are many other "audience" types out there, and each one has a different way of learning history.

Today, I'm in more of a gray area regarding historical interpretation. All methods of interpretation are legitimate so long as the facts are correct (or at least backed up with examples and evidence). I still can't really call myself a first-person interpreter, but after trying it out I realize that some people enjoy learning history that way and for that reason it is an important method.