I've used both first person (when doing presentations or vignettes) and second (usually when I'm going to have to deal with questions from the public - it's too hard dealing with things that are way outside your persona's experience and still give the public a satisfying answer to all their questions).

I've seen various ways to combine the two (eg the interpreters at the Royal Armouries start second person an give you brief background to the interpretation, do the interpretation itself in first person, then switch to second to take questions), and I think a lot of people use various mixes of the two, not always with such a clear switch between them.

We're trying an idea at the moment where all characters stay in first person, but we have a narrator/translator/whatever who can explain things the characters can't - very useful if you have to do an interpretation where strong political views or very different cultural norms are involved.

For me it is second person at the moment. I can and have done first person, but in our current venue, it is easier to do second person to address an audience. I also am rsearching aspects of my "persona's" background and won't feel comfortable in a first person impression until I have some the finer points of daily life, job description, and forms of address and manners nailed down.

Bob (Chef) and I were talking about this the other day. If you are going to go for a "prolonged" 1st person, are you going to practice it amongst yourselves first or for the public? Would you be doing this for a couple of hours a day on a weekend, or would you be going on a camping trip and trying to recreate the time for yourselves?

We only do "first person" stuff for short bursts when actually talking to the public or during presentations, which means we can hold it more easily - we can happily talk about the muppets or how the show is going while "off-camera" and out of earshot.

I've actually got to do a "first person" in another period pretty soon (Spainish Civil War), as an actual real individual, and that's one of the things that started me on this thread.

I'm having to read through all the letters he sent back and so forth - most of it'll never be used, but better that than risk getting caught out on something I should have "known", especially as the audience come from the same town as the subject and it's only 60 years in the past.

We are definitely going to go for a narrator for that one - we've only got one segment, and the persona I'm doing can't give a properly balanced view, so the narrator can both do that and tell the audience what eventually happens to my character (promoted twice after the period of the portrayal, before finally being KIA in 1938)

it really is the hardest thing we do. Most of us are doing this becuase we dig the research and process, and when surrounded by like minded folks we want to share the latest books, tools, trips, etc.

We've found that if we dont even bother on Friday night (most of us stay in modern clothes even) we can get a lot of it out of our system before sunrise on Saturday when we're on until effectively dawn or packout on Sunday.

We have periodic tavern nights where everyone is supposed to learn a story or song, and we often have activities in camp to chat about as well. Of course gossip is always good .

when you HAVE to have a modern conversation we take it outside the boundries of camp or into private tents.

seems to work pretty good for us, though we really need to get much better....

YMMV of course
--AM

--------------------

In large part it depends on what you are trying to do. Living History has used first person impression as a tool for several decades now. Most interpretors at places like Plimoth, etc, are grad students researching a particular subject, and the impression is a vehicle for two things - a focus, or a result of research (usually a bit of both), and a means of personalising the past to the public. The latter is the primary purpose of the impression, helping to 'bring the past to life' as a tool of education for the interested.

To a large part, some US groups have been influenced by "The Red Company". I know I use the sole event I have participated in with them (to date - more to follow) as a ruler to measure what a good or ideal event should consist of.

Groups like Red Company and La Maisine have grown out of the SCA, by founders interested in actual history rather than the SCA subculture. This to a degree affects how their events are organised. Red Company strives for "total immersion", for the benefit of the actual participants, and incidentaly for any public who may happen to be there. The break is from first person to second person to interpret to the public. The focus of research is for the benefit of those doing the research, to expand their knowledge and for pleasure. I should point out that most of the East Coast groups have sprung from Markland, a similar orginisation to the SCA. Wolfe Argent is fairly unique in that I am a reenactor, and have never belonged to either Medievalist group. My expectations and experiances derive solely from main-stream reenactment, although at this point half of our membership has been in or still belongs to the SCA.

For those of us in the US doing this, this is our hobby. Even though Wolfe Argent works closely with the Higgins Museum, we recieve no renumeration for our efforts. If the game becomes unpleasurable, then we seek new hobbies. To a large extent then, the first person impressions are for our own benefit rather than for the Public benefit - even though they can be a useful tool. For those at Plimoth and Jamestown, it is a job, and a vehicle for furthering their formal education.

I should think a first person impression of the Spanish Civil War would be very difficult. There are living survivors, and the events are still within living memory. It would be very easy for an impression to 'ring false'. On the other hand, documentation and equipment abounds in comparison to earlier eras.

--------------------

To answer your original question, it is a terribly awkward thing to present. I like the way "White Company" handles things, with a narrarator for the action going on designated, but with participants trying to maintain first person if questioned by the public seperatly.

--------------------

On the other hand, I've talked to all three of them several times as part of the research for the role, and they've been very supportive and been able to provide an awful lot of documentation, including almost all the letters written by the person I'm portraying.

We've also got the professional historian who (literally) wrote the book on the unit this person was a member of as part of the team, and he'll be around on the day in case I run into anything I can't handle information-wise.

The whole thing came about because I'm one of half-a-dozen people who have been doing interpretations for our local museum at special events - usually medieval, maybe one or two a year.

This time, they specifically wanted a special event covering the SCW - our local area provided a number of volunteers for the International Brigades, and they are planning a special exhibition about it.

We hemmed and hawed a bit, but eventually said we'd give it a go, subject to being able to come up with something everyone involved (including the veterans) was happy with.

So far, it's looking good, but it has to be one of the most nerve-wracking performances I've done....even more so than jousting, or fire eating as a medieval jester!

About a year ago I came up with the idea of doing 1st person interpretation with a bit of a twist. Instead of behaving as though we are in the 15th C, we interact with people as though we normally live in the 15th C. but are “visiting” the 21st. C. We’re aware of what modern things are and acknowledge that things are different “back home”.

For example, I’m at a school doing a cooking demo. I’m talking about what we eat “back home”, and invariably one of the kids says “where do you live?” So I say “Bruges”. Most kids have no idea where Bruges is, so they counter with “Where is that? Near LA?” so I say “No, actually it’s in Burgundy”. This generally elicits the same sort of response so I continue “You don’t know Burgundy? Burgundy is a fine civilized country, not like England, that Godless backwater! In Bruges we have fine houses, fine food and strong guilds.” etc, etc. etc. So now we can compare what life is like “back home” with “here”.

I love this approach, and have gotten very adept at working the conversation to compare “home” with “here”. Kids are very accustomed to visiting other places, and are well versed in the fact that what happens on vacation is not what happens at home, so the fact that I am “visiting” makes all the sense in the world to them. Since there is absolutely nothing modern in our presentation they're willing to believe me, and I don’t have to explain away anything; I just tell them I brought everything from “home” and they can't disagree by pointing to a plastic fork. I have very little trouble with avoiding the logistics of how I got from “there” to “here” -- I can usually manage with “Oh it’s a long trip and I HATE traveling. I’d rather not talk about it. It’s so uncomfortable, crammed in with all these people you hardly know and the bad roads and the dust, and you can’t even get a cup of water to drink-- Oh traveling is dreadful!” Usually that’s enough and I can redirect their attention to something else, like the meatballs in the pan or the bellows.

The beauty of this approach is that I can compare “there” and “here”, which is a lot more valuable (and interesting) than playing dumb about the present. Kids can ask me if I like pizza, and instead of having to play stupid I can say “No, we don’t have pizza back home but I like it very much when I come here. Having it here is one of the things that makes the trip worthwhile! That and that fizzy drink you call “PEPSI” It makes my nose tingle- we don’t have anything at all like that back in Bruges! But I have to say that I don’t like that food you call “McDonalds” YUK! How can you eat food that comes from a small box like that! It’s not natural- it doesn’t taste like anything. I’d much prefer a nice pie or a cold slice of meat than that!”

This approach works great with adults too. They catch on immediately and I’ve yet to find an adult who won’t “play along” because I can compare “here” with “there”, I can start conversations using what I see around me- “Madame, this *is* a strange place! All the women walk around with uncovered heads like common women, and they wear hosen like men, and --expose their legs!!-- this is uncommon strange, I must tell you!”, or “Tell me mistress-- is that pendant from a shrine? I went on pilgrimage myself once you know”.

All in all, most of us have found this to be an eminently workable (and fun!) way to deal with interpretation issues. It is my understanding that some other groups have also taken up this approach, and that it is working equally well for them.

--------------------

I hate it when some nice lady who's interested in something we're doing wants real answers on where to find supplies and contacts and I'm not "allowed" to help her out.

the traditional first person answer of "oh ,we get our leather from the tanner" doesnt really help her find MacPhereson Leather in the International District of Seattle....

--AM

--------------------

So my answer would be "Back home the cordwainer gets his leather from the tanner (because as a cuisinier you're not making shoes, right?), but I understand from my friends here that they get leather from a place called 'MacPhereson Leather in the International District of Seattle'."

So you've given the nice lady 3 pieces of information in your answer:

1) Who makes shoesin the 15th C. (leading to further discussion of guilds)
2) Where that person gets their leather in the 15th C.
3) Where the nice lady can get leather in Seattle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
We’re aware of what modern things are and acknowledge that things are different “back home”.

---

That's great!

I did something similar when I was running the kitchen for Clan MacColin at Southern Faire. One day, we got some whole wheat flour and put it in a big bowl. As the public went by gawking, we asked them if they knew how to use this wheaten flour. "Back home we have oats, but this was all the English merchant had to sell us. How do you cook with it? It seems to absorb an awful lot of water!"

Many people didn't really say much more than a few mumbled comments, but one lady really caught on, and we had a great conversation! She told us about kneading and yeast and all that! Great fun!

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
\
So my answer would be "Back home the cordwainer gets his leather from the tanner (because as a cuisinier you're not making shoes, right?), but I understand from my friends here that they get leather from a place called 'MacPhereson Leather in the International District of Seattle'."
\

---

actually in our camp, cooks are a dime a dozen so I'm usually asked to do something else. I pretend to be a cordwainer sometimes. I've also been a pewterers assistant and a chape maker .

-AM

--------------------

I can see how you handle questions about your character's "now" (1473) and your real "now" (2001), but what about anything between those?

For example, what happens if somebody asks "OK, from your account, Burgundy is really powerful in your time, what happens so that it isn't a powerful nation today?"

Do you drop into second person to explain, smile and say that you can't see into the future, but you are sure there are books which will give an account of it in the questioner's world, or what?

I don't know how it is in England, but Americans as a lot are abysmally ignorant of history in general and equally ignorant of geography. I've not yet had anyone ask me to comment on what happened to Burgundy after 1471, or say "Did you know Charles the Bold gets killed in 1477 at the Battle of Nancy and Burgundy ceases to exist as a separate entity" ot tell me "Wait until you see what happens to Richard of Glouchester pretty soon- oh boy does he buy it in a big way!"

Not having had to do so yet I'm speculating about my response, but if the comment was made just to trip me up I think I would probably give a vague, noncommittal response like I do for the "how did you get here?" query. If someone really wanted to talk about history, I might let them tell *me* what happens "in the future". I suspect that the latter approach would be better, as few people understand the period enough to want to instruct on it.

Thankfully, most people are interested in the activities at hand rather than trying to trip us up with trick questions. As I say, adults quickly understand what's going on and play along. A fact in our favor is that they don't come into the camp unless they want to see what's going on, so they are already predisposed to play along. My experience is that they ask lots of general questions about how we got there, social questions about life in the 15th C., specific questions about the gear in front of them, etc. In my case, they want to know what I'm cooking, how I got it, how difficult it is to cook it, what kind of things do we eat, etc. They are more interested in the here and now and what's in front of them than abstract questions about 'the future".

Truthfully, we have been doing Red Company at this level for 4 years though dozens of situations and I can't think of a single member of the public who really knew anything about the period or the scenario. I've thought about what to say if I were to run into someone who does, and I'm inclined to go with either of the two responses described above as circumstances dictate.

Gwen

Give them a horrified look about being able to divine the future and tell them that His Grace is alive and well as is his Grace the duke of Gloucester.

That's certainly a way to handle it with a bit of humor!

Wasn't suggesting that people would be trying to trip you up, just that - since from the PoV of your character Burgundy is the coming world power and you'll presumably present it that way - I'd just have thought the first question anyone'd ask is "If Burgundy is so powerful, why haven't I heard of it?"

I'm lucky in my main period, because practically everybody knows William is going to win at Hastings. I have had people ask me who wins the Wars of the Roses, though - I don't know if they would if I was doing first person. Might be interesting to find out.

I think we should be talking about the various benefits of first vs. third person interpretation.

Second person interpretation might be bossy! "You should do such-and-such in the 15th century."

More seriously, I think we probably actually need to talk about tense, as well as person - present tense interpretation "This is how I do so-and-so" as opposed to past tense "This is how they would have done XYZ"

It is much easier for me to deal with "here" and "there" than "then" and "now".

"Here / there" allows me to refer to anything I do in the present tense:

"When I need bread back home, I'll make the dough and take it to the baker to bake in his oven; you don't seem to have that option here."

"Then / now" requires a different approach-

"In the 15th C. not everyone had an oven, so sometimes people would make their bread dough at home, then bring it to the baker for baking. Nowadays, you can buy bread at any market so readily that home bread baking is obsolete."

Neil, I also wanted to mention that unlike her modern counterpart [Gwen], Ginevra doesn't really think "globally"; she just knows that home is Bruges, which is a rocking, modern city. The nonsense of 1471 is an inconvenience that drags her away from her beloved city. She'll agree that some of what's she's heard about the key players is pretty fascinating, and she certainly remembers Charles and Margaret's wedding (who wouldn't?) but beyond that, it's all just politics and of little interest to her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
Ginevra doesn't really think "globally"; she just knows that home is Bruges, which is a rocking, modern city. The nonsense of 1471 is an inconvenience that drags her away from her beloved city. She'll agree that some of what's she's heard about the key players is pretty fascinating, and she certainly remembers Charles and Margaret's wedding (who wouldn't?) but beyond that, it's all just politics and of little interest to her.

Gwen

---

It is my considered opinion that most medieval people would not have known the intricacies of the politics of their time and place anymore than most modern people (and maybe even less so).

as Modern AM, I know how my king/president is, and i may know a few very visible dignitaries. Do I know who the current leader of Ruwanda is? nope. I know its an unhappy place. Heck, do I even know who the king/president of France is? nope, but Imight recognise the name if you mentioned it, or be able to pick itout of a list.

I know who my pope is. I know my local dignitaries. I know something about current literature, and I know the big names in my chosen trade.

Can I tell you all about the history of some war that happened even in mylifetime, like the Gulf war? not really. Can I tell you about the intricacies of some war that happened some other place in my life time? not really.

For me, medieval AM would know the same things as modern AM, as we're both fairly literate and aware people, but politics are a distant rumble, and the close at home is much more important to us.

just one gals mindset....

--AM

--------------------