|
|
Post by armando on Aug 8, 2020 3:40:50 GMT -7
To help focus my research I know it is imperative to have a narrowed time period and geographical region.
Is the usual process to choose an actual historical person that you try to emulate or does one "create" a persona from the narrowed time range and research what that fictional person's material culture would be like to recreate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Aug 8, 2020 12:26:19 GMT -7
You could do it both ways. I feel a generic persona would be an easier way to go, as it allows you flexibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Aug 8, 2020 14:30:05 GMT -7
I agree, generic is easier, more flexible. I have ancestors who lived and died in the period and I know some real world facts about them, so I incorporated selected portions of that history in my backstory, but did not set out to emulate a specific person. Real dates, real geographic area, actual historic events, but mapped onto a fictional character worked best for me. I was already old when I began my impression, so I felt it necessary to massage the story to fit an old man in the actual historic situation.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Sept 16, 2020 0:36:05 GMT -7
Hi Armando,
Personally and for the most part I prefer NOT to emulate a specific historic person, because especially at living histories or in front of the public, sure as heck there is someone who knows more or something different about your character and it gets embarrassing when doing first person. Now of course if the historic person is an ancestor and if you wish to do so, then by all means!
However, what I try to do is incorporate as much as my own personal character, skills, experiences, background, etc. into my historic persona as possible and that makes it more interesting and fun.
I always like to begin with where I was born and though the exact date may not be known, especially if from a frontier birth place. In different persona's, I've mentioned I was "around" my real age as our family bible was burnt in a fire and there was no other documentation. I try to come up with a birthplace, though it may only be county or a distance from a village, town, settlement, etc.
Next, I come up with background to explain how I came to the place that I'm currently at and life experiences prior to that point. One thing I make a point to do is explain where I got the skills I have, either trade skills or other skills. For example, when I'm doing a military Artificer impression, I usually explain either I ran away from a gunsmith apprenticeship as my master was so severe or explain that there wasn't enough customers where I came from to support myself. That or I left after finishing my apprenticeship, but wanted more adventure elsewhere. Sometimes in a civilian persona, I mentioned I served in the Marine Corps for a while, when that is a believable possibility and of course I know enough about the Corps in different time periods, that I can carry that off.
One thing that really gets to me is many folks don't seem to have a trade for their persona. If possible, I always suggest one take their own modern trade/job and find a comparable period trade. That can add a whole new interesting possibility for the period. Since I work with leather as a serious hobby, I have studied that trade in the period and I sometimes say I was apprenticed to a period leather worker, though I stay away from the trades of Cordwainer and Cobbler, since i don't work on shoes or boots.
A very common generic trade in our period was was "Farming." However, I have always stayed away from that as I'm not a farmer and would have a hard time doing that impression, even though I worked part time on farms while growing up. I think a far better generic trade would be "laborer," if one can't come up with another period trade. That would also explain some knowledge of some trades, but not a complete knowledge.
If married and especially if your wife joins in, a fun thing you and your Lady can do is come up with an explanation of how and where you met. When I was actually divorced, I usually explained my wife died in child birth, because divorce was so rare during the period. One could also say one ran away from a nagging wife or left her and the kids back in a more settled area.
Making a more fully developed persona sort of forces one into more research than one might otherwise do and personally I've found that very interesting and rewarding.
Gus
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Sept 20, 2020 7:39:01 GMT -7
Most simple and accurate way to go about it is to choose an actual historical figure that has enough extant primary source documentation to support. The problem with coming up with a "generic" fictitious character is that everything is basically conjecture. In my mind you're going to have to actually find enough research on actual figures from within a chosen context to extrapolate common threads with which you spin your "generic" character. You have to invent and keep track of your set of facts about this character consistently. By the time you go to all that effort, why not just stick with one of those actual guys?
In front of the public, would it not be easier to portray generic AS generic? Instead of going to the 1st person trouble of Phil McCracken: fictitious Virginia militia dude that has a bunch of backstory minutia; why not just say "I'm an example of your Mk1Mod0 Virginia militia member of 76-78"? Trust me, you're not going to have people's attention long enough to get into Phil McCracken's long lost aunt Sally that got ate by a bear and caused Phil to wage everlasting jihad unto the black bear population of eastern Kentucky. It's not going to happen. You get roughly 3 minutes max with engaged public at events, maybe 5 if you're lucky enough to get a really interested family.
There are a multitude of understudied and underrepresented historical figures that actually existed and have phenomenal stories to tell that should be told. It's very straightforward to simply do the research, put together an outfit as best as you can, and go for it. You're not going to run into the dude that wrote the book on that guy, and if you do, they're only going to want to help you.
I love first person because it's engaging and very challenging, but if I saw that attention-to-detail generic dude that could really articulate why and how he was generic in 3rd person, I'd be very impressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Sept 20, 2020 11:41:25 GMT -7
I would agree with some of what ewoaf says if I were 1) doing 1st person, or 2) presenting to the public. Neither of those aspects have ever been of interest to me, so my quasi-generic solo take works very well for me.The purpose of incorporating actual documentation about my ancestors into my backstory is only to set a window of time to help keep my equipment and activities reasonably period correct.
I use the hobby to study early American history, and it's mostly done for myself. I've never felt the urge or the ability to educate the public. My goals are first to learn what I can about the early history of the country and second to experience a small bit of life at that time for myself.
The way I've chosen to approach the game allows me complete freedom to be as HC/PC as I choose, or as little. I sometimes go full primitive, but many times I mix some primitive aspect with the modern. You can frequently find me dressed modern but carrying my shot pouch, powder horn and gun and using them in the proper historic way. That works for me because I'm the only audience, the only one whose opinion matters.
One of the best things about the hobby is that everyone is free to choose how much or how little of the Kool-Aid he drinks.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Sept 20, 2020 17:27:20 GMT -7
I would agree with some of what ewoaf says if I were 1) doing 1st person, or 2) presenting to the public. Neither of those aspects have ever been of interest to me, so my quasi-generic solo take works very well for me.The purpose of incorporating actual documentation about my ancestors into my backstory is only to set a window of time to help keep my equipment and activities reasonably period correct. I use the hobby to study early American history, and it's mostly done for myself. I've never felt the urge or the ability to educate the public. My goals are first to learn what I can about the early history of the country and second to experience a small bit of life at that time for myself. The way I've chosen to approach the game allows me complete freedom to be as HC/PC as I choose, or as little. I sometimes go full primitive, but many times I mix some primitive aspect with the modern. You can frequently find me dressed modern but carrying my shot pouch, powder horn and gun and using them in the proper historic way. That works for me because I'm the only audience, the only one whose opinion matters. One of the best things about the hobby is that everyone is free to choose how much or how little of the Kool-Aid he drinks. Spence This is very well said. There are many reasons why I've personally chosen to forgo public events but everything mentioned here is exactly why I go Han solo all myself. Case in point, tomorrow I'll awake and hit the forest for a day's hunting in modern attire but period accouterments on person. Why? I'm my own audience. Being able to tickle your fancy if you will when you choose is a nice feature of the hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Oct 12, 2020 8:15:47 GMT -7
Most simple and accurate way to go about it is to choose an actual historical figure that has enough extant primary source documentation to support. The problem with coming up with a "generic" fictitious character is that everything is basically conjecture. In my mind you're going to have to actually find enough research on actual figures from within a chosen context to extrapolate common threads with which you spin your "generic" character. You have to invent and keep track of your set of facts about this character consistently. By the time you go to all that effort, why not just stick with one of those actual guys? In front of the public, would it not be easier to portray generic AS generic? Instead of going to the 1st person trouble of Phil McCracken: fictitious Virginia militia dude that has a bunch of backstory minutia; why not just say "I'm an example of your Mk1Mod0 Virginia militia member of 76-78"? Trust me, you're not going to have people's attention long enough to get into Phil McCracken's long lost aunt Sally that got ate by a bear and caused Phil to wage everlasting jihad unto the black bear population of eastern Kentucky. It's not going to happen. You get roughly 3 minutes max with engaged public at events, maybe 5 if you're lucky enough to get a really interested family. There are a multitude of understudied and underrepresented historical figures that actually existed and have phenomenal stories to tell that should be told. It's very straightforward to simply do the research, put together an outfit as best as you can, and go for it. You're not going to run into the dude that wrote the book on that guy, and if you do, they're only going to want to help you. I love first person because it's engaging and very challenging, but if I saw that attention-to-detail generic dude that could really articulate why and how he was generic in 3rd person, I'd be very impressed. I see nothing wrong with a 2 to 3 minute presentation of a generic nature. Heck, for some reenactors, they would not feel comfortable talking that long. I've also known some very knowledgeable people who don't want to do living history talks to the public at all.
As one who has done many living histories at historic sites all over Virginia and other places in different time periods since the late 1970's, I agree some tourists won't listen for a minute or two, but many will listen much longer than that, IF the person doing the living history is knowledgeable and engaging. Of course, most of my living history experience has been of military nature in different time periods and I've always tailored my talks to the "audience" I had at the moment. If many of the tourists were children, I would tailor it to them and their parents. I would tailor it differently to adults and still more to senior citizens. Living history is a show, so the better the show, the more interest and information it provides to tourists. Personally, I have no problem with incorporating as much of my life experience as possible into my persona, because that's a whole lot easier to remember than information on someone I've never met and only read about. I do most of that for me, not for the crowd and it has led me to research all kinds of areas I might otherwise not think about. It also makes my persona more interesting when I do living histories. Gus P.S. I've even done "living history" at times when I was a tourist. One time I took some friends to see the 18th century Hugh Mercer Apothecary Shop in Fredericksburg, VA. The Lady Volunteers do an excellent job giving a tour and information AND they do their best to get the tourists engaged. So they would pick out different tourists at different times in their tour. At one point, the Lady looked at me and since I looked to be military age, she asked if I had been inoculated for Small Pox there? I replied, "Aye Mum, I was scraped when our ship's detachment of Marines were transferred to George Washington's Army." That actually surprised her and threw her off a bit, but she went on with the tour. Then she began describing how inoculations were done in the period and came to the point where she said some troops had their skin scraped so dead pox could be placed on it in a sort of poultice. Then she stopped short, looked at me and said, "Oh, now I see what you meant." I grinned and winked, but said nothing. |
|
