Who Are We?

[Hawkyns]

Who are we? Are we jolly rogues like Jack Sparrow and Robert Newton's Silver or are we hard characters like Charlton Heston's Silver or Will Plunket from "Plunket and MacLeane"? Do we wnat to be liked by the people who see us or do we want to show a more accurate portrayal of the black underbelly of society? Do we need the public as an audience or is the mere portrayal for ourselves enough? In all cases, I would answer the latter.

It's a question I've asked on other 18th century boards. There seems to be a general attitude of putting our forbears on some sort of pedestal and refusing to acknowledge the reality. Pirates were jolly folk who only fought and killed when neccesary. The early colonials were all upstanding people. There were no murderers, horse thieves, highwaymen, town drunks, conmen and whores. All of this is demonstrably untrue as the slightest cracking of any history book will tell you. But when do you see this in a living history camp? When do we see the ragged, the punished, the sick, and all the other unpleasant realities of the 17th and 18th centuries?

Maybe its me with my cynical view of the world, but I've always thought that we do a disservice to the public if we call ourselves living historians and ignore the ugly while portraying only the fun?

Having lit the fuse on this granadoe, I await your opinions.

Hawkyns

[michaelsbagley]

Interesting question, and I expect that there will be quite a diversity of answers... And I look forward to them.

I tend to try to walk the line. While I acknowledge and know those we portray were often the worst types, displaying such activity (even in mock emulation), crosses lines modern "Disney-ized" society is uncomfortable with. Particularly when touching on some of modern societies taboos. I also try to pander to the level of the audience. I'm more likely to play the jolly rogue to a 5 or 6 year old, but when talking or interacting with an adult, not pull the punches and try and give a greater hint as to what pirates really were.

One of the areas I try most to avoid, is the gentleman pirate thing. While there are documentable instances of certain pirates/privateers/sailors that dressed to the nines, I think those were only noted because they stood out and were more the exception than the rule. While the ratio of common sailors/pirates to well dressed ones has improved in recent years, I still think the ratio sucks, and will never likely get to where it should be (in my ideal world, as this is a personal opinion). There are some great examples of what I believe an average pirate should look like here on the forum.. Patrick Hand is often the fist and most shining example I can think of, but folks like Kenneth, any one of the Sea Rats Atlantic, CasketChris, Rats, Shay of the Keys, Mark G, and a host of others I think exemplify this look, and if I didn't get stuck playing the Red Coat as much as I do, the look these folks and others similar to them have, is what I aspire to with my pirate/sailor impression.

Back more to the point I think you were trying to aim for, I don't think it is possible to re-enact pirates the way it possibly should be done, so it is really a case of where one chooses to draw the line in the sand on how much to dumb it down and cushion the blow that pirates were really for the most part desperate men who were nasty criminals (without getting into Jungian versus Freudian arguments of circumstances versus upbringing type psychology).

In fact, I think a lot of "pirate re-enactors" are starting to focus more on displaying and demonstrating nautical life more than the piracy angle anyways. One could just as easily call the re-enactors that portray pirates, just sailor re-enactors.... But then that doesn't have the pop-culture appeal that gets us spectators to watch and listen to us.

[Mission]

We're as varied in nature and character as people were during period. Some are/were serious, others are/were showmen, still others are/were desperate and so on. You can't define a prototypical person in any time/location/situation. About the best you can do is draw an average - and that will ultimately be as bland and tasteless as averages have to be by definition.

[michaelsbagley]

We're as varied in nature and character as people were during period. Some are/were serious, others are/were showmen, still others are/were desperate and so on. You can't define a prototypical person in any time/location/situation. About the best you can do is draw an average - and that will ultimately be as bland and tasteless as averages have to be by definition.

I disagree here. And using a modern example, I will try to make my point.

Picture a construction worker in your head.

Is that construction worker wearing an Armani Suit? Or jeans and a t-shirt, with maybe a flannel shirt over the t-shirt if it is cooler out, or tied around his or her waist?

Is the jean and t-shirt wearing image of a construction worker typical? If you went to a construction site, would a vast majority of the construction workers there fit that image? I think so. Sure the odd one might be wearing heavy duty cotton pants instead of denim jeans, and sure some will choose heavy duty collared shirts over t-shirt and/or flannel, but there is a very distinctive and generalized look to construction workers, and it is not a stereo-type, it is a mostly true image (yes there are always exceptions, but I am talking about predominantly true images).

How does this apply? 300 years ago, being a sailor was a job. Certain clothing was best suited for that job. Pirates are nothing more than sailors that turned to crime for whatever reason or circumstance. Sure there was some variety in sailor clothing from 300 years ago, but it was a fairly common look, with common variants just like the modern construction worker. Sure there were deviations then as there is now, but they would be few and far between... And for the most part (this is my opinion), re-enacting should be about portraying what life was like (commonly), not portraying all the exceptions and rarities. Sure some variety is required to keep the public's attention, but more fancily dressed folks than in common work clothing is as misleading about the life of a sailor as would be someone wearing an Armani suit three hundred years from now to portray a typical construction worker of the late 20th and early 21st century. Sure construction workers may own Armani suits, and would wear them out to formal dinners, weddings, etc. But how often does that really happen, and again, is it being as true to the portrayal as you can be to pander to these rare occasions?

Now Mission, you as a surgeon/doctor have a lot more reasonable justification for not dressing the part of a common sailor. A surgeon was not a sailor, and likely would not dress as such. And there are other similar exceptions that would exist on ship. But again, how many exceptions can really be displayed as a part of a re-enactment before it once again slides into a historical looking fantasy with few to none of the commonalities that put those exceptions into a reasonable context?

I say all this acknowledging the fact that there are not enough re-enactors to make up what I believe to be a realistic cross section (and possibly never will be), but there are more than enough out there, and especially at certain events to do a better job of it than what I typically see.

[theM.A.dDogge]

what i tend to see(staying away from numbers) is an attitude or trend...to create characters based on what the person would "like to have been"...and are simply unable to do so in their "other" life...hence the big percentage of "captains" to "dregs" in the communittee...rather than what they "would have been"

i know in our group...we strive to show the differnces of the time, rather than the sameness...class structure etc..hence the events were some are duded up and others are dirtied...instead of competting one way or the other.

personnally i Like to Blame....the people who Hired the Event

what was there reason for staring the event...was it to show true history? pub crawl? sell Jack Sparrow Figurines? or hot pirate Babes Calanders?(i own 2)

the ultimate goal of the event...will usually dictate the personas that attend...more living history? personas? skits? music? demonstartions? clothing? et cetera et cetera....

i personally wouold like to see more events.were the push would lean to the more....true history...but as for now...those events seem few and far between

till then...i will be forced wear many hats...fancy and dirty..and something in between

[Mission]

Actually, I wasn't talking about clothing, which is an area where I defer to you, Michael. I was referring to what I understood from Hawkin's question about the types of people that were pirates. Just like our forum, many types of people would have been pirates. If you talk to the assumed group of construction workers, you'd find some are hotheads, some are thoughtful, others are nice guys, still others complete jerks...etc.

As I have explained about my character when the opportunity presents itself, I would never have been a pirate if I had lived 300 years ago (in fact, I wouldn't have made it much past birth, but that's another story). So I play a character who wouldn't have normally been a pirate, but who could easily have become involved with them. Yet I would have been tried as a pirate had they been caught when I was aboard. (I would just have a better excuse than most of the other people.)

[Mission]

It's interesting that the three of us who have responded as I write this all read the question differently. Michael is talking about clothing, I am talking about personality and M.A. d'Dogge is talking about character/persona. Of course, from what I've read (and written) these are the areas of the pirate re-enacting world that seem to correspond to our interests the best.

[michaelsbagley]

It's interesting that the three of us who have responded as I write this all read the question differently. Michael is talking about clothing, I am talking about personality and M.A. d'Dogge is talking about character/persona. Of course, from what I've read (and written) these are the areas of the pirate re-enacting world that seem to correspond to our interests the best.

Great observation! :angry:

And I do agree with you on the personality part, personality types would have been widely varied (even in that what I believe to be a more socially conservative era).

And d'Dogge makes a good point, and likely the most compelling argument for the uneven distribution of persona/character types. Sometimes it is better to show variety rather than reality (like time-line events). And perhaps as he said, the events (those running them) need to define their focus more, and perhaps maybe there should be more events where the reality of the pirate world can be more accurately depicted with regards to ratios/mixes of clothing styles, persona/character types, and personality types.

[Tartan Jack]

In period, pirates were (based on what I've read) a mix of "good men" -former unemployed privateers- gone desperate (the basis of our "classic" image of the hero-pirate) and ones that would have been criminals regardless.

So, there are many that were have gone-good if they could have. These are the ones that jumped at the pardon offers in 1718.

Looking at who and who were compatriots and seemed to work more-or-less together and whose crew would swap back and forth between captains, I'm moving to the idea that there were 2 main "camps" in the 17-teens.

1) The privateer-gone-illegal included many of those in New Providence, Nassau and were only nasty when needed and didn't do too much vicious (by the standards of the day) unless pushed to no other expedient options. These are the basis of the "classic" image from fiction of decent men in desperate situation, who operated with some sense of morality and right/wrong, even if skewed by the much looser standards of the day (in contrast to the more gentile standards of today).

2) The captains and crews that had no compunctions and even a joy in cruelty. This would be the Low, Lowther, and a number that they seemed to have amicably cross paths with. They were the "classic" image of the nasty, cruel, and vicious cutthroats seen by those who were anti-pirate.

Those were at sea at the same time and both "camps" had a range and even some overlap of attitudes.

The question is what we want to portray . . .

This Pub is a real blend of pirate images from history and fiction, from the GAoP itself through modern films and fiction. As far as a I remember, all members reference the GAoP. None go to the Roman, real medieval pirates, Barbary, or Eastern Japanese (wako) and/or Chinese pirates.

I would agree that over-the-top captains outnumber crew in a highly disproportional manner.

My aim is to portray either an ordinary sailor from a middle-class background (repeatedly screwed over) and, eventually, what a typical captain of a small merchant ship like a sloop would have looks like. That is probably not that different than an ordinary seaman, just a bit nicer.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Tartan Jack

[HarborMaster]

A very interesting and worthy topic indeed ., Its about time. Thank you Hawkyns for bringing this to the inquisition. I am enjoying this one from afar. I cannot comment on this as I am not a living historian ., its simply a fun thing I do for myself in a little world I have created for myself. I know why I do what I do., but it is interesting to understand what drives others.

[Ransom]

I think one of the first things you would have to establish is, do you want the public involved or not?

If you do want the public, then I suspect you'd not get many to pay hard cash to see dirty, cussing men and women, riddled with lice, skin sores, and drunk and vomiting. I don't think they'd appreciate having their purses stolen, or their wives assaulted. People attend events to be entertained, maybe learn a bit of history, and have a turkey leg for lunch. I also suspect that few event organizers would condone such actions at their events, or get approval from the local constabulary.

If you want to portray the very dregs of the GAoP world, then you would have to do it at a private event, where the pubic would not be a witness, and where attendees knew up front that it was an "anything goes" type of thing. You might discover that there are fewer people out there wanting to play that part than you think. I would venture to guess that most re-enactors do it to escape their mundane lives, and to learn the history. Why would they want to escape to portray a character whose life was worse than their own? OderlessEye plays a scurvy, pocked character, but he does it in fun (okay, he did gross out the young girl behind the counter at the Pirate Pizza, when he asked her to attend to the boil on his forehead, but that's another story. ;=} ) Done in a joking, fun manner, you might get away with a little vulgarness, but if you played it serious, unless on private property at a private event, I think you'd have problems.

Just a side note. As for fancy dressing pirates. I learned pretty quickly that frock coats and sailing don't blend well. The sleeves get in the way, and the skirts get hung up on stuff. When I crew on the Aldebaran, the first things that come off are the coat, the hat, and the sword. On land, strut your stuff all you want. On board, it's bare minimum.

[Capt. Sterling]

Is the jean and t-shirt wearing image of a construction worker typical? If you went to a construction site, would a vast majority of the construction workers there fit that image? I think so. Sure the odd one might be wearing heavy duty cotton pants instead of denim jeans, and sure some will choose heavy duty collared shirts over t-shirt and/or flannel, but there is a very distinctive and generalized look to construction workers, and it is not a stereo-type, it is a mostly true image (yes there are always exceptions, but I am talking about predominantly true images).

See here is the rub immediately...it all boils down to perception, what we as researchers perceive when interpreting evidence.

What the audience perceives or wants to see at events...

and how well we perceive ourselves when judging ourselves..

when I drive by construction sites, on a regular basis down here in the Charlottesville area, I would say tis more half jeans and t shirts and half khakis and flannels...along with quite a few polo shirts...there is certainly not a vast majority of jeans and tshirts versus an occasional few cotton pants and collared shirts...Now up north in New York, I know it was more along the lines of what Mickey was saying...

I think it all boils down to our interpretation of the evidence we are willing to research and how much detail we are willing to bring into any portrayal...Again...listen to one person's interpretation of woolen mantuas/men's suits versus linen...one expert says wool reigns and an other says linen was all the rage especially with sea captains.

Now one expert is primarily dealing with English evidence...and another is primarily dealing with southern colonies both in American and the Caribbean evidence... two different views into clothing from the time frame...and yet some folks think they are in disagreement because they don't know the details of the conversation.

Another example, when we were at MTA we scored low for having "clean" sailors although the Captain scored high with the added comment of how well he showed the distinction between the officers and the common sailor one point being he shouldn't have looked as dirty as the others... I haven't washed my kit in over six years, the linen coat I was wearing in over two. So what constitutes clean versus dirty or new versus worn? Is my portrayal "cleaner" because you don't see the black ink stains on the black woolen breeches even though they are there along with the sealing wax I can't get out but is covered by the waistcoat? The problem being I refuse to artificially age garments as when you are done, it looks just like that...fake, no matter how good yer fuller's earth might be or how long you buried it in a hole in the backyard. Not only that but that isn't living history in my book, that's hollywood special effects. How many sailors buried their kit in the backyard before they went to sea in it?

And yet there was Dutch, from head to toe a bloody mess, no fake aging, but actual tar stains, food stains, and everything else you might get on your clothes with years of actually working in them doing period correct tasks such as working on the Luna or the Explorer. And yet his dirt didn't look right? Now it boils down to the audience's perception of what THEY think is correct....The same thing as when we specifically went as privateers to MTA and as soon as you put on the full bottom wig, everyone, including so called knowledgeable reenactors said.."Oh look pirates!"

I don't like giving the spectators what they want, in my opinion, they get too much of that already. And although I can certainly understand and respect someone's playing it in a more gentle vane for smaller kids, I actually like it better when a kid comes up and gets a look at my face and starts crying or even better yet, prompts him into asking...what happened? and then he gets a discussion on slavery from the time frame, which six times out of ten has ended with a WOW, I didn't know they had white slaves, that's cool (still trying to figure out what is cool about being a slave)...

My thing is, I have yet to attend a pyrate event where anyone stays in character long enough to truly draw it into the realm of true living history like I found in the Rev. War time frame...too many folks don't want to do the portrayals, too many have problems even pretending to follow orders from pretend officers, and too many claim to be "real Pyrates" and just want to lay around drunk ...not everyone wants to do the immersion thing, some just like to teach and demonstrate and some just like hanging out in funny clothes and have fun with friends.

Is that a bad thing? No, to each his own really. Disappointing to me, but most of the time I find myself running around taking care of things that need to be done so there hasn't been the time to even think of launching into the immersion side of it..I see sparks of it in my crewe, so the potential is there...problem being again, everyone is in it for different reasons...And since we are there at the invite of the event hosts, we really should do what they expect...fortunately they often give us a lot of free rein.

Then our perception of ourselves boils down again to personal goals,likes and dislikes, and whether we are truly accomplishing what we "think" we are...in that regard MTA was a great event to attend...it was nice being told how we are perceived by others....especially by them that "Should" know...

As to the Archangel Crewe, my perception is that we are currently a mixture of actors and historians, some wanting to entertain more than teach and some that want to teach more than entertain, and one that wants to do full immersions...

Edited March 31, 2010 by Capt. Sterling

[Capt. Sterling]

And aye, I do apologize for the above lengthy ramble that goes no where, still sewing and in desperate need of sleep....

[Hawkyns]

Interesting. I guess my focus is on the persona part of this. Roderic Hawkyns exists over 200 years. From one of Drake's gunners, to a late 16th c Border Reiver, to a Royalist captain, to a Restoration highwayman/pyrate, to a colonial privateer/smuggler/gunner, the clothes change and the story changes a bit, but the persona is still the same. A man who has no use for a settled life, a abhorance of the church and it's moral strictures, a real problem with authority, and an honour code that is his own and likely not shared by most. Hmmm, not much dif between the persona and the me. For what I do in terms of GAoP, I feel at home in the earliest years, 1670-80's. A Royalist officer who was not treated well by the Parliamentary Inquisition, nor by the return to normalcy. I've taken to the road as a highwayman, and to the sea as a smuggler and pyrate, depending on circumstances and expedience.

Over the years I've done a number of things in persona that have pissed the crowd off. Like shooting down a party under flag of truce. Or putting a minister against a tree and executing him. Singing anti Catholic songs in camp. Refusing quarter to captured enemies. Just to name a few, but all of these things I can document, and not just as isolated incidents. People tend to view history through modern spectacles, Disneyfied as someone said. The reality was that life was not as valued back then, especially in the lower echelons of society, and the concept of political correctness would make our ancestors laugh till they collapsed. But for all that, for all that our unit was known as a hard fighting crew, as black as they come and socially on the edge, we won a lot of awards and always had a camp full of spectators. So I don't accept the premise that being true to the time is going to be rejected by a modern audience. Certainly there will be some who are offended, but that's life. There is no right to not be offended.

I am definitely in the immersion camp. I don't see myself as an actor, but as someone who is trying their best to experience life as it was, as much as may be in these modern days. Discomfort is part and parcel of this, as is a willingness to be shunned by many. So be it. I do this for me, not for the public, and I can enjoy myself just as much in an empty camp as in a full one. If I start tailoring what I do to the perceptions of the site, or to the entertainment of the great unwashed, then I am neither being true to the history, nor to myself.

Hawkyns

[LadyBarbossa]

Yeah, same here, Sterling... sewing and need sleep.

::Clears throat:: Reading and replying to Hawkyns question or inquiry... I wanted to portray the many sides and aspects of piracy, progressing towards the history of it. Yeah, yeah, I'm a woman being a Captain, not all that historical, right? Well, I wasn't going to have that freedom of history and interaction with other crews and spectators as I dreamed of with my former crew, hence why I struck out on my own and why I am trying to create a crew (like we need any more, right? Plenty of them around?).

But I'm kinda with MA d'Dogge... wearing many hats. I like the Hollywood fun aspect, but I want more of the historical stuff, too. A lot I want to do, but I'm limited to what I can spend on stuff, where I can go, and what I can do. If this was an ideal world, I wouldn't have to worry about ANY of that because I'd be a real pirate! In some manner of fashion.

Hawkyns... My portrayal and persona - at current - is dictated to what event it is and who is there & willingness to interact. Sad, but true. But pirates didn't act by themselves, after all they were dictated by those around them. As it is in any society of sorts. But I hope to change some things and do more of the encampments and hopefully do more of the fun drama and portrayals rather than just prancing around looking cool. I'm itching to pull the trigger, in more ways than one!

~Lady B

[Capt. Sterling]

Over the years I've done a number of things in persona that have pissed the crowd off. Like shooting down a party under flag of truce. Or putting a minister against a tree and executing him. Singing anti Catholic songs in camp. Refusing quarter to captured enemies.

Hawkyns

This is the FUN stuff... Man we used to have a great time doing all the "wrong" things when playing British Legion...

[Ransom]

Maybe we're not disagreeing on doing "wrong stuff" but maybe the degree? At any event there will always be the group that goes against the "rules", and they can usually get the crowd on their side, cheering for the rule breakers. Human nature. I think we've all done that, and had a great time doing it.

However, I don't think it's fair to call the public the "great unwashed" considering how rarely we wash our garb. I suspect we're the great unwashed.

If there are those who want to camp out, totally in their down & dirty character, spit, fart, and cuss...hey, battle on. Have a great ol' time. If you can get away with a bit of vulgarity with the public, go too. If someone finds it objectionable, you'll know pretty quick.

As for portraying the "real deal, lowly sailor" I'm sorry, but we are too well-fed, too clear of complexion, have mouthfuls of pretty teeth, and are way too healthy in general, to be taken seriously.

Rather than ask the question "Who are we?" which kinda implies that we are all playing the same game, maybe the question should be "Who are you?"

[Capt. Sterling]

easy fix for teeth, lots of tea and smokes

[michaelsbagley]

I am finding the different takes on this really interesting.

I like the hard living angle, although because I love my dear wife, and she is more a creature of comfort, I don't get to indulge in the hard living angle as much as I would like to. Particularly because the brand of re-enacting we tend to seek out is something we enjoy to do together (with both of us making small compromises on how we re-enact in order to be able to enjoy it together). I'm guessing that while I haven't made the time yet, my enjoyment of the hard living angle could be why I am starting to be so drawn to the "Historical Trekking/Scouting" thing and wanting to try it out.

But on the other hand, I tend to enjoy interpretation (3rd person) more than "in character" talking. Although I find 1st person has its charms, I just find 1st person too draining emotionally. Perhaps i get too wrapped up in a persona when I do it? And if that is the case, my shying away from that aspect of the hobby is likely a sort of psychological self-protection/self-preservation? But that is only a guess, Red Jessi or Mission or one of the other students or practitioners of psychology might have an interesting insight there?

I've always also gravitated towards what is often referred to as "experimental archaeology", although I do admit despite the gravitational pull it has for me, I haven't done nearly as much as I would enjoy. (Time, time, time, it is always about a lack of time...) But making things with traditional tools, trying to emulate the practices of trades of the time in conditions as closely imitated to the historic conditions as possible. That to me, is just fascinating and likely one of my favourite portions of the hobby.

Singing politically charged songs, and other dastardly things like shooting prisoners and not giving quarter are all fine and dandy, and can be done in a shocking fashion, shocking and doesn't cross any serious lines of taboos. Certainly annoying and bothersome to the tightwads... But there are certainly a fair bit of more dark things that just can't be done or emulated without some sort of wide spread public outcry. And yes, I am carefully trying to talk around this rather than citing specific examples, as I have found even specific mention of some of these things has caused some serious strife and uproar on other forums I am on. Playing the villain is all fine and dandy, but let's face it, we can't take that role anywhere near some of the practices of some of the more nasty pirates. L'Olannais comes to mind as a tamer example.

I think Pat Hand's by-line is very appropriate here... "More Rum and Wenches, pirates just aren't PC...." (or something to that effect).

[Capt. Sterling]

And when you really think about what you are posting...where is the harm in having a few "good" guys? Or that one woman complaining about how hard it is leaving her happy home?

[Hawkyns]

ISinging politically charged songs, and other dastardly things like shooting prisoners and not giving quarter are all fine and dandy, and can be done in a shocking fashion, shocking and doesn't cross any serious lines of taboos. Certainly annoying and bothersome to the tightwads... But there are certainly a fair bit of more dark things that just can't be done or emulated without some sort of wide spread public outcry. And yes, I am carefully trying to talk around this rather than citing specific examples, as I have found even specific mention of some of these things has caused some serious strife and uproar on other forums I am on.

Well, I suppose that depends on what you consider beyond the pale. I've been to events where there have been whorehouses set up. I've seen battles in which Native Americans 'scalped' whites, to the point of having a bloody hairpiece to waive about. I've seen events where there were gallows, the rack, and the wheel, all appropriately bloodied in a camp. Williamsburg did their slave auction a couple of years ago. I've seen 'victims' of rape reporting to the guard commander, with clothing and hair appropriately dissheveled. None of this caused any great amount of problem. This was all 10-15 years ago. We have digressed from that point to where doing that now would cause an unheard of uproar, unfortunately. This was all history. We know it, we can document it, and again, not in isolated incidents.

Pyracy, no matter how we Disnify it, was a crime punishable by hanging. We can call ourselves mariners all we like. We can say that it was a move of desperation, or a very rare thing for most mariners, or justify it in any way possible, but the fact remains that it only took one proveable act (and proof was not nearly up to today's standard)and you got a quick trip to the gallows. Even the lower end of the legitimate sailors lived in a world far removed from what we normally see at an event. The dock areas of any city were filled with cheap taverns, whorehouses, pawnshops and the like. Bar fights, knifings, robbery nd rape were the standards of the time, and no police force to complain to. Life was, to quote a phrase, ugly, bruitish, and short.

I'm not saying that this should be the only thing we do, please don't get that impression. My point is, if we are going to call ourselves, or an event, Living History, then we need to show all sides of the culture- good, bad and truly ugly, or we are fooling ourselves and the public.

[Fox]

Who am I?

When I get the opportunity I try to go for as much immersion as possible, but in the UK (and I get the impression that reenacting is, or can be, very different on opposite sides of the pond) opportunities for non-public events are few and far between. I'm all for experimental archaeology on as many levels as possible.

At public events I still aim for as much immersion as I can, and I try to make sure that my corner of the camp has as few intrusions from the modern period as possible - even the hidden stuff is right if I can make it so. I don't do roleplay if I can avoid it, and when I am forced to my character is so close to my real self that we're indistinguishable. My GAoP character is called Ned Fox, was born in Portsmouth, doesn't really want to be a pirate but is forced into it by circumstances... my real self is called Ed Fox, was born in Portsmouth etc... I'm an historian whatever I'm doing, so for me it's all about imparting knowledge about ropes, navigation, boats, period politics, the contents of my sea-chest, whatever comes to hand or mind.

In terms of how dirty and objectionable one can be, I think there's a lot of leeway to be had. One of the very best reenactors I know is regularly rude to the public (in a period kinda way), and they lap it up in a way that they just wouldn't if he was in modern clothes on the street... "<grunt> get out of me way...". I think that pandering to "what the public want" is twaddle, for the simple reason that the public don't know what they want. They may have ideas about what to expect, but never has anyone complained that I'm not wearing bucket boots or an eye-patch.

History or Hollywood? History every time. It's where my own preference lies, historical reenactors get better paid and more interesting events, and frankly, Hollywood pirates just can't do it anything like as well as Hollywood does.

As for portraying the "real deal, lowly sailor" I'm sorry, but we are too well-fed, too clear of complexion, have mouthfuls of pretty teeth, and are way too healthy in general, to be taken seriously.

Ha! I'm slimmer than the owner of the 17thC sailor's outfit in the Museum of London, have black-powder embedded in my face, am missing five teeth (tea, smokes, and hard-tack), scars over both eyes, broken nose, callouses on my hands with embedded tar, grey hairs in my beard since I was about 25, and a gammy leg. But then I work on a ship and had a dissolute youth, so maybe I'm just showing off...

[Capt. Sterling]

Who am I?

As for portraying the "real deal, lowly sailor" I'm sorry, but we are too well-fed, too clear of complexion, have mouthfuls of pretty teeth, and are way too healthy in general, to be taken seriously.

Ha! I'm slimmer than the owner of the 17thC sailor's outfit in the Museum of London, have black-powder embedded in my face, am missing five teeth (tea, smokes, and hard-tack), scars over both eyes, broken nose, callouses on my hands with embedded tar, grey hairs in my beard since I was about 25, and a gammy leg. But then I work on a ship and had a dissolute youth, so maybe I'm just showing off...

damn...

[Dorian Lasseter]

Ahhh.... a fine topic...

This is all personal opinion, of course... and as you see, Master Hawkyns does what he does first and foremost for himself, and in doing so, does not colour his representation to suit the 'Disney-fied' public. You want immersion in the time? Go to a major historic site, Williamsburg for instance... Or Jamestown... There are folks who work there and 'become' a person of the colonial era. Who will not break character to interact with the public and thus give a truer representation. I can't say that's everyone, but there are those who do, and do it well.

My take on things here...

I'd like to be able to portray a sailor of the time as best I can. And as so, one who turned to piracy when necessary. A side note, I've always liked this little line; "Are we pirates? Well... First we look to see how many guns they have. If we have more guns then they, we are pirates. If they have more guns than we, we are then but simple merchants." Makes ya think, huh?

I do what research I can into all facets of the how and why of the time. I like the seedier side of things. I don't shave myself clean before an event and I don't wear heavy deodorant during it as well. I will wear a period wax cologne at times. I do make one concession, I will wash my shirts and stockings. I don't artificially age my kit. Wash my body at an event? For modern sanitary reasons I will wash my hands after a head call and before eating.

Would I like to see more 'realism' at these events/reenactments? To a point... Language... What was offensive then is rather mild by the standards of today. Calling someone a Cur or Vagabond (My apologies Hugh) could end in a fight.

Dirtier people would be great. What we view as dirty or clean today is vastly different from then.

That's enough for now...

[captscurvy_nc]

Who am I?

I guess it depends on the event, the crowds and what is expected of me. When I worked at Teachs Hole Pirate Museum in Ocracoke as Blackbeard, I had a captive audience, mix of adults and children for twenty minutes, about eighteen times a day. They would come in to the museum and listen to me tell my tale then ask me to pose for pictures or answer questions from the kids. It was a tough schedule, but I loved it. I have always been more of a showman then a historian. I can do the historian role if neccesary, but I have always enjoyed the showman aspect of it more. I guess it's from going from a street performer to proffesional theater then to pirate festivals. I have spent years researching and honing my Blackbeard performance, but as Capt Scurvy I am free to just be off the wall and larger than life. I guess it depends on what makes you happy. I love the history side of what we do, but my personal choice is to always be the humorous deviant in the group.