I was a bit hesitant to write this post for numerous reasons, mainly because a lot of people will dislike me a lot for it. The other reasons include the danger of sounding ungrateful, and the other is the fall-out that comes with holding a mirror up to people who think they know their own reflection but don't. Before I begin I would like to say that, as with most things in life, this is entirely my opinion (which I'm entitled to) from my experiences, and won't necessarily be shared by all.
No one wants to be the bad guy, and I've spent all of my life trying to be liked, but perhaps it's time to accept that I have opinions that sometimes aren't popular ones, and will most definitely offend someone out there. If you are a serious re-enactor and like it that way, then I strongly advise you not to read on. This post will possibly provide some re-enactor gossip fodder at the next event that you can discuss around your historically accurate stove. Bitch away, my friends, God knows you love to.
According to the dictionary re-enacting is to "act out a past event", whether this be one of the many thousands of battles that have happened in human history, or simply going about the day to day routine of a maid, or a lady. It all sounds rather tame, but the world of re-enactment has a long, arduous, and controversial history. The majority of the population, perhaps correctly, think that this hobby is just dressing up, and you know sometimes it is, but for the majority of people out there it is to experience history in a completely unique way. How better else can we understand something than by experiencing it ourselves? The knowledge we gain helps us become better historians, and hence helps the historical education of the next generation. All is good.
Re-enactment is more than just a passing hobby for a lot of people, it's a passion, but as with any passion sometimes it runs away with itself. This is where the problem starts. In my mind, and the mind of the majority of the human population, a hobby is something you do for fun, whether that be on your own or in a group, hence re-enactment is supposed to be fun. So why have my last 2 experiences been short of that mark?
Granted, I'm not a part of a re-enactment group or society, and after my most recent experience I don't intend to be, but it was something I was interested in. At events the groups were friendly, and loved to talk and share their knowledge and experience. Little did I know that they're only like that to the general public. It becomes an entirely different matter when you try to penetrate this world of historical accuracy.
I've never been one for essays, or beating around the bush (thanks, Scotland!) so the point of this entire post is to point the accusatory finger at the re-enactment community and call you out. Call you out on what? Call you out on being snobs. That's right, you heard me, snobs. It might sound harsh, and I can hear the disgruntlement all the way from here, but as an outsider who has attempted to be a part of the magic, I judge how I find. Your friendliness is kept for the general public, the people who have been disadvantaged by a narrow education system, but when someone tries to join in at your event, that warm welcome and conversation are gone.
Now, it's time to say here that I've only attended 3 events, all of which are practically the 19th Century, so perhaps the snobbery is confined to this century, who knows, but honestly, I doubt it. The rules of re-enactment are relatively strict, and the kit is expensive the higher you go up the class ladder. Since you are proper re-enactors, and not just people who dress up, everything has to be authentic, or as close to it as possible. No polyester.....ever!!! No cotton in the 12th century, no metal eyelets in the 18th, no back-lacing kirtle on a peasant! The list goes on, and no doubt expands the sexes, but I'm not a man so I don't know. Some of it I agree with, you are meant to be living history, so you probably should make a good stab at being accurate, but at what cost? is everyone made of money? Does the Queen really have to have real silk, when a good quality poly could probably look as good, and not break the bank? Perhaps this is just me trying to make up reasons why I don't have to buy 100% silk for my next event gown, but the judgment I've seen people get when they turn up in poly is utterly disgusting.
Let's circle around to events for the "general public" or events where anyone who's interested can join in. Most specifically balls. I've already posted about the ones I went to, so there's no secret about who attends and who organises, and if this gets me on the blacklist then......whoops. These balls are advertised as anyone can come, not necessarily in period costume, but in evening wear. Let's face it, anyone who goes is at least going to make the minimal amount of effort at the time period. And here lies the problem.
The re-enactors are rubbing shoulders with the wannabe Joe publics. The people who have spent hundreds if not thousands on their gowns and evening attire are dancing dances they know rather well with amateurs in silk poly who don't know their left from their right. These events are meant to be fun, but like when a private school has to host classes for their poorer public school neighbour, there is some amount of judgment and snobbery. Is it justified? Not in hell.
These events aren't re-enactors only, and perhaps the HA attendees should remember this. Surely the point is to encourage people into historical accuracy? to make them want to join their local dance group, or re-enactment society so they can learn and join in? To do this you need to make them feel welcome, which I've not once felt at either events I've attended this year. I was contemplating joining a re-enactment society.....I'm not now. At the first event I attended I didn't notice this atmosphere, and I had so much fun, however by the second and third it was there, the elephant in the room that only I could see. By the third I thought I was imagining things, until a new friend of mine pointed it out to me.
There are two main sources of this icy civility. One, which I've never personally experienced, is connected to costumes and attire, which I have mentioned above. Silk is expensive, dependent on quality and type, and not many people can, or want, to fork out the money, especially for something they may only be wearing once or twice. What's a cheap alternative? Polyester! Is it historically accurate? No. Does a good quality one look very similar to the real deal? Yes. So what's the issue? Apparently a big one. Sewing machines weren't widely used until the 1840s, yet your 1820s gown was machine sewn? Cue the silent gasps and not so silent judgment. You're using a glue gun to attach your flowers? How dare you! I'm sure the list goes on. What is the big deal here? These events aren't HA, so why the judgment? Why shouldn't people use modern technques for their costumes to a non-HA event? I am 95% confident that it a pre-sewing machine woman were to appear in the 21st century and be told that someone had made their gown by hand she would give them a strange look. Why go through the pain, hassle, and frustration of sewing a dress by hand just because it's from a period when they weren't used? Of course, it's a different story if hand sewing is voluntary, but I digress. These balls and events that are open invitations shouldn't have this level of costume snobbery. Don't invite the general public if you want these events to be historically accurate, there's my advice you didn't ask for,
The second source of this elitism comes from the dances themselves. Personally, the only dancing I did was modern in a group of girls my age, and ceilidh because I'm Scottish. I love ceilidh dancing, and so does the majority of Britain, and the reason it's so popular is because in Scotland we incite everyone to join in, no matter their experience or ability. If someone makes a mistake (even Scottish people, we're not perfect) we laugh it off and carry on, we do not frown, glare, or tell anyone off. f people aren't taking it seriously then they're doing it correctly! The more giggles, snorts, and sniggers of laughter the better. But not in England, not in proper historical dances, oh no, one must not laugh at their mistakes, or go the wrong way and giggle away the momentary embarrassment, God forbid. This particular point I have experienced. I get it, learning regency and Victorian dances are some people's hobby, and that's fine, but it doesn't give you a right to act elitist when you're in a workshop with beginners. It's an event for the public, not a show. The dances are complicated, and unlike you, or our historical counterparts, we aren't taught by a trained teacher how to do the steps. Our French is a bit rusty, possibly non-existent, and some people just aren't dancing-inclined, whatever the reason sometimes it takes a while to learn the steps and put the dance together. Going the wrong way, offering the wrong hand, or giggling at some of the sheer humorous hops and moves, is how a beginner acts. Telling them off, glaring at them, or anything else that indicates disapproval, is not only mean, it's just plain rude. Attending dance classes doesn't give you the right to dictate how others behave or act during the practice, or the event itself.
We'll call the next paragraph a half source of snobbery, and one that's very common. This point may become pretty convoluted because I can be guilty of doing this myself. Everyone likes a good costume drama. BBC, ITV, all of the American production companies, they're throwing them out like they're on a conveyor belt, all of varying quality. I did a post many years ago on the sheer inaccuracy of Reign, but that show was never conveyed as historically accurate so half stepped down in my annoyance. There are other shows that are labelled as historically accurate, like The White Queen on BBC, most recently The White Princess by Starz, Versailles, Harlots, Outlander, the Jane Austen novel adaptations, and so on. These all have varying degrees of accuracy. I'm not a clothing historian, I don't know when a front laced gown changed to a back lacing one and so forth, but if i ever forget then Frock Flicks is always there to remind me.
I have a love hate relationship with this website. In short this site tears apart costumes in costume dramas labelled as historically accurate, or set in a historic time period. I don't care if they think it's an analysis, or something else, they literally tear everything apart. Why does this bother me? They don't seem to understand that the film and TV industry doesn't have tons of money to throw at the wardrobe department. They don't seem to understand that the costume designers don't get to have the final say in what the actors wear. No doubt there are many more things they don't understand, but I'm not a part of that industry, and I only have the word of interviews from the designers, or friends who are in the industry, to inform me. So what if they used poly silk? So what if the dresses are back laced if they should be front laced? So what if she doesn't have a hat on? These shows aren't produced for historically accuracy, they're produced for plot, the acting, the story, the costumes are an added extra. The modern world is very different to the past ones, and if you make everything completely HA then you're in danger of losing something that's very important; viewer empathy. If they can relate to the hero or heroine, if they look slightly modern, then it's easier for the viewer to cheer them on, or relate to them. Yes, women, especially married ones, never wore their hair down, but recently they all do. Who friggin cares? Sometimes a half updo is nicer than greasy looking centre-parted hair slicked to the sides of your head. I am not so elitist that I can't admire a good costume, or nice hair, despite its historic innacuracy.
A more minor snag is the way people in the community bitch about some gender roles in recent years. The one that comes to mind is the female doctor in Versailles. Yes, I know women weren't doctors, but it's fiction!! It is a made-up story, based in a real-life setting. It's called imagination, and God knows we all need some in our lives! As a writer I'm guilty of making my characters do inaccurate things, because sometimes historical etiquette gets in the way of plot development. If a woman can't go out unaccompanied then how is she to meet that one person that has vital information for her? If a man isn't allowed to speak to a woman he hasn't been introduced to, then how many pages am I going to have to add by describing the introduction method? If a man is encouraged not to speak to a woman he only met at a ball, then how are the two leads supposed to fall in love? Writing historical fiction is hard enough as it is, cut us some slack here or you'll have nothing to read!
This post services as a rant, as well as pointing out a serious problem with a community. Re-enacment is about experiencing history, so why does it matter so much how we do it? Why can't we use subtle modern methods to bring the past to life for those who are interested? Why can't someone who doesn't know any historic dances attend a ball and not be judged or scolded? Events should make everyone feel welcome, no matter how involved in the community they are. If you continue to act high and mighty you may end up putting re-enactment on the dying hobby list as sewing once was. History is interesting, but to really engage people it has to be relatable and accessible to them as individuals or else it holds no draw.
I will strongly state again that this is just my opinion as an observer and occasional participant in these events, and won't necessarily be found everywhere. Hopefully you'll have more luck than my friend and I.
