Customer Reviews

War Games: Inside the World of Twentieth-Century War Reenactors

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Okay, I'm actually IN this book and one of the people who's names have been changed to protect the "innocent." I own reenactor.Net and am a WWI and WWII reenactor myself. In saying that, I think I have a pretty good handle on the book, the hobby and how it is.

I know Jenny Thompson and she interviewed myself and a number of others when writing the book. Yes, it's brutally honest and does show some of the "puffy people" for what they are, but in doing so, Jenny gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the hobby... and YES, I did wince at some of the stuff, but it's TRUE.

If you're interested in WWII (and WWI) reenacting, by all means, buy this book -- it will give you a pretty insight into the hobby.

I read some of the other reviews and frankly, some are just "sour grapes" -- there were very few things in the book that I didn't agree with and got a big laugh to see myself quoted (a horrifyingly large amount of times)...

Anyway, this is all my opinion, but since I've been in WWI since 1989 and WWII since 1991, I think I know of what I speak. If you're interested in the hobby, then buy this book!

Being a reenactor of both world wars, I am pretty used to people outside of "the hobby" putting it down. While reenactors span a remarkably wide demographic, from high school drop-outs to PhD.s, from right-wing Republicans to left-wing Democrats, from conscientious objectors to combat veterans, we are often painted by academics and the national media with the broad brush of all being gun-crazed proto-fascists in desperate need of love and shock therapy. It is with this in mind that I approached Thompson's War Games with a mixture of both anticipation and dread; anticipation because I was excited to see somebody actually trying to explore the unique hobby in which I participate, and dread because I was afraid that the book would simply reinforce the incorrect stereotypes without attempting any sort of in-depth analysis of why people reenact.

Fortunately, my anticipation was richly rewarded by War Games. Thompson, having spent seven years attending reenactments and spending a considerable amount of time with reenactors, has successfully dug beneath the surface to get to the fundamental question of why people reenact. The situations and personalities that she describes are very familiar, and in my opinion, are accurately represented. She raises many of the existential questions of reenacting that I have asked myself, and the answers she provides offer a great deal of insight.

While Thompson obviously has a great deal of affection, and dare I say respect, for reenactors, she does not sugar coat the hobby. The fundamental issues of what represents "authenticity" and what relationship reenactors maintain with veterans and the public are often bitterly divisive among reenactors. Thompson also does not ignore the moral implications of reenactors portraying soldiers in the armies of America's enemies. But she addresses all of these issues with fairness and balance.

I would hope that everybody who reenacts, or is considering reenacting, 20th century wars reads this book. More than that, though, I would hope that those who question the propriety or sanity of reenacting will read this book with an open mind. I certainly don't expect everybody to accept the hobby. But I would hope that, through reading War Games, these people would at least develop a better understanding of why people reenact.

The majority of books about reenacting fall into either the category of photo collections of reenacting events or "how to" manuals. One of the few books that has gone deeper into the subject was Tony Horowitz' Conferates in the Attic. Horowitz used the story of a colorful hardcore reenactor to examine America's fascination with its Civil War. His approach was typical of the "New Journalist" style of writing. Although a participant and observor, Horowitz was ultimately a talented journalist in pursuit of a good story. Reenacting was the vehicle he used to tell his tale.

Jenny Thompson was also a participant observor in search of an interesting story. She spent seven years going to reenacting events and joined several reenacting units. Thompson used her training as a scholar to produce Reenacting's first ethnography. As a social scientist, her objectives were much more amibitious than Tony Horowitz. Thompson wants to explain the hobby of reenacting and the motivations of the people who participate in the hobby.

I would not recommend this book for anyone who is impatient with intellectuals and scholarly discourse. By its very nature, an ethnography is a set of generalizations that are used as a tool to find deeper meanings. I would suspect that many people in the reenacting community would find this book to be overly intellectual.

What I found to be so interesting about this book is that it is the first time that I have ever come across a book that discusses the motivations of what must be a decent percentage of the American male population that is fascinated by the many facets of war. As one of these people, on an intellectual basis, I know that war is a tragedy and that I would never want to participate in a war. Nevertheless, I am fascinated by military history and war's material culture. Although, I am not a Twentieth Century reenactor, this book nevertheless still spoke to me. I saw a lot of myslef in the people Thompson writes about.

I'm a WW2 re-enactor and I've been told I'm supposed to hate this book, the author and everything she stands for.
I'd heard about the book on a Monday on a re-enactor message board, and by that Wednesday I'd read the whole thing.
Now, the chips are clearly stacked against author Jenny Thompson. First, she's not really a re-enactor. To make it worse, she's a GIRL. Double ick!
I cannot review this book as anything other than what I am; a person who grew up doing re-enacting events. However, I think I have the ability to take a step back and call a spade a garden tool.
Thompson hung with several re-enacting groups over a long period of time and went to several events during that time. In fact, after looking at her photo, I'm pretty sure I remember once seeing her at an event, as small women are sort of rare at these events.
A lot of guys in the hobby are really ticked about this book, saying it makes them look bad, she's an outsider and doesn't know what she's talking about. You know the type, "I'm looking in a mirror and I don't like what I see, so it must be the person who made the mirror." Sadly, many of them haven't read the book, and some say they won't as they KNOW what it will say. Those people just won't see reason and without reading this book, they should keep their mouths closed.
I have read it. I find it a fair, hold-no-punches explaination of the hobby. Thompson might be an outsider, but I feel she went into her research with an open mind. She reported what she saw. It's as simple as that.
Personally, I've always known people who do this are nuts. What always baffled me was the sanctimonious nonsense people attach to themselves, like it's some lofty higher calling or something. Any justification they can find when simply saying they just like doing it should be enough. They just need to get over themselves...
The book does a good job of calling BS on the hobby in general, asking the questions such as if it's for the vets then why so few events public, stuff like that. These are questions I've asked all along, and it's high time that all of us who do this should take a step back and look at what we are.

War Games is based upon the author's doctoral thesis in American Studies at the University of Maryland. This book looks at 20th century war re-enacting; World War I, World War II, Korean War and Vietnam War. The book does not directly address the more popular Civil War re-enacting or the less popular "Span-Am", Spanish-American War. In 20th Century re-enacting, World War I and II predominate, with Vietnam just beginning to be recognized as a venue for re-enactment.

Ms. Thompson has taken a clinical or social scientific approach to her investigation of re-enacting. Not only was she an actual re-enactor for some ten years, but she distributed for her research several hundred questionnaires most of which were returned to her. She is in a very good position to describe this phenomenon and from what I can gather, she knows her subject.

The central thesis of the book is stated on page xviii of the Introduction: "Instead, as I hope to show, re-enactors use the hobby in general and focus on the issue of authenticity in particular in order to cope with the real-life issues that reflect the broader culture in which the live. However much it masks its relation to the present through elaborate rituals, costumes and props, re-enacting is both a product of and response to the very society from which it emerged." Thompson is stating that in spite of the emphasis on history, period clothing and weapons, what we are talking about here is life and all its aspects as it is lived today, not as it was 60 or 90 years ago.

On page 153, Ms. Thompson begins a discussion which strikes at the heart of re-enacting. And that discussion concerns the fact that re-enactors spend very little time re-enacting actual historical battles. The definition of "re-enact" means to act that which has already been acted. With this definition, one would logically expect re-enactors to do this. One would expect that they follow the history of a particular battle in detail and act it out. However, they by and large do not. They will establish a general scenario for a mock battle with general goals which determine a "winner", and then proceed to skirmish, attack and out-flank one another to achieve those goals. She recognizes this fact when she discusses private battles versus public battles. Private battles are open and free-flowing, where as public battles are organized and scripted. Creativity with a basis in history is sought after in private battles which are largely the type of battle most often preferred by re-enactors.

It is amusing that Civil War re-enacting is often referred to as "Silly War" by WW II re-enactors [Note: I refer consistently to WWII re-enactment because it represents the majority of 20th century re-enactors], and yet most probably Civil War comes closest to defining re-enacting through adherence to military historical fact. One reason that Civil War comes closest to true re-enactment is because the scope of the battles is limited to smaller areas. Opposing armies can establish themselves in ranks, facing one another, and have at it and according to the history of the battle, follow the action through to its conclusion with the appropriate side achieving victory. This is next to impossible in WWII re-enacting. The distances and battle areas between armies in WWII were substantial. Much of the fighting was mechanized and done in and around villages the types of which are not found in the US. But even if the re-enactor could duplicate the general landscape, very few re-enactment groups will sit down, read the history of even a small unit action, and plan out the process of the battle. Why? Because re-enactors do not want to be scripted, they want to proceed on a general basis with general objectives, they want to employ their creative abilities to overwhelm an objective and they, and it must be said, want to enjoy themselves. The point has been made many times over by re-enactors that they have spent considerable time and money on the hobby, and enjoyment is paramount. In fact, re-enactors will jump units and even organizations to achieve the goal of enjoyment.

History to the average WWII re-enactor is only useful because it can provide a name for the scenario; "North Africa 1942, Normandy 1944, the Battle of the Bulge etc. Indeed this approach to history proves the general thesis of this book, re-enacting is about real life issues, not historical fact. To illustrate this point, Thompson relates the re-enactment of the Normandy invasion in 1994 at Virginia Beach. This was a public battle, and it was scripted. After the battle, one of the veteran re-enactors approached her and said "A realistic public battle? Now there's an oxymoron". Here was a scenario which probably stuck as close to historical fact as possible in a WWII battle, and we have a "re-enactor" declaring that the battle is a farce because it was scripted and witnessed by the public! Professional historians who criticize re-enactors have nothing to worry about. Most re-enactors are concerned with history only in the most general sense. After all, reading compilations of secondary history, let alone delving into primary source material is probably more than most re-enactors want to bite off. Veterans and critics who maintain that re-enactors trivialize war are also off base. And my assumption here is that "war" means frontline combat, not the other 90% of war which is boredom, drilling, eating and sleeping. This aspect of war can readily be re-enacted. Re-enactors are not at war, even when engaged in mock battles. They are essentially at play. They are at what amounts to an expensive game of "capture the flag".

So if re-enactors are not re-enactors, what are they? As Thompson has suggested they are "commemorators". Their interest in history, clothing, weapons, the manner and lifestyle of the 40's commemorates the lives of the combatants who fought WWII. It is their way of saying, "We remember what you did for us and America, and we do what we do so that others may remember it also". Re-enactors also have been shown to have a wide variety of motives, and these are described in this book. Some re-enact because a relative was in WWII; some are avid collectors of militaria and re-enact to display and demonstrate what they have collected. Some are vehicle collectors and join a unit so that they can not only display, but use their vehicles in mock combat. And some neither know nor care about the history of the period or their particular unit in the war. They are there for the camaraderie and the excitement of mock combat. Re-enactors are as diverse as the military they seek to represent. Just as the average infantry company contained motivated individuals who wanted to become soldiers, it also contained those who bent the rules in order to get by. The industrious served with the slackers; the dedicated with the goof offs, the clever with the mundane. Indeed the average group of re-enactors is comprised of the same personalities as one would find in today's army or the army of 60 years ago. In this respect if not in any other, re-enacting does reflect historical accuracy.

I believe Ms. Thompson has done an admirable job in describing the phenomenon of re-enacting. She approached it from the perspective of the social scientist. She not only immersed herself in the hobby, but she conducted extensive interviews and obtained additional data through questionnaires. Her conclusions are correct. I think I could hand her book to any fellow re-enactor and tell him "Read this, and herein you will find yourself and most of your buddies".

Since I write about reenacting stuff for the MVPA (with an audience of 10,000 readers) I felt I needed to read the book. At times it made me cringe and other times it was brutally honest about the hobby, however I think she captured what she saw. I just completed the book two nights ago.

Most troubling to me were the frequent firing squads and atrocities she observed at events, and how things such as racism and sexism were thinly veiled in preservation of authenticity. My 21 years in the hobby I have only seen 1 firing squad (done as a big joke for a friend of mine who accidently shot his squad leader during a battle back in 1983, my first year in the hobby), and I have never seen execution of prisoners except when people are doing stupid hollywood games during actions on the objective at public events.

I do take exception with her history of WWII reenacting, because it does trace back to 1975 in the US and much earlier in Europe. I know of people that attended events in 1975 in the midwest, so her view of how it got started is very "east Coast" in my opinion. In fact, the entire book is written from events she attended on the east coast, to include many FIGs. I have not yet been to FIG, but I hear the horror stories after the fact, so perhaps this is not the best judge of character for the hobby. I have not been to east coast events however I think the hobby has different flavors in the different parts of the country, so perhaps her view is skewed by what she saw in her region. Also, I think the hobby has made several big strides in some areas she complains about. her book is a reflection of the hobby in the Mid-90s, and it seems to have moved forward in some areas.

It can be a bit harsh to read, much like anything that challenges your day to day values and assumptions that you live your life, however I think despite the wincing I had reading it, it seems to be on target. It also shows several areas that the hobby needs cleaning up. If you don't want an honest appraisal of your hobby don't read it. If you aren't afraid to look deep into your soul of why you do this, then read it.

"Jenny Thompson spent seven years attending war reenactments and getting to know the participants. She has a PhD in American studies and has taught at the University of Maryland and Roosevelt University. She lives with her husband in Evanston, Illinois." (jacket)

Of the many kinds of history reenactment groups and organizations throughout the world, this book is concerned with the reenactment of war, specifically of the wars of the 20th century. Straight off, you can see this is going to be a problem. By ignoring the broader topic of the reenactment of other types or periods of history, real or fictionalized, and by not situating that broader topic within the encompassing topic of the role of imagination within human psychology, the author is bound to simplify the reality of the motivations and experiences of those men and far fewer women who join with others to collectively reenact 20th century wars.

In fact, any accurate analysis of the psychology behind the human behavior of reenacting history, real or fictionalized, contemporary or long past, would need to examine the nature of self-perception and self-identity, and also of group identity, in relation to the constraints, conventions and freedoms of a culture. It would also need to include an examination of the purpose and value of stories and even of static art. Within that is the nature and purpose of our knowledge of the past.

Personal Note: I was once a member, for five years, in an Old West reenactment group and also participated in Single Action Shooting Society (SASS) events. One reason I left the group was a frustration with the lack of depth and realism to the collective re-creation of the lifestyles of the period. I wanted physical and psychological immersion. Vicarious experience of the past is possible and common because it is only psychological, all you need is a book or movie, but a physical experience of the past can only be simulated through the imagination supported and active within behavior. It requires the historically faithful, exclusive environment of objects and people accurately representative of objects and people of the past. Others can make it vivid, and others can spoil the illusion.

The book brought back memories. Although the period I was reenacting wasn't within the 20th century and didn't include military portrayals, many of the pleasures, concerns, and conflicts among us Old West reenactors were similar. One significant difference from the war reenactors discussed in the book was our group included men, women, and children.

This book could have been antagonistic to the enthusiasms of the war reenators and suspicious of their motivations, but Thompson doesn't explicitly moralize or politicize against them, except very occasionally when she's speaking personally about something she experienced or witnessed while participating as a reenactor herself, or until she reaches her epilogue, where she writes as a woman who apparently thinks that men should be women, too. A running subtext of the book is the moral ambiguity Thompson clearly feels about reenactors portraying WWII German soldiers, along with the enactment (usually only at private events and left out of public performances) of such warlike behavior as firing squads and the killing of prisoners.

There are disagreements in the community on how and why the past should be re-created, so throughout most of the book Thompson allows the men to voice their own complaints against one another by reporting what she saw and heard, and what she gathered through a questionnaire. She reports on group dynamics, the specifics and rules involved in being a reenactor, individual behavior and backgrounds, debates in the community on how far authenticity should be enforced, and the troubles that arise in portraying the past when details of the clothing and gear of a period are important to everyone but attention to minuscule details is regarded by some as equally important and by others as excessive.

The more an individual knows about the past, the more kinds of inauthenticity he will notice in himself and others. In Old West reenacting, for example, three prominent concerns are hats, boots, and holsters. TV and movie westerns often had all three wrong. Overall, the entire wardrobe is important. In reenacting 20th century wars, wardrobe concerns, and knowledge of what was worn and when, are equally prominent and they put the novice reenactor in jeopardy of being "period incorrect" and anachronistic in ways that an outsider would never notice. Even style of haircuts is important. More controversial are debates (obviously initiated by the young and fit) on age and weight. The participation of women, blacks, and asians (WWII reenactment is of the European war) is another dispute. How far should authenticity be enforced, and who gets to decide for the rest?

The main failure of the book is Thompson's thinking that these men reenacting warfighting are somehow wholly unlike men, women, and children reenacting some other historical period and other kinds of events. She doesn't bring into her discussion and summary these other varieties of reenactment. I'm thinking not only of the Old West reenactments of my own adult experience, but of the Mountain Man reenactors (I've known a few) and the many reenactors of the Renaissance period who create a Renaissance Festival for the public every year.

Although she never mentions those non-military reenactors, in chapter two, subtitled "A History of War Reenacting", Thompson does mention "living history" portrayals such as those at Colonial Williamsburg, and the American tradition of historical pageants (I once portrayed a Chippewa - now 'Ojibwa' - Indian boy along with other young boys and girls - few if any of us "genetically correct" - in the annual pageant reenactment of the fictional Song of Hiawatha performed at Pipestone, Minnesota), but in her epilogue Thompson talks about men pretending to be soldiers as if that's the only kind of reenacting there is. The epilogue, in fact, is the weakest part of the book, because it is here that Thompson allows herself to theorize and psychologize and play the social critic.

She mentions a few books that may be worth mentioning here. I haven't seen them. None of them may be favorable to reenactors. I don't know. She mentions Horowitz's book as generally disliked by the war reenactors she met. Caughey, professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, writes a blurb for Thompson's book, in which he speaks of "the disturbing world of war reenactment", so it's likely he's got a political agenda in his own book.

David Lowenthall - The Past is a Foreign Country
Richard Handler and Eric Gable - The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg
Tony Horowitz - Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War
John Caughey - Imaginary Social Worlds: A Cultural Approach

For a fascinating look at reenacting that lays bare some of the issues and dynamics of the hobby but completely removes them from concerns of history or material realism see the film Darkon, which follows a group that has created a fantasy world in which armies battle one another with homemade shields and swords.

I have just finished reading Jenny Thompson's book "War Games". I know that a few of you attacked this book when it was first released, but now having read it, I do not think that any of those attacks were justified.

The book is a deep look into our hobby. As I read it, it made me think more than a few times on why I have chosen this hobby, and why I continue to engage in it despite the frustrations and expense. I have found that it helped me clarify what it is that I do as a WWII re-enactor.

The book is fair and even sided. Which means that it explains the value and purpose of our hobby as well as pointing out its problems. Unfortunately for Ms. Thompson the publisher decided to quote for the cover notes, the few university "Egg head" types that think what we do is silly because when they were kids, they never got invited to play army with the other kids on the block. Those liner notes DO NOT represent the work she has created.

The book addresses many of the major topics of the hobby. Our fixation with authenticity and our compromises; How we "honor the vets" but get annoyed when they tell us we are doing it wrong; How wrapped up some of us get in the hobby, and how some of us do not take it serious enough. For me as a re-enactor the book was filled with descriptions that made me nod my head and smile. A few times I laughed outright.

Jenny Thompson did it right. She became a reenactor and asked the tough questions. This book nails us to a tee. But in doing so, Jenny looked deep into herself as well. Reading the book, is at times, a look in the mirror, and it has made re-enacting clearer to me. I will never look at our hobby the same now that the details have been so perfectly pointed out. And now I am so aware of those moments when we say, "we're here. We're there. This is it" (read the book and you will know what I mean by this)

I recommend this book to you all.

Jonathan Krieger
[..]

This book is a must read if only because it's one of the few on the subject. Grunska's book is not worth reading, and "Confederates in the Attic" only deals with Civil War reenacting for a chapter or two. To be fair, I have not read Jay Anderson's Time Machines yet.

Thompson's treatment is fair, honest, balanced, and accurate. If you are interested in the subject, it is a must read. If you are interested in reenacting as a study of history, get it.

My only complaint is that Thompson was only able to meet East Coast reenactors. The Midwest and California both have active reenacting communities with a flavor all their own. Not to mention reenactors in foreign countries.

Her book is not definitive, but it is an excellent treatment, and very valuable for it's rare subject matter.

I was asked to read this by a fellow reenactor (yes, I am a female WWII reenactor) and we have passed it around our little group for discussion. I know some of these other reviewers are also reenactors, and I am a little surprised that they rated this so high.

Yes, it is "interesting" mostly because we are very much an invisible part of society. But attending 2 reenactments a year, in the same 2 places is not representative of the hobby or its members.

Jenny Thompson is neither historian nor reenactor. The University system-created "ethnography" major she sports no more makes her qualified than my cat. But I will give my reasons for why I take issue with this book.

First, she never gets past the staid and boring academics' "need" to dote on the "social, economic and political causes and effects" of WWII (p. 109). Give me a break! Those are the things that have given history the bad rep of being "boring." You have to know the background in this of course, but Real People want something to tangibly relate to -- the humanity of war -- and that's what reenactors provide. (explained on p. 160). Interviewed reenactors get it across eloquently about the lack of education in both the public and among academics and school teachers (p. 91).

The only reason I gave this book 2 stars is the reenator acccounts. They are genuine and I can relate to them. They are entertaining -- but just as I was really getting into the real reasons we reenact by the real people who do it -- Jenny Thompson intrudes and ruins the tone by saying she finds it "disturbing." She was the most disturbed person in this book all the way through. That's her favorite word. I'd like to run it through the computer for the number of times she used this word. Unfortunately there are no women interviewed. And I have talked with women reenactors who said they spoke with her during her interviewing and thesis work, but they didn't say what she wanted to hear.

Her "quotes" from unknown scholars (and I'm pretty well read) and unnamed National Park Personel show what a narrow and critical audience she knows. I have participated at many NPS sites. Reenactors draw crowds to some places where these Rangers would hardly see a visitor otherwise. And some of these Rangers are wrong in their information. Many times she uses vague references to whatever critics she is depending on to carry her argument as "people" or "those who". Not very scholarly, Jenny! And as for her remarks about Reenactors knowledge -- most reenactors I know only read primary sources, and scrutinize historians' agendas when their work is not heavey on primary sources. Her accusation about the desire to "own" history is wrong. That implies not sharing, and the very opposite of what we do.

I agree also with the reviewer who points out how dated this book is, with references to the Oklahoma bombing and Waco. (p. 170).

Regarding female reenactors and her assessment (p. 79): She's wrong that women are not interested in war! The main problems with women reenactors and their participation are the limited roles women played historically, and also our modern lifestyles. Women with small children can't take them on tacticals. Jenny's just too overfeminist to strike a balance or understanding.

The book gets very repetitive. Chapter 10 is virtually the same material as Chapters 5 and 8. Somehow around every 3 chapters she gets back to being puzzled why anyone does WWII Germans. Talk to a few German-Americans.

For Readers who hoped this book would answer their questions: My suggestion is to just seek out some reenactors and ask them yourself why we reenact! I assure you there will be many different answers. But I think all reenactors will agree that "reenacting" isn't something in our intellect. It's in our soul. And Jenny Thompson never will "get it."