Week Twelve in which we are outta here

     Well dearest reader, we have come to the end of the line. The semester is over. The internship is over. We have nothing left but fond memories of deadlines and juggling chainsaws.
     The presentation went well aside from my initial nervousness. I usually get over that quickly and then zoom into whatever I am talking about...but I digress. The powerpoint I presented was short, sweet, and to the point. I basically went over the three areas that covered what I had learned this semester; media theory, public history theory, and oral history theory. I then applied each to the segments I produced. The questions and answer period went on longer than the presentation, but it was there that the instructors and those present grew to understand even more what I had learned. I guess at the master's level interns get questioned more than undergrads.
     My historiography paper was turned in on Thursday, a day early I might add. That was a chore and half. The topic of radio documentary has not really been examined well enough for any sort of historiography but I applied it to the other topics of public history and oral history and viola! Instant historiography. The second half of the essay was mainly a reiteration of the presentation.
    I was informed that the segments will broadcast later this month and in early September. If you are interested, you know, give them a listen. (Florida Frontiers, 4:30pm on WMFE 90.7 in the central Florida area).
    I want to publicly thank Dr. Brotemarkle, Ben DiBiase, and Dr. Beiler for the opportunity to work at the FHS internship this summer. It was a rare and exciting experience. Well dear reader, that is all.

...and I am outta HERE!

Week Eleven in which the intern is nearing the finish line

     Well dear reader we are quickly reaching the end of summer and thus the end of the internship. I have finished the final segments and have sent them in to Dr. Brotemarkle and now I am putting the finishing touches on the historiography essay/what have I learned essay. I have been busy putting in twenty to thirty hour weeks on the internship on top of working on projects for class and life in general. I am seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and it is getting bigger and bigger every day.
     On the subject of "what I have learned" thus far, I have recently finished several essays that dealt with film documentary and what they have to say is very illuminating. The arguments are that documentaries, either in a visual or audio medium, are not less accurate or different than the written output from historians. This has to do with the fact that both essay and book are constructs from the historian just as documentaries are constructs from the film/radio producer. This also has to do with Benjamin's theory of Aura of Authenticity which states that the only true point of authenticity is the exact moment when an event occurred. In terms of radio documentary the true points of authenticity are when the interview is taking place and the moment of description. This all relates to the historian's aim of objectivity and trying to interpret the past as accurately as possible. However a true and 100% accurate narrative is impossible. It all relies on the interpretation of the sources by the historian which is the same thing a documentary creator does when creating their work. Yet while a scholarly work by a historian will contain layers of meaning and interpretation, that deep insight and research does not translate well into documentary. The audiences are different. Scholarly literature has as its audience other scholars while a documentary, both visual and audio, is aimed primarily at the general public. This difference then makes documentary as a form of public history. The documentary though must still remain historically accurate but to present an event, historical actor, or historiographical trend such as a scholarly essay or work does is nigh impossible. The general audience will either become bored or will not understand such an approach.
     When producing my segments this is what I had to keep in mind constantly. I would love nothing more than to give a deeper meaning and tie the segments into a greater historical theme but I only had five minutes to present in and these segments are meant to be listened to by a larger audience rather than other scholars. Believe me I would have loved to go into greater detail on subjects dealing with consensus history and the interviewees memory but I simply did not have the time. Nor would the audience listen. The radio dial would be turned as soon as they became disinterested. Which is not the point the segments should make. They should be listened to but remain historically accurate. Its meaning then is a result of negotiations between myself as producer, the interviewee and subject, and the listening audience.
     That is what I learned this week. Next week I will wrap up this blog and tell you dear reader, how the presentation on the internship went as well as how the historiography essay is going. Until then.

Weeks Nine and Ten, in which our intern is really, really, REALLY busy.

    Greetings and salutations dear reader. I have been extremely busy these last two weeks with the internship, class, a side project, granddaughter, and well...life in general. Remember the picture I posted of the guy juggling chainsaws? Well these last few weeks someone keeps tossing more chainsaws into the juggling act.

Fig. 1. One of the wood-burning trains of the Orange Belt

    Have no fear oh reader. I have it all under control (well that is what I have been telling myself in between doses of omeprezole and tagamet). In between bouts of panic I have managed to complete another segment for the Florida Frontiers program. As I stated earlier, I have dumped the previous ideas for the back up ones. This latest segment is on the old Orange Belt Railway which ran between Lake Monroe (Sanford) and St. Petersburg. The owner was Peter Demiens, owner of a sawmill in Longwood, Florida who took over the railway after the builders defaulted on payment for railroad ties. The first spur went from Lake Monroe to Oakland in west Orange County. The arrival of the railway to Oakland really transformed the town as it became a Railroad town and center for the Orange Belt Railway.

Fig. 2. Orange Belt Railway Pass c. 1900

     The point of the whole segment was that railway history in Florida always seems to center on Plant and Flagler. But what about the other guys who had railways that crisscrossed Florida? What about the ones whose success was not as stellar as the two Henry's? Men like Levy and Demiens built railways that transformed Florida's landscape too but their stories seem to be overshadowed by Plant's and Flagler's. Demiens' and the Orange Belt's impact on Florida was pretty transforming for the west central portion of the state. St. Petersburg was named after Demiens' hometown in Russia and the railway, along with the Florida Midland, carried citrus from the groves to the American public. The impact of the Orange Belt was a pretty big deal.
     The other thing I wanted to stress in the segment was that railroads were not always a success for their owners either. Demiens failure to make any money with the Orange Belt is an example of how risky railroad investment was not only in Florida but the rest of the country. However the transformative element of the railroad altered towns like Oakland, Withlacoochee, Winter Garden, Clermont, Tarpon Springs, and St. Petersburg.
     One last thing I have discovered in the last few weeks that I have been unaware of is the methodology of my work. It really didn't hit me until class discussion on Wednesday. The idea of explaining macro themes through micro stories was explained to us as a growing trend in the present historiography. Ah. The light bulb went off inside my head. By telling these stories I am creating a narrative that ties into larger themes. Not only was I intrigued by this concept I now have something to add to the historiography paper I have to produce at the end of this semester. It all clicks into place.

Week Eight, in which the intern debates switching things up a bit.

    Time, expediency, schedules...three things I am quickly running out of as the summer session winds its way down. Some of my interviewees will not go on tape. I did not schedule things well enough in advance on others. But all is not lost. I have back up. See, I am not new to the oral interview rodeo. I know that reluctance or scheduling conflicts happen. Therefore I put a back up plan in place. Let's hope that doesn't fall through. Otherwise its fly by the seat of my pants time.
     I did send in the first segment. It was received well with minor technical issues which I will fix and resubmit. All part of the learning curve. Again not everything is going according to plan but seriously, did I think it would? All the best laid plans yadda yadda yadda.... What I turn in will be of course, on par with what I originally planned, but I have to think of those three topics that I placed at the beginning of this blog. I am dedicating three to four days a week on this. I am getting my "Stuff" together. I am going to get it done. Am I saying this to reassure, and if I am reassuring whom? Hopefully all involved. As they say in the vernacular "the proof is in the pudding" or "put up or shut up".
     Oh and did I mention that I have not one, but two historiographical essays due? Ah yes, the fun of being a grad student. The ubiquitous historiographical essay. They say, and we all know who they are, these essays are the backbone of graduate work. They are. These essays are also a proverbial time killer whereby they eat copious amounts of time in preparation. Reading, analyzing, notes, rough drafts, final drafts... more reading, more note taking, until you get to the point and say to yourself "OK enough, it needs only to be fifteen pages not fifty." Careful scheduling is needed here and I am a bit anxious (a-hah! an understatement) about getting it all done. Let me just say that it is difficult to write essays and conduct interviews clinging to the ceiling. Loud noises and life's little dramas send me right up into the rafters at this point in the game. Yet all is not bad. Somehow I have this sick ability to use anxiety as a great motivator. Sort of a "flight or fight" response. Thank you amygdala! So I will get all the necessary tasks completed and they will all be executed in the high standards that I place upon myself. This is the sort of mantra that I repeat to myself over and over again in an effort to un-cling myself off of the ceiling at night. Grad students understand. Anyone that has gone through this process understands. I just need to lay off the caffeine.

Week Seven, in which the intern produces the first segment

What I am starting to see in my sleep.

     Yes, just like the title says, what I worked on this week was the first segment in a series of four that I need to produce. I spent a total of three days on "Citrus Tower". The first day was spent editing sound bites from the interviews I conducted with the two owners of the tower. The second day I re-wrote the working script I had to fit in with the interviews and recorded my voice reading it. The third day I spent putting it all together so I would end up with five minutes of run time for the segment. Then I sent the piece in to the FHS.
     So now what did I learn in this experience? First I learned that I need a better sound editing program, which by the way I did get after putting the piece together. So now I may re-edit everything again so the piece sounds a less bit rough. But at least I have it for the other three. The second thing I learned was that the outcome of the final product was never like what I intended for the piece to be. I wanted to discuss the idea of automobility and Florida tourism, which I did get to insert into the segment, but after the interviews I had to use what was said in the interviews. And I got a notion of using the concepts of Rosenzweig and Thelen (how the public engages with history as a personal engagement) and decided to use the idea of the carillon bells that everyone in Clermont hears as a sort of identifier of and with the tower. Then I used that to segue into the history and then back into the idea that the bells signify an idea of home and community. I bookended the segment with the sound of the bells chiming. I would say that the process was very different than I imagined it would be.
    About half of the ideas that I had on my pre-planning chart went out the window due to several criteria that I needed to meet. I needed to get everything I wanted to say with the piece in five minutes, I had to use what was said in the interviews, make it interesting enough for the public to listen, and it had to be about Florida history. A lot of the historical understanding at a master's level I had to forgo, otherwise it would have seemed too inaccessible. I had an outline of what I wanted to do, and it helped, but the piece came out totally different from what I initially envisioned. It is sort of similar to the historian writing an essay and going where the research takes them.
     As I have now finished the piece I wonder if the others will follow suit or even if I will go with my original ideas. It all depends. This process is very organic. Again I have to go with what I have and follow the criteria. Other than that everything is hunky dory. I am starting to understand that Veni, Vidi, Vici does not stand for "I came, I saw, I conquered" but is starting to take on the meaning "I read, I write, I edit" this summer.

Week Six, in which the grad student gets to the halfway point

     "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred." -Super Chicken

      A quote from Jay Ward's 1968 cartoon series seems irrelevant in a blog that is supposed to be concentrating on scholarly pursuits but the point it makes is exactly one of the things I want to talk about this week. The point it makes is as graduate level historians we knew going into this field would keep us busy. Right now I am reading more books and articles than I ever have in my life. I am coordinating and scheduling interviews. I am keeping up on my work for the colonial class. I am interacting with family and trying not to be a phantom in their lives. It has kept me busier than a Lutheran at a Lutefiske bake-off. Trying to balance everything all at once seems ridiculous, and I will admit somethings are not being taken care of as well as they should, but what I am reading and the world I am coming into contact with is worth it.
     One of the concepts I am reading right now in Radio Utopia is about how radio functions within an educational role and how that information is then relayed to and understood by the listening audience. The other concept I am reading about is in Micheal Keith's book Radio Cultures and how marginalized groups use radio to overcome discrimination. What it all means is that there is more going on in radio than I had previously thought. It is a form of media, similar to the printed word forms or visual forms, that interacts with the public. Since this is a history program that I am involved with and it is interacting with the public therefore this is public history. As such there needs to be an understanding on what exactly is occurring when the four segments I am working on get aired. Information is constructed by the author in the form of a script for a segment. The information contained in that segment is then aired out over the radio waves to the audience. The audience then listens and makes meaning from the information. In essence it is a series of complex negotiations between the author/creator of the segment and the audience similar to the engagement that exists between  visitors and museum. What I am trying to get at here is to say that radio is a medium that can be and is used to disseminate historical research out to the public. How the public interacts with that presentation of research should be recognized by the author.

I quote often from this book. 

     I am reminded of Roy Rosenzweig's and David Thelen's canonical work The Presence of the Past in thinking about this interaction and engagement. Presence of the Past stated two main points; first the public engages with history in a personal manner and second the public has different amounts of trust to the different mediums of disseminating historical events. Movies and television programs rated at the bottom of the list. Radio being another form of media could be seen as belonging there as well. So does this mean that no one will trust the information I am putting in my segments? Well yes and no. Generally the public will have some level of mistrust but the program I am working for is part of the Florida Historical Society. In The Presence of the Past list Museums, and by default historical societies, rate at the top of the list. Somewhere there is a middle-ground to the level of trust between the segment and public then. How does this relate to my work you ask? By putting a more personal approach to the segments I can engage with the public in a manner more suitable to their engagement with the history presented. For instance instead of just getting an interview with the current owner of the Citrus Tower, Dr. Brotemarkle suggested that I obtain interviews with some of the people who live and work around the tower. This personalizes the tower as something that everyday people engage with on a constant basis. It gives a personalized meaning to a structure that I would categorize as an architectural artifact. But presenting it as such would be cold and too scholarly for the public. Utilizing both approaches gets the scholarly information out but allows the public to engage with the information in the personal way, which is how they negotiate historical meaning in the first place.
     So yeah, you could say I have been reading a lot of theoretical books in the past week. This is just a preview of what I will be putting into the final paper at the end of the semester. I just need to find the time. Sleep is so overrated.
 

Week Five, in which the intern starts contacting interviewees

     Ah the joy of contacting interviewees. "No sir, I am not trying to sell you anything." "No ma'am I am not one of those annoying pollsters." These are but a few phrases that every historian who wishes to conduct oral  interviews must face when starting to contact interviewees. I have learned that the pre-interview process is about as important as the actual interview process. That gaining the trust of the interviewee will determine the outcome of the interview and the overall project. Without it you could get the worst results possible;  mono-syllabic answers or worse yet no answers. When talking with interviewees I have learned that talking to them about the interview in terms of what the project is, what you are going to ask, who will hear it, and telling them a bit of what you already know about the interview topic from extensive research tends to "get them on your side" a bit better than a cold call and a set-up for an appointment to record.
      I want interviewees to feel comfortable with me during the interview. I become a Zelig quick, but it must be an honest "I am just like you" feeling because interviewees can smell dishonesty quickly. I also want them to understand that what they have to say is very, very, very important. Because it is. Despite the theories on memory and perspective what the interviewee says is paramount to any oral history; whether that be an interview, recorded memory, or a podcast. It is history from that individual's perspective. Recording it gives a viewpoint from that interviewee. It gives them a voice; agency in the historical process. So again what they say is important and I want to get that voice recorded. I want a piece of evidence to place in the archive that says "this is _____'s viewpoint" or "this is what _______thought". To parlay that to the interviewee lets them know what they have to say or their opinion is valued. That honesty is what I try to convey to the interviewee during the pre-interview. That to me is where either a good interview or bad one is made.
     Now about this thing called research. I can not stress to anyone how research into the topic helps make or break an interview. You start going on and on about what you know and the interviewee will look at you like a rube. You have to cultivate their response. You have to give them a little bit about what you read and get their response. You do it again but you listen to their response even more intensely. Soon you are having a conversation about the topic and you have gems to mine for your project. Going in with all guns ablaze with "Oh I read this article or this book and it says _______," will get you stares Smartypants. Going in with a soft touch makes you seem like you want to learn more about the topic from them, the interviewee. It reinforces that what they say is important to you the interviewer and in affect the project.
     Well I will step off of my soapbox for now. I have given my opinion on the advantages of a pre-interview process and now have to go off and practice what I preach. Until next week dear follower.