Continuing my previous post about the session on ghost tours and the dark side of tourism at the Future of Civil War History Conference – more thoughts and questions raised by this session:

1) It’s my belief that ghost tours speak to the desire of some tourists to have a “transcendent experience” of the battlefield. To be sure, some people obtain this experience through touring the battlefield itself – but the ghost tour allows them to indulge their imagination, and through the descriptions provided by the ghost tour guide, the battle and its casualties may become more “real” to them. I recall the deeply shocking and moving photograph shown by Peter Carmichael at the session the night before; do some ghost tourists seek to “commune” with a man like this in his suffering? Do ghost tours “bring this man back to life”?

2) Several members of the panel made the point that ghost tours can give tourists a closer look at subjects not readily explored at a battlefield park. Rob Thompson, for example, a performance scholar and former Gettysburg ghost tour guide, said that the battle of Gettysburg was just the prelude to the stories told on ghost tours, because the tours focused on civilians, in the town. Glenn W. Gentry said that ghost tours often are more inclusive of blacks and women than more formal history tours. Both of these men added that ghost tours provide an opportunity for a negotiated history – providing a forum for open discussion, questions, speculation, and a customized experience (as in, “what do you all want to see tonight?”)

3) Question: Do ghost tours make history more accessible?  Think about kids bored with a standard history tour – but excited by the idea of a ghost tour. True, ghost tours are not factual history – but like the broader question raised frequently throughout the conference: if something gets people interested in and excited about history – can we live with the less-accurate if it will inspire visitors to seek out more information and get them interested in history?