I suppose I am in the post-family history stage having solved the puzzle of my ancestors and produced a monograph which was given to immediate relatives. I found this process very satisfying and when the job was done I was a little bereft of something to do. There are, of course, bits and pieces to correct and some fascinating 'brick walls', but the old passion has gone and I now rarely look at my voluminous spring back files so assiduously compiled. I was never one for collections of names in a database which seems to attract some genealogists (those databases with say 20,000 entries with little substantively known about 95% of them). I basically wanted to find out whom my parents were and place them in the context of their time. The family history starts with my parents and goes back in time. This is perhaps different from the usual family history which begins with the earliest ancestor record or immigrant ship. The first chapter is about my family and its life which I think is a little unusual. The book is divided into a chapter for each marriage pair and ends with those pairs several generations away. So it is not a family history as such but the familial history of my parents.
For the diffident person family history holds it perils especially when you find a kins-person you have never spoken to and then have to manage an ephemeral relationship. Fielding long distant telephone calls with the new-found kin can be stressful. Your natural shyness wants you to hold back but your eagerness for progress with the job drives you on. These people are sort of bonding with you but really they know nothing about you. There is warmth and new friendship but I have found this quickly peters out. What you find out is that you really have little in common and they fade into oblivion. The connection is really just a passing frisson and curiosity. This sort of connection in my experience extends to family history societies. Each member is interested in their particular subject but only minimally interested in their fellow researchers. As a group they are fairly straight-laced and conservative. I am not sure why this is - perhaps the hip are more focused on the present. Essentially they are dull places where it is hard to find real conviviality. Again when you have essentially finished your task the need for the society ends too. There are, of course, the long timers in the society but usually they have finished their project and remain on as committee-people, self-appointed experts and gleeful trainers.
