Declining Attendance at Cons?
Michael Martinez
One of the other board members for Magic Carpet Con told me she'd heard that
several cons on the east coast are becoming concerned about declining
attendance.
This is the first I've heard of such a problem, and a quick scan through
Dejanews for key phrases like "declining attendance", "decreasing attendance",
and "fewer people" (to name three) doesn't turn up anything.
So, I'm inclined to think that it's business as usual.
However, I promised I would poke around and see if anyone HAS identified a trend
toward smaller convention attendance -- anywhere in the US -- and, if so, are
people concerned about this?
I would prefer not to mention any specific cons since I didn't talk to people
associated with them and would rather not find myself in the position of
rumor-mongering.
So, what's the word out there?
Thanks in advance.
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mich...@swcp.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Jim Rittenhouse
In article <34344cc4...@news.mindspring.com>, dillson@_mindspring.com wrote:
>Michael Martinez <mich...@swcp.com> wrote:
>
>:>One of the other board members for Magic Carpet Con told me she'd heard that
>:>several cons on the east coast are becoming concerned about declining
>:>attendance.
>:>
>:>This is the first I've heard of such a problem
>:>So, what's the word out there?
>I know I have seen the death of at least two conventions in the past for
>declining attendence, PhoenixCon and Xanadu. Plus, attendence at
>conventions like DSC have has been declining steadily. I don't have the
>numbers for this year's convention in Jackson, MS, but the numbers for
>Jeckyll Island were pretty poor.
I've noticed it. At least two cons out here around Chicago have died from it,
several mid-sized ones are on life-support (read: heavy investments of
money from those involved or their supporters) and several of the large
regionals have taken a sizable hit. Some say they've lost as much as a third
of attendees - and if you budgeted wrong, it doesn't take much of a serious
hit to do some serious damage to the con.
I have my own theories on this, but I'm interested to hear what folks think as
to why.
Jim Rittenhouse (urs...@primenet.com)
http://www.primenet.com/~ursine
http://www.primenet.com/~ursine/pod.html - POINT OF DIVERGENCE, the Alternate History APA.
Jim Rittenhouse
In article <611njf$4...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>In <611ju8$o...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>Jim Rittenhouse <urs...@primenet.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>
>: I have my own theories on this, but I'm interested to hear what folks
>: think as to why.
>
>I tend to think that there are now far too many cons in proportion to the
>number of dedicated fans interested in going to them. I may, of course,
>be wrong.
The 'dedicated' or 'traveling' fans are fewer and less interested than they
used to be. Some of that's age (the average LOCUS reader is around 43,
f'r'instance, and this has been going up steadily as the years go on - I think
it's mostly the same folks) and Other Things In Life - family, house-poor,
work, less stamina. Some of it is a dropping off because fandom doesn't offer
them the things they enjoyed out of it before - or their social life has
evolved considerably outside fandom. Many (especially the family set) run
screaming from the rowdier, rougher crowds at cons.
Back in the late '70s, I'd see Mike Glicksohn at a con a moth or thereabouts
EVERYWHERE in the Midwest. I rarely see him outside of Worldcons now. Just a
f'r'instance.
Gary Farber
: I have my own theories on this, but I'm interested to hear what folks
: think as to why.
I tend to think that there are now far too many cons in proportion to the
number of dedicated fans interested in going to them. I may, of course,
be wrong.
--
--
Copyright 1997 by Gary Farber; Experienced Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC
Dan Goodman
For at least some cons, the attendance figures are public. I _think_ the
figures are public for almost all fan-run cons.
If there's a decline, is it really a problem? Cons with memberships of a
hundred or less used to be considered reasonably healthy.
And -- how do con attendance figures correlate with 1) the baby boom, and
then the bust; 2) the proliferation of fandoms and sub-fandoms with their
own cons; 3) the proliferation of cons within fandoms?
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
kikaiju
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> One of the other board members for Magic Carpet Con told me she'd heard that
> several cons on the east coast are becoming concerned about declining
> attendance.
>
> Dejanews for key phrases like "declining attendance", "decreasing attendance",
> and "fewer people" (to name three) doesn't turn up anything.
>
> So, I'm inclined to think that it's business as usual.
Depends on the con in question, and whether it's being discussed
on usenet to start with, or even public at all.
> However, I promised I would poke around and see if anyone HAS identified a trend
> toward smaller convention attendance -- anywhere in the US -- and, if so, are
> people concerned about this?
Not us. The convention I work with -which shall remain nameless-
actually
desires to keep our con smaller than the public would like it.
The consensus of the directors is that if/when this con stops being
fun due to huge crowds, we won't have the con. We are not in this
to become the world's biggest con. We're in it for fun.
On the practical side, as long as our expenses are met, we care not
if we sell any memberships beyond that.
> I would prefer not to mention any specific cons since I didn't talk to people
> associated with them and would rather not find myself in the position of
> rumor-mongering.
>
> So, what's the word out there?
I have seen duplicate cons dying off. By that I mean cons that seem
to go for the same guests, dealers, and attendees. The fact that
these cons are months apart is becoming meaningless -they're still
getting killed off by the bigger, established cons.
So if anything, perhaps people are attending fewer cons just for the
sake of saying "I want X Con!" My feeling is that there has to be a
reason for them to come to any con these days. Merely being another
con doing the same thing is not enough anyone.
Perhaps this is just Darwin's Theory of Con. *laugh*
Kikaiju
RJ-
urs...@primenet.com (Jim Rittenhouse) writes:
>I've noticed it. At least two cons out here around Chicago have died from it,
> several mid-sized ones are on life-support (read: heavy investments of
>money from those involved or their supporters) and several of the large
>regionals have taken a sizable hit. Some say they've lost as much as a third
>of attendees - and if you budgeted wrong, it doesn't take much of a serious
>hit to do some serious damage to the con.
>I have my own theories on this, but I'm interested to hear what folks think as
>to why.
Well, as someone who worked on a convention that managed to have both its
smallest attendance in its history and offer the most fun (IMBO *grin*)
this past year, let me offer the following observation:
Declining attendance is only a problem if you raison d'etre is to have
attendees. If you decide that you are spending money to show your friends
a Good Time rather than looking at becoming the Micro$oft of conventions,
running at break-even (or even a small loss) isn't a difficulty.
As to why the attendance is declining, I'd say that the people either
don't have the money to spend on that particular convention or have things
they'd rather spend their money on. the first is bad timing; the second
is a death knell for your convention, whatever its focus.
RJ Johnson
Minister of Propaganda
Congenial 9
Bruce Sheffer
Jim Rittenhouse wrote:
<snip>
>>I know I have seen the death of at least two conventions in the past for declining attendence
> I have my own theories on this, but I'm interested to hear what folks think as to why.
First is the balkanization of cons. It used to be that you attended a
con expecting a wide range of activities and offerings. Now most look
for a con to address their specific interests and attend only those.
This is great if their interest is popular (and results in a huge con)
but it also suffers from the boom and bust cycle. General cons may not
have enough of what you are looking for to maintain your interest which
results in an unsatisfactory experience. Even large cons have suffered
from this by trying to be everything to everyone.
Second, at one time conventions were the only reliable source of SF
information and merchandise. I have attended cons just to see the
movies (especially classics). Now we have the SF channel. Every video
store has a horror and SF section. Comic stores sell everything from
Sailor Moon to gaming to porn. Online servers are accessible by all so
you can meet your favorite author without leaving your keyboard.
third, since SF has become mainstream popular, merchandise is big
business. As a result mundane stores carry most of it. Now when you go
to a convention you see the same products you could have purchased at
any time so that impulse buy isn't there. That eliminates most of the
smaller dealers leaving you with the same stuff convention after
convention. Also since it is big business, amateurs don't want to make
an offering since it will compare badly to the mass market products.
This also lessens the flavor of a convention.
Most conventions are not child friendly. Since the median age of Locus
reader is 43 and people are having families later most fans have
families to cart around. This means that they need child care to attend
sessions (or bring in a possible disturbance). They also are concerned
about the nature of what their older children would be getting into
while their backs are turned. Most conventions make no effort to
address these issues other than saying "no costume is no costume". Now
I'm not suggesting that parents should let their kids run wild. We have
more than enough of that. However, many of the present offerings are
completely adult in nature and are of great concern to parents. These
are not just limited to official con offerings, but include room
parties.
Finally, most SF fans have lost their belief that we will reach even
another planet in their lifetimes other than a purely research mission.
They feel alienated from their dreams and don't need to be reminded by
going to cons where they see the movies and hear the same panels about
exploring space - a place they have given up ever reaching.
Sally Aaron
Jim Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> >I know I have seen the death of at least two conventions in the past for
> >conventions like DSC have has been declining steadily. I don't have the
> >numbers for this year's convention in Jackson, MS, but the numbers for
> >Jeckyll Island were pretty poor.
>
> several mid-sized ones are on life-support (read: heavy investments of
> money from those involved or their supporters) and several of the large
> regionals have taken a sizable hit. Some say they've lost as much as a third
> of attendees - and if you budgeted wrong, it doesn't take much of a serious
> hit to do some serious damage to the con.
>
> to why.
For me, it's the rising cost of attending conventions -- travel and
hotels. Anything farther than a four or five hour drive, I'm going to
fly, because I can't handle the automobile interior for any longer than
that. That's an fairly unholy expense. Then the hotels are getting
more expensive every year, to the point that it's getting prohibitive.
The average fans just can't afford to do the big cons much anymore
unless they do like I do, and their one big con every year becomes their
vacation.
--
*********************************************************************
Everything in the world is controlled by a small evil group to which,
unfortunately, no one we know belongs.
*********************************************************************
Nels E Satterlund
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> One of the other board members for Magic Carpet Con told me she'd heard that
> several cons on the east coast are becoming concerned about declining
> attendance.
>
> This is the first I've heard of such a problem, and a quick scan through
> Dejanews for key phrases like "declining attendance", "decreasing attendance",
> and "fewer people" (to name three) doesn't turn up anything.
>
> So, I'm inclined to think that it's business as usual.
>
> toward smaller convention attendance -- anywhere in the US -- and, if so, are
> people concerned about this?
>
> associated with them and would rather not find myself in the position of
> rumor-mongering.
>
> So, what's the word out there?
>
>
> --
> ++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
> ||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
> || v ||ichael Martinez (mich...@swcp.com)
> ++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Small long lived cons have also had a change in the people running them
as they burned out.
Without fresh blood to replace burned out people and a way to freshen
things up without
messing things up things will dwindle, flicker out and die.
MosCon, a small 200-300 people convention held in Moscow Idaho, will be
20 next year and
is in recovery mode after several years of decline in the 92-95 years
It is being turned around due to the diligent efforts of the people who
enjoy it and wish it to continue.
But that has meant changes and moving to an atmosphere where change is
requested to try to accommodate the desires of the attendees.
A good hour or more of the Sunday Dead Cow party this year was an open
forum on what would you like to see different next year, what did you
like this year and how can we get more people to come next year.
Disclaimer
I have no official connection with MosCon other than going to the prior
19 of them.
--
Nels E Satterlund I don't speak for the company
Ne...@aol.com <-- Use this address the other is missin_'s in my
name
BillyBond
>From: dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman)
>If there's a decline, is it really a problem? Cons with memberships of a
>hundred or less used to be considered reasonably healthy.
Sure, when hotel rooms were $40 a night, airfare was a third of what it costs
now, and gasoline was 49.9 a gallon...
Bill Warren
Brenda and Larry Clough
> Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> > One of the other board members for Magic Carpet Con told me she'd heard that
> > several cons on the east coast are becoming concerned about declining
> > attendance.
> >
> > This is the first I've heard of such a problem, and a quick scan through
> > Dejanews for key phrases like "declining attendance", "decreasing attendance",
> > and "fewer people" (to name three) doesn't turn up anything.
> >
> > So, I'm inclined to think that it's business as usual.
> >
> > However, I promised I would poke around and see if anyone HAS identified a trend
> > toward smaller convention attendance -- anywhere in the US -- and, if so, are
> > people concerned about this?
> >
I have heard discussions about this. The argument comes under two
heads.
One, essentially, is that we won. No longer does an sf fan have to go
to a convention to meet other readers of sf. You can turn on the TV and
see X-files or Hercules; STAR WARS and STAR TREK are cultural icons;
it's not an exclusive and little-known subgenrelet any more, but big
Hollywood buckola. So people no longer -need- to go to cons.
The other is that fandom is ageing. Look around at the people who are
running the next con you go to. In their 40s or 50s, maybe? No longer
pushing tots in strollers, but handing money to their college-age kids?
Younger people attend cons, but they don't join up and help run them.
Unless new people come on board to run the cons, there won't be any more
eventually.
Brenda
BillyBond
>From: gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber)
>I tend to think that there are now far too many cons in proportion to the
>number of dedicated fans interested in going to them. I may, of course,
>be wrong.
I think your're right, that there are too many conventions; their novelty value
has worn off, and there's a certain kind of burnout for cons of all stripes.
The last LA WorldCon had an attendance considerably smaller than the one in
1984 -- AND Creation Cons have cut back on the number of >their< monetary
little outings, too.
Bill Warren
Jim Rittenhouse
In article <611rei$a...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>I say that we're a victim of the success of science fiction: there are now
>so many people who identify as "science fiction fans" that it is most
>certainly no longer "a proud and lonely thing."
>
>Which means that no longer can you expect that just because someone
>self-identifies as a "science fiction fan" that you have anything much in
>common at all with them, including the same taste in literature, let alone
>a common culture of fandom.
Very very true. And more true every year. And each of the concentrations
and subgroups adds to that distancing, IMHO. No homogenization, no
enculturalization.
>When Mike went to all those Midwestern cons, and I went to a few myself,
>they largely had the same people attending, and the majority of folks
>would get the jokes about Bill Bowers, and Randy Bathhurst, and Bob Tucker
>and "smooth," and so on.
God, I haven't seen or heard from Randy Bathurst for eons. I *occasionally*
see Bowers, and it's been a while for Tucker - who is just a shell of himself.
No Steve Leigh, unless you go to CFG stuff, no Taral and Victoria - and most
everyone out there is probably saying *what and who is Rittenhouse going on
about*?
That says something, too.
> Mike, and most folk, went because they were
>family gatherings. Now, it's not even necessarily "friends I've never
>met." Too often, it's strangers, and emphatically not just because you've
>never met them.
>
>Can you tell I'm in a morose mood? ;-)
Naw. Not in the least.
Then RJ opens up with:
>Well, travelling 12 hours by dilapidated vehicle only to spend 3 hours a
>night sleeping in a double-double with 14 people (only 6 of whom you
>actually know) and eating Cheeze Doodles and Mountain Dew as your only
>sustenance for a weekend while you party with a woman dressed as a
>blue-skinned alien from Deneb looks a _lot_ more appealing at 23 than at
>43.
Sure does. Though I always ate better than Cheeze Doodles and Mountain Dew,
never partied with painted ladies, kept the room numbers to no more than
seven, but I did the rest. And having married someone who is not originally
fannish helps in the desire to not rough it at cons. She'll remind you that
you 'really really' didn't want to stuff that room.
Plus, I can afford the room now. When I was 23, I was still in school.
>I find it interesting that folks who tell me Thrilling Wonder Stories of
>Their Fannish Youth ("the Drunken Spacewoman Party" and 10-dimensional
>Langdon Chart couplings) are often the same ones who rail in anger at the
>dissipative desires of Today's Troubled Young Fandom. :-)
>
>Of course, I am just a smartass at heart.
Doubtless. Of course, the Langdon chart couplings didn't take place all at
once and in the hotel lobby or in the middle of room parties (watch what
you're attaching to that sprinkler, Marvin) and didn't include being
publically rude or offensive to people. As long as they don't damage the
rooms, I don't care what they do behind closed doors, and we old farts were
pretty good about that - especially at the efficiency sessions or the Joe
Haldeman and Michael Glicksohn seminars in applied statistics. You need real
math professors for that.
Jim Rittenhouse
In article <612t7n$9i6$1...@client2.news.psi.net>, Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer "@ aol.com> wrote:
>Jim Rittenhouse wrote:
><snip>
>>>I know I have seen the death of at least two conventions in the past for
> declining attendence
>> I have my own theories on this, but I'm interested to hear what folks think
> as to why.
>
>con expecting a wide range of activities and offerings. Now most look
>for a con to address their specific interests and attend only those.
>This is great if their interest is popular (and results in a huge con)
>but it also suffers from the boom and bust cycle. General cons may not
>have enough of what you are looking for to maintain your interest which
>results in an unsatisfactory experience. Even large cons have suffered
>from this by trying to be everything to everyone.
Which you can't be. The real problem is see is that trying to do so pleases
nobody, and wears you ragged. The number of fans who just come in Our Group
and venture very little out of that group is growing all the time - and the
cohesion of the whole (and the implied interest and committment to the whole)
ends up severely lacking.
>Second, at one time conventions were the only reliable source of SF
>information and merchandise.
True, it's more available - the dross is, anyway.
>Most conventions are not child friendly. Since the median age of Locus
>reader is 43 and people are having families later most fans have
>families to cart around. This means that they need child care to attend
>sessions (or bring in a possible disturbance). They also are concerned
>about the nature of what their older children would be getting into
>while their backs are turned. Most conventions make no effort to
>address these issues other than saying "no costume is no costume". Now
>I'm not suggesting that parents should let their kids run wild. We have
>more than enough of that. However, many of the present offerings are
>completely adult in nature and are of great concern to parents. These
>are not just limited to official con offerings, but include room
>parties.
Very true, even if saying so will piss some people off. And saying to said
parents that they're just real Jurassic, y'know, will get a cold look and a
further resolve to remove oneself on the part of the parent.
>Finally, most SF fans have lost their belief that we will reach even
>another planet in their lifetimes other than a purely research mission.
>They feel alienated from their dreams and don't need to be reminded by
>going to cons where they see the movies and hear the same panels about
>exploring space - a place they have given up ever reaching.
*sigh* Yep. Probably the saddest reality in ALL of this.
Jim Rittenhouse
In article <6130t4$p...@xochi.tezcat.com>, r...@xochi.tezcat.com (RJ-) wrote:
>urs...@primenet.com (Jim Rittenhouse) writes:>
>Well, as someone who worked on a convention that managed to have both its
>smallest attendance in its history and offer the most fun (IMBO *grin*)
>this past year,
I *daresay*. IMBO? What's that? In My Bulbous Opinion?
> let me offer the following observation:
>
>Declining attendance is only a problem if you raison d'etre is to have
>attendees.
While I'm the last person to promote Big Cons, it's damn hard to have a con at
all without attendees. Easier to run, though.
> If you decide that you are spending money to show your friends
>a Good Time rather than looking at becoming the Micro$oft of conventions,
>running at break-even (or even a small loss) isn't a difficulty.
Making Money at conrunning is for Creation Cons. Most of us do it to (a) do
things right for people (b) because we feel like helping, and (c) a little
egoboo doesn't hurt in the process. Fanzines are also another indoor sport
that doesn't make any money, but people do it for the love of it.
>As to why the attendance is declining, I'd say that the people either
>don't have the money to spend on that particular convention or have things
>they'd rather spend their money on. the first is bad timing; the second
>is a death knell for your convention, whatever its focus.
Well, sure it's priorities.
RJ-
urs...@primenet.com (Jim Rittenhouse) writes:
>In article <611njf$4...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>>In <611ju8$o...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>>Jim Rittenhouse <urs...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>[. . .]
>>
>>: I have my own theories on this, but I'm interested to hear what folks
>>: think as to why.
>>
>>I tend to think that there are now far too many cons in proportion to the
>>number of dedicated fans interested in going to them. I may, of course,
>>be wrong.
>The 'dedicated' or 'traveling' fans are fewer and less interested than they
>used to be. Some of that's age (the average LOCUS reader is around 43,
>f'r'instance, and this has been going up steadily as the years go on - I think
>it's mostly the same folks) and Other Things In Life - family, house-poor,
>work, less stamina. Some of it is a dropping off because fandom doesn't offer
>them the things they enjoyed out of it before - or their social life has
>evolved considerably outside fandom. Many (especially the family set) run
>screaming from the rowdier, rougher crowds at cons.
Well, travelling 12 hours by dilapidated vehicle only to spend 3 hours a
night sleeping in a double-double with 14 people (only 6 of whom you
actually know) and eating Cheeze Doodles and Mountain Dew as your only
sustenance for a weekend while you party with a woman dressed as a
blue-skinned alien from Deneb looks a _lot_ more appealing at 23 than at
43.
I find it interesting that folks who tell me Thrilling Wonder Stories of
Their Fannish Youth ("the Drunken Spacewoman Party" and 10-dimensional
Langdon Chart couplings) are often the same ones who rail in anger at the
dissipative desires of Today's Troubled Young Fandom. :-)
Of course, I am just a smartass at heart.
RJ Johnson
Jim Rittenhouse
In article <3434FA...@me.and.die>, sp...@me.and.die wrote::
>Not us. The convention I work with -which shall remain nameless-
>actually
>desires to keep our con smaller than the public would like it.
>
>The consensus of the directors is that if/when this con stops being
>fun due to huge crowds, we won't have the con. We are not in this
>to become the world's biggest con. We're in it for fun.
>
>On the practical side, as long as our expenses are met, we care not
>if we sell any memberships beyond that.
Not a bad attitude. Beats the people who want a three-ring-circus and big
numbers for their ego's sake.
>I have seen duplicate cons dying off. By that I mean cons that seem
>to go for the same guests, dealers, and attendees. The fact that
>these cons are months apart is becoming meaningless -they're still
>getting killed off by the bigger, established cons.
>
>So if anything, perhaps people are attending fewer cons just for the
>sake of saying "I want X Con!" My feeling is that there has to be a
>reason for them to come to any con these days. Merely being another
>con doing the same thing is not enough anyone.
Well, X-Con died off, so...
Gary Farber
In <611q19$r...@nntp02.primenet.com>
: The 'dedicated' or 'traveling' fans are fewer and less interested than they
: f'r'instance, and this has been going up steadily as the years go on - I think
: it's mostly the same folks) and Other Things In Life - family, house-poor,
: work, less stamina. Some of it is a dropping off because fandom doesn't offer
: them the things they enjoyed out of it before - or their social life has
: evolved considerably outside fandom. Many (especially the family set) run
: screaming from the rowdier, rougher crowds at cons.
: Back in the late '70s, I'd see Mike Glicksohn at a con a moth or thereabouts
: EVERYWHERE in the Midwest. I rarely see him outside of Worldcons now. Just a
: f'r'instance.
I say that we're a victim of the success of science fiction: there are now
so many people who identify as "science fiction fans" that it is most
certainly no longer "a proud and lonely thing."
Which means that no longer can you expect that just because someone
self-identifies as a "science fiction fan" that you have anything much in
common at all with them, including the same taste in literature, let alone
a common culture of fandom. Balkanization rules, and you certainly can't
assume that if you pick a random self-labeled "science fiction convention"
that it will be what *you* look for and expect in a science fiction
convention.
When Mike went to all those Midwestern cons, and I went to a few myself,
they largely had the same people attending, and the majority of folks
would get the jokes about Bill Bowers, and Randy Bathhurst, and Bob Tucker
and "smooth," and so on. Mike, and most folk, went because they were
family gatherings. Now, it's not even necessarily "friends I've never
met." Too often, it's strangers, and emphatically not just because you've
never met them.
Can you tell I'm in a morose mood? ;-)
RJ-
> Jim Rittenhouse wrote:
> <snip>
> >>I know I have seen the death of at least two conventions in the past
for declining attendence
> <snip>
> > I have my own theories on this, but I'm interested to hear what folks
think as to why.
>
> Most conventions are not child friendly. Since the median age of Locus
> reader is 43 and people are having families later most fans have
> families to cart around. This means that they need child care to attend
> sessions (or bring in a possible disturbance). They also are concerned
> about the nature of what their older children would be getting into
> while their backs are turned. Most conventions make no effort to
> address these issues other than saying "no costume is no costume". Now
> I'm not suggesting that parents should let their kids run wild. We have
> more than enough of that. However, many of the present offerings are
> completely adult in nature and are of great concern to parents. These
> are not just limited to official con offerings, but include room
> parties.
Child care costs. Also, too many folks perceive child care as analogous to
"A place to abandon my child(ren) for the weekend while I party." At
congenial this year, we offered child care memberships that covered 5
hours during the a span of set hours. We had a number of parents buy
child care memberships, but most of the parents kept their kids with them
and showed the convention to them. Others who bought child care
memberships made arrangements at the last minute so they could leave their
youngsters safely supervised at home.
> Finally, most SF fans have lost their belief that we will reach even
> another planet in their lifetimes other than a purely research mission.
> They feel alienated from their dreams and don't need to be reminded by
> going to cons where they see the movies and hear the same panels about
> exploring space - a place they have given up ever reaching.
Saw a bit on CNN Headline News that a prvate concern in California is
building a spaceplane that will (if everything goes right, always a big
if) offer passengers a Earth to Orbit ride at $10,000 per head.
Hope only dies when you give it up.
RJ Johnson
Minister of Propaganda
Congenial 9
Neil Rest GoH
RJ-
In article <614dks$7...@nntp02.primenet.com>, urs...@primenet.com (Jim
Rittenhouse) wrote:
> In article <6130t4$p...@xochi.tezcat.com>, r...@xochi.tezcat.com (RJ-) wrote:
> >urs...@primenet.com (Jim Rittenhouse) writes:>
> >Well, as someone who worked on a convention that managed to have both its
> >smallest attendance in its history and offer the most fun (IMBO *grin*)
> >this past year,
>
> I *daresay*. IMBO? What's that? In My Bulbous Opinion?
In My Biased Opinion (I'm the Minister of Propaganda, after all. :-)
> > let me offer the following observation:
> >
> >Declining attendance is only a problem if you raison d'etre is to have
> >attendees.
>
> While I'm the last person to promote Big Cons, it's damn hard to have a
con at
> all without attendees. Easier to run, though.
I stand corrected. I meant to say "having more attendees than last year"
or "using the attnedees to generate a profit." It's the difference
between viewing attendees as your friends (new, old or potential) and
viewing the attendees as marks.
> > If you decide that you are spending money to show your friends
> >a Good Time rather than looking at becoming the Micro$oft of conventions,
> >running at break-even (or even a small loss) isn't a difficulty.
>
> Making Money at conrunning is for Creation Cons. Most of us do it to (a) do
> things right for people (b) because we feel like helping, and (c) a little
> egoboo doesn't hurt in the process. Fanzines are also another indoor sport
> that doesn't make any money, but people do it for the love of it.
Hey, I'd like to be able to run a convention that made enough money to
keep having it the next year. I'm a fan and a filthy ca[italist, y'know.
> >As to why the attendance is declining, I'd say that the people either
> >don't have the money to spend on that particular convention or have things
> >they'd rather spend their money on. the first is bad timing; the second
> >is a death knell for your convention, whatever its focus.
>
> Well, sure it's priorities.
You make it sound so obvious. It is also the priorities of the concom,
"Do we want to do this again?", "What do we want to do next year?", "Who
do we want to do it with?" I think what leads to burnout is that concoms
assume the answers to the above questions are unchanging over time.
RJ Johnson
Minister of Propaganda
Congenial 9
Neil Rest, GoH
Other information to follow
--
Usenet: So much information; so much of it wrong.
r...@tezcat.com
Jim Rittenhouse
In article <rj-041097...@rj.tezcat.com>, rj@tez_nospam_cat.com (RJ-) wrote:
>In article <614cuc$6...@nntp02.primenet.com>, urs...@primenet.com (Jim
>Rittenhouse) wrote:
>> No Steve Leigh, unless you go to CFG stuff, no Taral and Victoria - and most
>> everyone out there is probably saying *what and who is Rittenhouse going on
>> about*?
>
>If we are talking about the same Taral, he was at Duckon this year. Had a
>nice chat, even though he didn't know me from Adam's hind ox.
*glyph of surprise* Taral Wayne McDonald the fanzine editor? Ee-gad. The
dead walk. What was he wearing? (This is important and *obvious*, and the
old farts will realize why.)
>> >Well, travelling 12 hours by dilapidated vehicle only to spend 3 hours a
>> >night sleeping in a double-double with 14 people (only 6 of whom you
>> >actually know) and eating Cheeze Doodles and Mountain Dew as your only
>> >sustenance for a weekend while you party with a woman dressed as a
>> >blue-skinned alien from Deneb looks a _lot_ more appealing at 23 than at
>> >43.
>>
>> Sure does. Though I always ate better than Cheeze Doodles and Mountain Dew,
>> never partied with painted ladies, kept the room numbers to no more than
>> seven, but I did the rest. And having married someone who is not originally
>> fannish helps in the desire to not rough it at cons. She'll remind you that
>> you 'really really' didn't want to stuff that room.
>
>I know Susan would shoot you if you ever suggested that you two stuff the
>room. But I would think that a certain Ms. Murphy wouldn't have had any
>problems on that front. Or am I misremembering?
The present Mrs. Rittenhouse would shoot me. The former one could stuff it
all by herself (and costumes, autoharps, etc.) and still does last I heard
(complete with tot and druggie Yam).
>> Doubtless. Of course, the Langdon chart couplings didn't take place all at
>> once and in the hotel lobby or in the middle of room parties (watch what
>> you're attaching to that sprinkler, Marvin) and didn't include being
>> publically rude or offensive to people.
>
>Um, I could name names here, but that would only be tasteless. But we
>both know people who were [a] more sexually active than nymphomaniacal
>minks and [b] had all the social grace of a really bad case of the crabs.
Those people were tasteless anyway, and we shouldn't talk about
vapor...@aol.com and h1za...@aol.com like that, let alone ade...@aol.com.
>Also, what is the difference between a "room party" and an "invitational
>orgy" other than someone playing door-guard?
Never having been to an invitational orgy in my life (three people don't
count), I would imagine that the doors were closed.
>On the sprinkler head story... well, you win. :-)
Set and match.
>[gets on soapbox]
>
>Look, I'll be the first to step up and say that there are a lot of younger
>folks (I'd say 25 on down) who don't have a clue about fannish behavior.
>But I will also point out that I have seen a lot of old farts who would
>rather simply piss-n-moan over their Guinness at the bar then perhaps, I
>dunno, talk to these folks. This doesn't mean taking them aside and
>droning on about "How you could be a credit to fandom if you just went to
>Midwestcon" or other efforts to impart good manners through bludgeoning.
>It means, god forbid, talking to them without rolling your eyes at their
>nose piercings or their taste in bisexual vampire erotica.
RJ - you know, you and Adam could become real SMOFs and such if you just met
the right people. People have told you that, right?
This is one old fart who handed over con management to a team that included
folks that Real SMOFs (same ones) said were a real joke - because he believed
in their ability. And tries daily Not To Look Back, because that's the way to
death, destruction and Being The Dead Hand of Responsibility Forever. In
short, a lot of the things I don't care for in con management, for better or
for worse. Things must go on.
But lord knows, bisexual vampire erotica deosn't do anything for me.
>Or don't you remember when you were a weirdo because you read that "Sie
>Fie Crap" and dressed up as a Klingon?
Never dressed as a Klingon. The live food is too much, and I have enough
complexion problems without that much makeup.
RJ-
> God, I haven't seen or heard from Randy Bathurst for eons. I *occasionally*
> see Bowers, and it's been a while for Tucker - who is just a shell of
himself.
> No Steve Leigh, unless you go to CFG stuff, no Taral and Victoria - and most
> everyone out there is probably saying *what and who is Rittenhouse going on
> about*?
If we are talking about the same Taral, he was at Duckon this year. Had a
nice chat, even though he didn't know me from Adam's hind ox.
>
> That says something, too.
>
> > Mike, and most folk, went because they were
> >family gatherings. Now, it's not even necessarily "friends I've never
> >met." Too often, it's strangers, and emphatically not just because you've
> >never met them.
> >
> >Can you tell I'm in a morose mood? ;-)
>
> Naw. Not in the least.
> Then RJ opens up with:
>
> >Well, travelling 12 hours by dilapidated vehicle only to spend 3 hours a
> >night sleeping in a double-double with 14 people (only 6 of whom you
> >actually know) and eating Cheeze Doodles and Mountain Dew as your only
> >sustenance for a weekend while you party with a woman dressed as a
> >blue-skinned alien from Deneb looks a _lot_ more appealing at 23 than at
> >43.
>
> Sure does. Though I always ate better than Cheeze Doodles and Mountain Dew,
> never partied with painted ladies, kept the room numbers to no more than
> seven, but I did the rest. And having married someone who is not originally
> fannish helps in the desire to not rough it at cons. She'll remind you that
> you 'really really' didn't want to stuff that room.
I know Susan would shoot you if you ever suggested that you two stuff the
room. But I would think that a certain Ms. Murphy wouldn't have had any
problems on that front. Or am I misremembering?
> >I find it interesting that folks who tell me Thrilling Wonder Stories of
> >Their Fannish Youth ("the Drunken Spacewoman Party" and 10-dimensional
> >Langdon Chart couplings) are often the same ones who rail in anger at the
> >dissipative desires of Today's Troubled Young Fandom. :-)
> >
> >Of course, I am just a smartass at heart.
>
> Doubtless. Of course, the Langdon chart couplings didn't take place all at
> once and in the hotel lobby or in the middle of room parties (watch what
> you're attaching to that sprinkler, Marvin) and didn't include being
> publically rude or offensive to people.
Um, I could name names here, but that would only be tasteless. But we
both know people who were [a] more sexually active than nymphomaniacal
minks and [b] had all the social grace of a really bad case of the crabs.
Next argument.
Also, what is the difference between a "room party" and an "invitational
orgy" other than someone playing door-guard?
On the sprinkler head story... well, you win. :-)
[gets on soapbox]
Look, I'll be the first to step up and say that there are a lot of younger
folks (I'd say 25 on down) who don't have a clue about fannish behavior.
But I will also point out that I have seen a lot of old farts who would
rather simply piss-n-moan over their Guinness at the bar then perhaps, I
dunno, talk to these folks. This doesn't mean taking them aside and
droning on about "How you could be a credit to fandom if you just went to
Midwestcon" or other efforts to impart good manners through bludgeoning.
It means, god forbid, talking to them without rolling your eyes at their
nose piercings or their taste in bisexual vampire erotica.
Or don't you remember when you were a weirdo because you read that "Sie
Fie Crap" and dressed up as a Klingon?
[stands down off of soapbox]
RJ Johnson
Minister of Propaganda
Congenial 9
Neil Rest, GoH
Joseph Askew
I know why the Cons are suffering - they keep holding them in
damn dangerous places like New Orleans. Bring them all back to
New York I say! Hold them where visitors can feel safe and
secure. No more outside Mahattan, or the Bronx at least.
Joseph "Sorry But I Couldn't Resist" Askew
--
Here's to Sam and Shari Askew on the birth of Ethan John & Isaac David
I think Spam should NOT be sent to root@localhost, postmaster@localhost,
abuse@localhost, root@bizserve, webm...@cyberpromo.com, cust...@usps.gov
and most of all not to pres...@whitehouse.gov, first...@whitehouse.gov
Michele Ellington
Jim Rittenhouse (urs...@primenet.com) wrote:
> In article <rj-041097...@rj.tezcat.com>, rj@tez_nospam_cat.com (RJ-) wrote:
> >I stand corrected. I meant to say "having more attendees than last year"
> >or "using the attnedees to generate a profit." It's the difference
> >between viewing attendees as your friends (new, old or potential) and
> >viewing the attendees as marks.
There is a major difference between viewing people as "customers" or
"consumers" and as "marks". I sell my art at cons and other venues.
Even though I need to sell that art, to help pay for the con and to
finance further art, I certainly do not see the potential buyers
as "marks". In fact, if they are not going to be happy with the
purchase, I would rather they did not buy the piece at all. I
would rather have a handful of regular patrons who look forward to
seeing me at cons and mail order work from me (as I do with several
artists I admire), than individuals who buy a piece and are in some
way unsatisfied, even though the money is in my pocket either way.
When I have been closely involved in running a con, I have never
viewed *all* the attendees as potential friends. Perhaps I have a
narrower definition of the word friend. I view them as various
people with whom I share an interest or three, and whom I can spend
a few days sharing pleasant company with. There are often attendees
whose interests are so far from my own as to share no real overlap,
I consider it a challenge to make the convention interesting to
these people as well. While I am not likely to have extended
conversations with then in the consuite or attend any of the events
they enjoy, I still welcome them and treasure them as members of
fandom. They are just keeping other lights burning.
> >> >As to why the attendance is declining, I'd say that the people either
> >> >don't have the money to spend on that particular convention or have things
> >> >they'd rather spend their money on. the first is bad timing; the second
> >> >is a death knell for your convention, whatever its focus.
I have also seen conventions evolve (or devolve, depending on
your viewpoint) to fewer and fewer topics of interest, focusing on
only one or two aspects of fandom where once they were focused on many.
If your convention reflected, say, eight different aspects of fandom
in the past, and has narrowed its focus to two, then you should expect
a significant dropoff of those who were attending to enjoy the other
aspects. Some people see this as good riddance, others see it as a
diminishment of patronage.
kikaiju
Jim Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> In article <3434FA...@me.and.die>, sp...@me.and.die wrote::
> >Not us. The convention I work with -which shall remain nameless-
> >actually
> >desires to keep our con smaller than the public would like it.
> >
> >The consensus of the directors is that if/when this con stops being
> >fun due to huge crowds, we won't have the con. We are not in this
> >to become the world's biggest con. We're in it for fun.
> >
> >On the practical side, as long as our expenses are met, we care not
> >if we sell any memberships beyond that.
>
> Not a bad attitude. Beats the people who want a three-ring-circus and big
> numbers for their ego's sake.
That is exactly what we do not want. :) We do this because it's
something
we believe in and enjoy and even love.
>
> >I have seen duplicate cons dying off. By that I mean cons that seem
> >to go for the same guests, dealers, and attendees. The fact that
> >these cons are months apart is becoming meaningless -they're still
> >getting killed off by the bigger, established cons.
> >
> >So if anything, perhaps people are attending fewer cons just for the
> >sake of saying "I want X Con!" My feeling is that there has to be a
> >reason for them to come to any con these days. Merely being another
> >con doing the same thing is not enough anyone.
>
> Well, X-Con died off, so...
That was only a figure of speech! Honest!
And it looks like my typing failed too: it was supposed to
read "I went to X Con" meaning something like.... "fewer people
are going to cons just to say they've been there."
Kikaiju
RJ-
In article <61767s$5...@nntp02.primenet.com>, urs...@primenet.com (Jim
Rittenhouse) wrote:
> In article <rj-041097...@rj.tezcat.com>, rj@tez_nospam_cat.com
(RJ-) wrote:
> >In article <614cuc$6...@nntp02.primenet.com>, urs...@primenet.com (Jim
> >Rittenhouse) wrote:
>
> >> No Steve Leigh, unless you go to CFG stuff, no Taral and Victoria -
and most
> >> everyone out there is probably saying *what and who is Rittenhouse
going on
> >> about*?
> >
> >If we are talking about the same Taral, he was at Duckon this year. Had a
> >nice chat, even though he didn't know me from Adam's hind ox.
>
> *glyph of surprise* Taral Wayne McDonald the fanzine editor? Ee-gad. The
> dead walk. What was he wearing? (This is important and *obvious*, and the
> old farts will realize why.)
Yeppers. Um, if memory serves, at one point he was wearing a kinda
lime-green t-shirt. I don't recall what was printed on it, tho.
> >I know Susan would shoot you if you ever suggested that you two stuff the
> >room. But I would think that a certain Ms. Murphy wouldn't have had any
> >problems on that front. Or am I misremembering?
>
> The present Mrs. Rittenhouse would shoot me. The former one could stuff it
> all by herself (and costumes, autoharps, etc.) and still does last I heard
> (complete with tot and druggie Yam).
*shrug* Go fig.
> >> Doubtless. Of course, the Langdon chart couplings didn't take place
all at
> >> once and in the hotel lobby or in the middle of room parties (watch what
> >> you're attaching to that sprinkler, Marvin) and didn't include being
> >> publically rude or offensive to people.
> >
> >Um, I could name names here, but that would only be tasteless. But we
> >both know people who were [a] more sexually active than nymphomaniacal
> >minks and [b] had all the social grace of a really bad case of the crabs.
>
> Those people were tasteless anyway, and we shouldn't talk about
> vapor...@aol.com and h1za...@aol.com like that, let alone ade...@aol.com.
Yeah, but they were tasteless old-pharts, proving that tastelessness is
not just a problem of the Younger Generation.
> >Also, what is the difference between a "room party" and an "invitational
> >orgy" other than someone playing door-guard?
>
> Never having been to an invitational orgy in my life (three people don't
> count), I would imagine that the doors were closed.
>
> >On the sprinkler head story... well, you win. :-)
>
> Set and match.
Hey, the hotel wants them back for next year, so it couldn't have been too
bad. Either that or the Hotel Liason has the true gift of blarney. :)
> >[gets on soapbox]
> >
> >Look, I'll be the first to step up and say that there are a lot of younger
> >folks (I'd say 25 on down) who don't have a clue about fannish behavior.
> >But I will also point out that I have seen a lot of old farts who would
> >rather simply piss-n-moan over their Guinness at the bar then perhaps, I
> >dunno, talk to these folks. This doesn't mean taking them aside and
> >droning on about "How you could be a credit to fandom if you just went to
> >Midwestcon" or other efforts to impart good manners through bludgeoning.
> >It means, god forbid, talking to them without rolling your eyes at their
> >nose piercings or their taste in bisexual vampire erotica.
>
> RJ - you know, you and Adam could become real SMOFs and such if you just met
> the right people. People have told you that, right?
>
> This is one old fart who handed over con management to a team that included
> folks that Real SMOFs (same ones) said were a real joke - because he believed
> in their ability. And tries daily Not To Look Back, because that's the
way to
> death, destruction and Being The Dead Hand of Responsibility Forever. In
> short, a lot of the things I don't care for in con management, for better or
> for worse. Things must go on.
>
> But lord knows, bisexual vampire erotica deosn't do anything for me.
No, you go in more for alternate histories where J. Edgar Hoover was a
transvestite and ran the FBI. ;-)
> >Or don't you remember when you were a weirdo because you read that "Sie
> >Fie Crap" and dressed up as a Klingon?
>
> Never dressed as a Klingon. The live food is too much, and I have enough
> complexion problems without that much makeup.
You know what I mean, Jim, even if you didn't do it yourself. The fact
that folks have interests that are different from yours doesn't make 'em
de facto _wrong_, just different. I've always thought that one of the
keystones to the fannish attitude is "different isn't bad, just
different." That's one of the reasons that I sometimes shake my head at
various generations of fans who start worshpping the forms and not the
spirt of fandom.
Seth Breidbart
In article <19971003220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Those three things never coincided. (Hotel rooms were that rate in
the mid-to-late 1970's, gas jumped over that price entirely in the
early 1970's, and airfare was more than a third of current prices
then, even without considering inflation.)
Seth
Bruce Sheffer
Michele Ellington wrote:
> There is a major difference between viewing people as "customers" or
> "consumers" and as "marks". I sell my art at cons and other venues.
> Even though I need to sell that art, to help pay for the con and to
> finance further art, I certainly do not see the potential buyers
> as "marks". In fact, if they are not going to be happy with the
> purchase, I would rather they did not buy the piece at all. I
> would rather have a handful of regular patrons who look forward to
> seeing me at cons and mail order work from me (as I do with several
> artists I admire), than individuals who buy a piece and are in some
> way unsatisfied, even though the money is in my pocket either way.
>
yet to see a profit (I usually lose about $100 a con). I've decided
that for now, it is better for me to just attend and give stuff away,
than spend money for a table which I sit behind for hours and never see
the convention. That way I'm at least entertained for my money.
John Lorentz
Brenda and Larry Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote in article
<34357A...@erols.com>...
> The other is that fandom is ageing. Look around at the people who are
> running the next con you go to. In their 40s or 50s, maybe? No longer
> pushing tots in strollers, but handing money to their college-age kids?
> Younger people attend cons, but they don't join up and help run them.
They don't? Don't tell the younger folks on the OryCon committee that.
Yes, we now see many fans who are in their 40s & 50s at conventions. But
we also still see a goodly number of attendees under 20. I'm sure that
OryCon draws as many, if not more, fans under 20 as they did 10 years ago.
The difference is that OryCon is now attracting 1600 people instead of
1100. The real change is that the 'older folks' (like me--I'm 45) are
still going to conventions. (Up until a couple of years ago, we were
getting three generations of the same family attending OryCon.
Unfortunately, the grandmother died a few years ago and the grandfather is
in poor health. But the grandchildren are still having a lot of fun going
to conventions.)
The committee's nearly doubled in size in those same ten years--meaning
there are a lot of new, younger folks now working on the con as well as us
'old pharts'.
-- John Lorentz
Marilee J. Layman
In <61aovd$nu2$1...@client3.news.psi.net>, Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer "@
aol.com> wrote:
>Yes,
>Yes, everyone likes to be able to just pop upstairs to the room, but
>that is a choice not an economy.
I wouldn't be able to attend a con if I couldn't go right upstairs to
my room (or at least to a place to rest).
> I can go to one, stay in a $100 a
>night hotel by myself, and eat room service. Or I can stay in one a
>short driving distance away, pack a backpack with anything I will need,
>and eat at nearby fast food and attend 2 or 3 for the same price.
It's nice that you have that option, but I don't. I'd be willing to
have a roommate in that room if I was still able to rest when I needed
to, which would hamper most other people's use of the room. So I only
go to a couple of close cons a year.
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
RELM Mu...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
**New** Web site: http://home.virtual-pc.com/outland/owc/index.html
AOL keyword: FR > Science Fiction > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)
Laurie D. T. Mann
> > running the next con you go to. In their 40s or 50s, maybe? No longer
> > pushing tots in strollers, but handing money to their college-age kids?
> > Younger people attend cons, but they don't join up and help run them.
> They don't? Don't tell the younger folks on the OryCon committee that.
I wonder how much of this is an East Coast/West Coast kind of
thing? I know when I got into fandom in the mid-70s, the
average fan age might have been 30. Now, it's easily 40.
Some of this has to do with the graying of the boomer cohort,
but some of it is definitely that young people don't tend to attend
cons in the kind of numbers they did back in the '70s and
early '80s.
Some reasons?
o a bunch of cons have gone out of their way to not
sound attractive to folks who only "want to party."
(I plead guilty on this...)
o many young folks are putting their money into computers.
Their "fandom" is online to a much greater degree than
many of us see it.
o hotel costs have well-exceded inflation over the last
20 years.
I do tend to go to cons that are more, um, sedate.
Even at this year's Disclave, even many of the folks on
the notorious 4th floor were well in their 30s and 40s.
I never have and never will go to a Dragoncon. So if I went
to some of the more media-oriented, party-oriented cons, I
might have a different idea.
I just got back from Context, a small, serconish con in Columbus.
Average age of attendee was easily 40. David Brin kept telling
us that we're "eating our seed corn" because we don't have as
many teenagers/early 20s attendees that many midwestern cons
used to have. I told him later that my teenaged daughter
WAS in attendance - she was just off gaming rather than going
to any panels.
--
Laurie D. T. Mann *** lm...@ISPcity-net.com
(Delete all caps to spam-bust the E-mail address.)
Dead People Server: http://www.city-net.com/~lmann/dps
Holly Wilper
Jim Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> I've noticed it. At least two cons out here around Chicago have died from it,
> several mid-sized ones are on life-support (read: heavy investments of
> money from those involved or their supporters) and several of the large
> regionals have taken a sizable hit. Some say they've lost as much as a third
> of attendees - and if you budgeted wrong, it doesn't take much of a serious
> hit to do some serious damage to the con.
>
> to why.
>
I have certainly seen a decline at the number of people at several of
the cons that I attend, across the Midwest. I would argue the (already
stated) point that there are so many more cons that the pool of fans and
money that they have for conventions is diluted.
There is actually a point that disturbs me more than that however.
I routinely travel to Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, Kalamazoo,
Detroit, and Minneapolis to attend conventions, periodically I make it
other places. What is startling to me is that so few people are
traveling to get to cons even in other cities, let alone in other
states.
Which would not bother me so much, were it not for the fact that, during
the 2000 Worldcon bid race, I had the unpleasant experience of listening
to sets of friends of mine bitch about other sets of friends of mine
WITHOUT actually knowing anything about them, especially as I knew that
they had much more in common than not.
I can easily imagine (alright, I know) Chicago fans who never leave
Chicago and Detroit fans that never leave Detroit. And while financial
constraints are real, and we don't all need to devote a ton of time to
convention going, parochialism sometimes bothers me.
Jim, Tucker was doing well last I saw him....<G>....
holly
Kelly Lockhart
Brenda and Larry Clough wrote:
> But nobody could say that Dragoncon is your ordinary average con.
Please define "ordinary average con."
--
Kelly Lockhart
Southern Fandom Resource Guide
http://www.concentric.net/~kellyl/cons
Kelly Lockhart
Geoffrey C Marshall wrote:
>
> Kelly Lockhart wrote:
> > Please define "ordinary average con."
> >
> The one you don't go to. <egrin>
At the sake of being humor impaired, I don't understand your response.
Was it supposed to be humorous?
--
Kelly Lockhart
Chattanooga, Tennessee
http://www.concentric.net/~kellyl
John Lorentz
BillyBond <bill...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971003220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >From: dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman)
>
> ...airfare was a third of what it costs now
When was that?
It cost me $400 to go to Noreascon Two, in 1980, and I just spent $384 for
a ticket to the Boston Smofcon later this year. (And I was only earning
$1100 a month in 1980.)
It's $124 for a round-trip ticket to the Bay Area right now--I've never
seen it less than about $95.
Everything else has gone up--but airfare hasn't totally followed suit.
-- John Lorentz
Gary Farber
In alt.fandom.cons <slrn63lajk...@amanda.dorsai.org>
: I guess it's just that I don't see a love of sf as sufficient basis to
: form a subculture around. I don't feel a common bond with other sf fans,
: as I do with other members of my own subculture group.
Most sf readers don't, so you're entirely normal.
: I think this newsgroup bears that out too.. people don't post
: introductions, don't really talk about their lives & personal issues. It
: centers around the fiction, not around a social culture. (Which I like.)
I'm not sure which of the two newsgroups you are posting this to that you
are referring -- I'm guessing r.a.sf.written -- and you're correct. The
newsgroup where people do do the social bonding is r.a.sf.fandom.
Of course.
Lilith
In article <343969...@city-net.com>, "Laurie D. T. Mann" wrote:
>but some of it is definitely that young people don't tend to attend
>cons in the kind of numbers they did back in the '70s and
>early '80s.
>Some reasons?
> o a bunch of cons have gone out of their way to not
> sound attractive to folks who only "want to party."
> Their "fandom" is online to a much greater degree than
> many of us see it.
> o hotel costs have well-exceded inflation over the last
> 20 years.
I've only ever been to one con.
So my opinions are not the most well-informed.
However, it does place me in that category of
people-under-30-who-love-sf-but-don't-go-to-cons.
Mainly, I just don't see any reason TO go to cons. My perception of people
at cons... and please don't take this personally if you love cons...
is: a place for people who are considered socially inept by society in
general (AKA dorks) to get together, pretend to be characters that they
are not, get drunk, talk obsessively about issues which are not real,
participate in hero worship of actors, and have sex.
At "more sedate" cons, eliminate the drinking and sex.
HOWEVER... for the past few years I have regularly spent many 100's of
dollars travelling overseas to go to music festivals, for the purpose of
listening to bands, talking obsessively about music and "scene" issues,
meeting people, getting drunk, and sometimes having sex.
Big difference, right?
I guess it's just that I don't see a love of sf as sufficient basis to
form a subculture around. I don't feel a common bond with other sf fans,
as I do with other members of my own subculture group.
I think this newsgroup bears that out too.. people don't post
introductions, don't really talk about their lives & personal issues. It
centers around the fiction, not around a social culture. (Which I like.)
-althea
Crip
> > The other is that fandom is ageing. Look around at the people who are
> > running the next con you go to. In their 40s or 50s, maybe? No longer
> > pushing tots in strollers, but handing money to their college-age kids?
> > Younger people attend cons, but they don't join up and help run them.
I guess aggiecon doesn't exist then? I think the oldest officer is 22
*maybe* 23, with most of the officers being around 20-21. I'm chair, and I
turn 22 this coming october. Most of the general staff are around 18-19,
but then again, this *is* a student run convention. The other 2 cons I
attend and work regularly have a pretty good mix ages in all positions
(the dealer's liason was 17 or 18 about a year back)... maybe it's a
texas thing *smirk*
crip
========================================================================
'And the sky is so white today, it be even better if those blue things
didn't get in the way.'
-Setarcos, under the influence of Dragon Nip
=========================================================================
Nothing is true -> all is permitted...
==================================================================
(LEMURS!)
=============================
cr...@tamu.edu
Vicki Rosenzweig
Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
> In <61aovd$nu2$1...@client3.news.psi.net>, Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer "@
> aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes,
> >Yes, everyone likes to be able to just pop upstairs to the room, but
> >that is a choice not an economy.
>
> I wouldn't be able to attend a con if I couldn't go right upstairs to
> my room (or at least to a place to rest).
>
> > I can go to one, stay in a $100 a
> >night hotel by myself, and eat room service. Or I can stay in one a
> >short driving distance away, pack a backpack with anything I will need,
> >and eat at nearby fast food and attend 2 or 3 for the same price.
>
> It's nice that you have that option, but I don't. I'd be willing to
> have a roommate in that room if I was still able to rest when I needed
> to, which would hamper most other people's use of the room. So I only
> go to a couple of close cons a year.
>
> --
point, how much quiet and darkness do you need to do so?
For example, would it be a problem if, while you were
resting, your roommate needed to shower and change, or
wanted to drop off what they'd bought in the dealer's room?
If not, this doesn't strike me as ruling out that many
potential roommates--only those who want to keep open the
possibility of a spontaneous romantic encounter, or who
have small children who can't be counted on to be quiet.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
Typos are Coyote padding through the language, grinning.
--Susanna Sturgis
RJ-
lil...@dorsai.org (Lilith) writes:
>Mainly, I just don't see any reason TO go to cons. My perception of people
>at cons... and please don't take this personally if you love cons...
>is: a place for people who are considered socially inept by society in
>general (AKA dorks) to get together, pretend to be characters that they
>are not, get drunk, talk obsessively about issues which are not real,
>participate in hero worship of actors, and have sex.
>At "more sedate" cons, eliminate the drinking and sex.
>HOWEVER... for the past few years I have regularly spent many 100's of
>dollars travelling overseas to go to music festivals, for the purpose of
>listening to bands, talking obsessively about music and "scene" issues,
>meeting people, getting drunk, and sometimes having sex.
>Big difference, right?
>I guess it's just that I don't see a love of sf as sufficient basis to
>form a subculture around. I don't feel a common bond with other sf fans,
>as I do with other members of my own subculture group.
I find it funny that you are posting out of dorsai.org as you note that sf
fandom doesn't have a sufficient basis to form a subculture. But that's
just me.
>I think this newsgroup bears that out too.. people don't post
>introductions, don't really talk about their lives & personal issues. It
>centers around the fiction, not around a social culture. (Which I like.)
Actually, there are all sorts of different fandoms. Lit fandom,
trufandom, music fandom, furry fandom, media fandom... each with its own
rituals and bonding. Chances are pretty good that your one con experience
only exposed you to a small slice of the potential.
What if you went to a music festival that featured only Celtic when your
interest was all about ska? I doubt that the particular rituals would
translate well for you, no matter that both groups have rituals.
BTW, if you like music, come up to Congenial some time. We have folks
coming in who are all flavors of musicians. We'd love to have some more.
RJ "Well, of course, I had to plug my con!" Johnson
Minister of Propaganda
Congenial 8 - Emperor Norton Returns From Bermuda Triangle!
Neil Rest, GoH
Brenda and Larry Clough
Dante wrote:
>
> "Laurie D. T. Mann" <lm...@city-net.com> wrote:
>
> >I wonder how much of this is an East Coast/West Coast kind of
> >thing? I know when I got into fandom in the mid-70s, the
> >average fan age might have been 30. Now, it's easily 40.
> >Some of this has to do with the graying of the boomer cohort,
> >cons in the kind of numbers they did back in the '70s and
> >early '80s.
>
>
> Fans Attending Dragon Con 13,415
> (In 1997, we broke 18,000 attendees)
>
> Average Attending Fan Age 26
> Males: 61%
> Females: 39%
>
But nobody could say that Dragoncon is your ordinary average con. Its
heavy media presence really makes it different.
Brenda
Bruce Sheffer
Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
> In <61aovd$nu2$1...@client3.news.psi.net>, Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer "@
> aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes,
> >Yes, everyone likes to be able to just pop upstairs to the room, but
> >that is a choice not an economy.
>
> I wouldn't be able to attend a con if I couldn't go right upstairs to
> my room (or at least to a place to rest).
>
always fans who have specific physical needs which limit their options
when attending any function outside their homes. Did we really need to
say that? For the vast majority of attendees my position is perfectly
valid.
Nothing personal, Marilee
Justitia
Lilith wrote:
> Mainly, I just don't see any reason TO go to cons. My perception of people
> at cons... and please don't take this personally if you love cons...
> is: a place for people who are considered socially inept by society in
> general (AKA dorks)...
I have never before seen society in general referred to by that alias,
but it works for me.
> ...to get together, pretend to be characters that they
> are not, get drunk, talk obsessively about issues which are not real,
> participate in hero worship of actors, and have sex.
Seriatim, then:
- Pretending to be characters that they are not: Have you never been
to a business conference or prom?
- Getting drunk: See above.
- Issues that are not real: Let's see; dozens of cons, thousands and
thousands of attendees, a multi-million dollar industry, regular
appearance on the Times list of best-sellers... Would you define "real"
please?
- Hero worship of actors: Not at the cons I've attended, but even if
it had been, how does this bolster your "inept" view? Near as I can
tell, worship of actors is a feature of "society in general." (But
take heart; sf fans actually tend to be better than that.)
- Having sex: This needs to be reconciled with "society in general"?
I don't take your remarks personally, but you should. They say rather
more about you than about fans.
--
Geoffrey C Marshall
Kelly Lockhart wrote:
>
> Brenda and Larry Clough wrote:
>
>
>
The one you don't go to. <egrin>
Geoff...
Bruce Sheffer
Lilith wrote:
<snip>
> Mainly, I just don't see any reason TO go to cons. My perception of people
> at cons... and please don't take this personally if you love cons...
> is: a place for people who are considered socially inept by society in
> are not, get drunk, talk obsessively about issues which are not real,
> participate in hero worship of actors, and have sex.
>
>
Since you have only gone to one con your opinion is not an informed one
so is invalid ("though I will fight to the death to beat you up after
you voice it" ;)).
Seriously though, I was in college before I ever knew that there were
thousands of conventions occurring every year. When I first heard of
it, my reaction was "Why?". Since reading was a solitary act and I'd
been considered strange for reading SF all my life, why would I want to
travel a long distance to read with other folks. And meet the authors?
Why do that unless you had specific questions about a book (This is a
personal pet peeve of mine. Authors invariably get huffy when you tell
them that you didn't understand something in their book and ask them to
explain their thinking). Since an author is not the same as the
characters in the book, enjoyment of one does not presume enjoyment of
the other. It was years later before I actually went to a convention.
I did have a good time when I went. Of course I accepted it for what it
was and didn't try to force my agenda on the convention. If I had done
that I doubt if I would have enjoyed the experience. Worth a try, hmm?
Brenda and Larry Clough
> Lilith wrote:
> <snip>
> > Mainly, I just don't see any reason TO go to cons. My perception of people
> > at cons... and please don't take this personally if you love cons...
> > is: a place for people who are considered socially inept by society in
> > general (AKA dorks) to get together, pretend to be characters that they
> > are not, get drunk, talk obsessively about issues which are not real,
> > participate in hero worship of actors, and have sex.
> >
> > At "more sedate" cons, eliminate the drinking and sex.
> >
> <snip>
>
>
This is precisely what I mean. People feel less and less need to
actually go to cons. In fact, this very newsgroup probably cuts into
attendance at cons. You can have a passionate discussion about the
Draka Universe or Tom Bombadil or whatever, without leaving your own
home.
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Crip
On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Brenda and Larry Clough wrote:
> But Aggiecon is by definition a college con. Aside from people at Texas
> A&M, there isn't a population of fans/sf-readers in the area large
> enough to support a con. Naturally it is run by college aged people.
actually, we don't get too many students who come to the con. It's
mostly (if I remember the attendence numbers and make-up correctly)
non-students coming in from out of town, though at times it seems the
kids outnumber the adults.
> (It is no small achievement, BTW, to carry over a long-term institution
> like that from college "generation" to "generation". You must have a
> 100% turnover of personnel every 4 or 5 years, as people graduate and
> move on.)
hmmm... I guess that's about right, although we have a yearly position
turn-over. Most people will take an officer position for a year, and
move on (either to another postion, or none at all), and it's rare to
have the same chair 2 years in a row (which has happened the past 2, he
ran the con his soph. & jr. years).
> Go to a regional con, however, and you'll see what I mean.
but I *have* been to 2 other regional cons (a number of times) , and as
far as the under 25 group goes, they're there, in pretty large numbers.
The Aggiecon crew will go up and help out where we can at these two cons
(A-Kon & Stellar Occasions in Dallas), and there's a number of former and
current Cepheids in officer positions there, as well as others that fall
into the college age crowd. I went to worldcon and did notice the lack of
people my age there. I know there would have been atleast a dozen more
will full passes if it wasn't for the price. Several Cepheids didn't show
because they couldn't afford it, I couldn't afford it, but managed to make
it thanks to a few friends who pretty much footed the bill for me.
Lori Coulson
Lilith (lil...@dorsai.org) wrote:
: I've only ever been to one con.
: So my opinions are not the most well-informed.
: However, it does place me in that category of
: people-under-30-who-love-sf-but-don't-go-to-cons.
: Mainly, I just don't see any reason TO go to cons. My perception of people
: at cons... and please don't take this personally if you love cons...
: is: a place for people who are considered socially inept by society in
: general (AKA dorks) to get together, pretend to be characters that they
: are not, get drunk, talk obsessively about issues which are not real,
: participate in hero worship of actors, and have sex.
Most of the conventions I attend do not have "actors" to "hero-worship".
Those conventions are called media-cons, and a good portion of sf-reading
fandom avoids them like the plague.
When I go to a convention, I do so to meet and talk with old friends, meet
one or two of my favorite authors and discuss their books with them, and
sing the night away at the filk. I enjoy perusing the artshow and the
dealers' room.
: I guess it's just that I don't see a love of sf as sufficient basis to
: form a subculture around. I don't feel a common bond with other sf fans,
: as I do with other members of my own subculture group.
I find your statement ridiculous since your post identifies you as posting
from "dorsai.org"! How much do you know of the fannish history of the
Dorsai Irregulars? I was at Discon II--where they made their first
appearance.
: I think this newsgroup bears that out too.. people don't post
: introductions, don't really talk about their lives & personal issues. It
: centers around the fiction, not around a social culture. (Which I like.)
Althea, if you want to read posts regarding peoples personal fannish life
you should go to rec.arts.sf.fandom....most of us participate in both
groups.
Lori Coulson
--
*****************************************************
...Or do you still wait for me, Dream Giver...
Just around the riverbend? Pocahontas
*****************************************************
Paul King
On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Brenda and Larry Clough wrote:
> But nobody could say that Dragoncon is your ordinary average con. Its
> heavy media presence really makes it different.
It is certainly different, but it strikes me as odd that people
dismiss Dragon*Con out of hand. If only 5% of D*C is "truely fannish"
that portion of D*C is still larger than many cons, and has an
unusual quality, in that it's growing rather than shrinking.
Seems like there may be something to be learned from D*C, even
keeping in mind the desire to not become another D*C.
--
Paul
Now accepting applications for a good sig line.
Mike Scott
On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:51:27 -0400, Paul King <ki...@mindspring.net>
wrote:
> It is certainly different, but it strikes me as odd that people
>dismiss Dragon*Con out of hand. If only 5% of D*C is "truely fannish"
>that portion of D*C is still larger than many cons, and has an
>unusual quality, in that it's growing rather than shrinking.
>Seems like there may be something to be learned from D*C, even
>keeping in mind the desire to not become another D*C.
Not necessarily. It's like saying that a ten gallon bucket with two
pints of beer in it, topped up with water, must be more "beerish" than a
pint of beer because it's got more beer in it. Of which would you rather
partake?
--
Mike Scott
Plokta Webmaster
mi...@moose.demon.co.uk
http://www.moose.demon.co.uk
Larry Caldwell
In article <34357A...@erols.com>,
Brenda and Larry Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
> The other is that fandom is ageing. Look around at the people who are
> running the next con you go to. In their 40s or 50s, maybe? No longer
> pushing tots in strollers, but handing money to their college-age kids?
> Younger people attend cons, but they don't join up and help run them.
> Unless new people come on board to run the cons, there won't be any more
> eventually.
Any concom with an average age over 40 needs to recruit some new blood.
I've seen organizations like that, where the codgers and crones were
positive the world would come to an end if they quit running things.
It's not true.
There will always be enough cons for those who want to attend them.
Don't be surprised if the new management changes things, though.
-- Larry
Cave ab homine unius libri.
Paul King
On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Mike Scott wrote:
> Not necessarily. It's like saying that a ten gallon bucket with two
> pints of beer in it, topped up with water, must be more "beerish" than a
> pint of beer because it's got more beer in it. Of which would you rather
> partake?
Beer mixed with water=something less than beer.
Is fannish activity then, by your analogy, lessened in some
irrepairable way by the presence of a babylon5 programming
down the hall? Or even by the drunken fratboy down the hall?
If so your analogy is valid, if not your analogy is bogus. I
understand that D*C partakes of aweful heresy, like guests
from TV shows and such and we wouldn't want that sort of
thinking at a genuine fannish event, or even in the hotel
across the street from a genuine fannish event.
Bridget Hardcastle
In article <343fce01...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net
(Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:
> Okay, so how come I hardly ever see anyone actually discussing books
> with their authors?
We're shy! Does an author only want to talk about their books? Or to
talk about nothing but their books? Or only to talk to really erudite
people about their books? Will they think you're rude if you talk about
their books? Or rude if you don't?
This is the sort of thinking that leaves me paralysed with terror at the
thought of talking to an author. However, now I've seen it written
down I realise how foolish it is.
That just leaves the problem of trying to discern the difference between
someone who wants to be talked to by a complete stranger and someone who
wants to be left alone by complete strangers....
I did talk to an author about his books once. Colin Greenland was GoH
at a small con I ran back in, um, 1994, and we were talking about
Tabitha Jute, in 'Take Back Plenty'. I said I thought she was a very
good character, but obviously not a *real* woman as there was no
chocolate in her handbag. A year or so later, out comes 'Seasons of
Plenty'. There is the obligatory "turn out your pockets, miss" scene,
and (*gasp*) she's carrying chocolate. I realise that she is
obviously not a *real* woman, or she'd have eaten the bar already.
Doh!
Bridget Hardcastle
Or, do authors only not want to talk to *me* at conventions? <g>
This message comes from a spam-filtered address.
To reply to me replace 'schupke' with 'bug'.
Marilee J. Layman
In <343ACE...@interport.net>, Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@interport.net>
wrote:
>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't be able to attend a con if I couldn't go right upstairs to
>> my room (or at least to a place to rest).
>> It's nice that you have that option, but I don't. I'd be willing to
>> have a roommate in that room if I was still able to rest when I needed
>> to, which would hamper most other people's use of the room. So I only
>> go to a couple of close cons a year.
>How often do you need to rest? Or, perhaps more to the
>point, how much quiet and darkness do you need to do so?
>For example, would it be a problem if, while you were
>resting, your roommate needed to shower and change, or
>wanted to drop off what they'd bought in the dealer's room?
>If not, this doesn't strike me as ruling out that many
>potential roommates--only those who want to keep open the
>possibility of a spontaneous romantic encounter, or who
>have small children who can't be counted on to be quiet.
I need to rest every few hours -- a lot of times I need to sleep then.
It would really depend on the roommate as to showering and changing or
dropping off. Some folks are much louder than others. I've tried
rooming with someone who said they were quiet, but I was awake all the
time they were in the room and awake, so I'm hesitant to take people
on their word. I always stay an extra night, too, so I'm up to
driving home.
Robert Sneddon
In article <343dd12f....@news.demon.co.uk>
mi...@moose.demon.co.uk "Mike Scott" writes:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:51:27 -0400, Paul King <ki...@mindspring.net>
> wrote:
>
> > It is certainly different, but it strikes me as odd that people
> >dismiss Dragon*Con out of hand. If only 5% of D*C is "truely fannish"
> >that portion of D*C is still larger than many cons, and has an
> >unusual quality, in that it's growing rather than shrinking.
> >Seems like there may be something to be learned from D*C, even
> >keeping in mind the desire to not become another D*C.
>
> Not necessarily. It's like saying that a ten gallon bucket with two
> pints of beer in it, topped up with water, must be more "beerish" than a
> pint of beer because it's got more beer in it. Of which would you rather
> partake?
The bucket that doesn't have a slow leak in the bottom?
Me, I'd describe D*C as a row of pint glasses on the bar - one's got
orange juice in it, one's got keg bitter, one's got vodka'n'coke, one's
got Bateman's XXXB, etc. The line of glasses stretches off into the distance.
You can't drink them all - not enough time and not enough capacity. You
choose what you want and leave the rest on the bar. For some weird
reason, this bar is a lot more popular than the one down the road that's
only got a single kind of drink on tap. It used to be the only one in town,
but it's getting less and less custom. Rumours abound it'll close up shop
soon...
--
To reply via email, remove the string "_nospam_" from my address.
Robert (nojay) Sneddon
RJ-
Paul King <ki...@mindspring.net> writes:
>On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Mike Scott wrote:
>> Not necessarily. It's like saying that a ten gallon bucket with two
>> pints of beer in it, topped up with water, must be more "beerish" than a
>> pint of beer because it's got more beer in it. Of which would you rather
>> partake?
> Beer mixed with water=something less than beer.
> Is fannish activity then, by your analogy, lessened in some
> irrepairable way by the presence of a babylon5 programming
> down the hall? Or even by the drunken fratboy down the hall?
> If so your analogy is valid, if not your analogy is bogus. I
> understand that D*C partakes of aweful heresy, like guests
> from TV shows and such and we wouldn't want that sort of
> thinking at a genuine fannish event, or even in the hotel
> across the street from a genuine fannish event.
If the B5 programming takes place in an auditorium that seats 1000 while
fan programmin is in a spare closet, yeah, that does impair the ability of
D*C to have fannish activities. If the drunken fratboy is actively
courted as a member of D*C because he has bux that the con wants, then,
that also dimminishes the fannishness of D*C as it will tend to keep away
people who don't want to be around such louts.
Fannishness can take place anywhere, but I think that for a convention to
bill itself as "fannish" certain priorities have to be in order.
RJ Johnson
Minister of Propaganda
Congenial 9 - Emperor Norton Returns From Bermuda Triangle!
Neil Rest, GoH
Sally Aaron
Mike Scott wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:51:27 -0400, Paul King <ki...@mindspring.net>
> wrote:
>
> > It is certainly different, but it strikes me as odd that people
> >dismiss Dragon*Con out of hand. If only 5% of D*C is "truely fannish"
> >that portion of D*C is still larger than many cons, and has an
> >unusual quality, in that it's growing rather than shrinking.
> >Seems like there may be something to be learned from D*C, even
> >keeping in mind the desire to not become another D*C.
>
> pints of beer in it, topped up with water, must be more "beerish" than a
> pint of beer because it's got more beer in it. Of which would you rather
> partake?
Bad analogy, Mike. You can't separate out the quart of beer from the
gallons of water, but you CAN go to Dragon*Con and get the programming
in which you want to participate, literary, media, comics, sf, fantasy,
whatever. It's more like separating five black marbles out of a bucket
of 100 white ones. Not impossible.
--
*********************************************************************
Everything in the world is controlled by a small evil group to which,
unfortunately, no one we know belongs.
*********************************************************************
Graydon
In article <343fce01...@news.clark.net>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>On 8 Oct 1997 13:08:55 -0400, lcou...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Lori
>Coulson) wrote:
>>When I go to a convention, I do so to meet and talk with old friends, meet
>>one or two of my favorite authors and discuss their books with them, and
>>sing the night away at the filk. I enjoy perusing the artshow and the
>>dealers' room.
>
>with their authors?
Because the thing one is usually burningly desireous of discussing is the
bit one either didn't like, didn't agree with, or didn't get, and this is
generally recognized as a not-nice thing to do?
--
goo...@interlog.com -> mail to Graydon | http://piglet.org/momentum
gra...@gooroos.com --> mail acquires the | submissions guidelines for
superball nature metrical poetry (lengthy ok)
Paul King
On 8 Oct 1997, RJ- wrote:
> If the B5 programming takes place in an auditorium that seats 1000 while
> fan programmin is in a spare closet, yeah, that does impair the ability of
> D*C to have fannish activities.
We must be going to differnt conventions with the same names then.
Or I'm misunderstanding what people are looking for in fan programming.
The lounge for the ongoing writers koffeeklatch was certainly no closet,
and for the writing related panels I attended, there was more
space than B5 had.
> Fannishness can take place anywhere, but I think that for a convention to
> bill itself as "fannish" certain priorities have to be in order.
I'm not saying D*C should bill itself as fannish. But there is
probably something to be learned from how they are going about
whatever it is that they do. They aren't burning out their
volounteers, they are attracting new blood, and they are getting
the job done and still having fun in the process. Seems that these
things are problems elsewhere in the community.
If you'd have told me two years ago that I'd be defending D*C
I'd have told you you were nuts. Last D*C was a perticularly good
experience for me.
Robert Sneddon
In article <343fce01...@news.clark.net>
lawr...@clark.net "Lawrence Watt-Evans" writes:
> On 8 Oct 1997 13:08:55 -0400, lcou...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Lori
> Coulson) wrote:
>
> >When I go to a convention, I do so to meet and talk with old friends, meet
> >one or two of my favorite authors and discuss their books with them, and
> >sing the night away at the filk. I enjoy perusing the artshow and the
> >dealers' room.
>
> Okay, so how come I hardly ever see anyone actually discussing books
> with their authors?
The manticores which stand outside the Holy of Holies, the SFWA suite,
keep mere mortals from tresspassing into the domain of the Gods of SF.
Such worms as ourselves cannot hope to intrude into the debates of the
immortals.
--
"We are not worthy! *Bonk* We are not worthy! *Bonk*"
BillyBond
>From: Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer "@ aol.com>
>My experience is that they haven't come close to the increase in my
>income (compared to then) so it is much more economical to go to cons
>now that it was.
Well, I think your experience is not exactly a wide-spread phenomenon.
Bill Warren
Jim Rittenhouse
In article <61f1qt$e...@xochi.tezcat.com>, r...@xochi.tezcat.com (RJ-) wrote:
>RJ "Well, of course, I had to plug my con!" Johnson
>Minister of Propaganda
>Congenial 8 - Emperor Norton Returns From Bermuda Triangle!
>Neil Rest, GoH
No, RJ. I was the GOH at CONGENIAL 8, which was last weekend. Number Nine /
Number Nine / Number Nine is next year.
Jim Rittenhouse (urs...@primenet.com)
http://www.primenet.com/~ursine
http://www.primenet.com/~ursine/pod.html - POINT OF DIVERGENCE, the Alternate History APA.
Robert Sneddon
> If the B5 programming takes place in an auditorium that seats 1000 while
> fan programmin is in a spare closet, yeah, that does impair the ability of
> D*C to have fannish activities.
Eastercon in Liverpool this year had a massive fanroom that was deserted
90% of the time, and an art show in a badly-lit room with not enough
space for the artists to hang their work and the visitors to view it
without standing on each other's feet. It should have been the other
way round, IMO.[1]
Most fan programming nowadays involves less people than the all-night
filking sessions. It's not that the numbers have gone down, it's just
they've stayed the same while the rest of the convention has grown around
them.
My first Eastercon was in '75, when the con had about 400-450 members.
The big Albacon Eastercons in the 80's were touching 1100. The fans
who stood out as a big part of the '75 con got lost in the 80's crowd.
It wasn't the crowd's fault. It wasn't anybody's fault, although the
fannish fans made little effort to welcome these incomers - these were
the days of the KTF fanzine reviewers. They still had their fannish
activities - they just weren't the focus of the con. In the end they
started their own cons, or moved to the Novacons, which stayed
fannish for various reasons.
[1] I plead bias on this - I've sort of ended up as "the guy who puts
up the artshow" at British Eastercons, mainly (I think) because I've got
the right size spanner and know how to use it.
--
Seth Breidbart
Seth Breidbart
>Okay, so how come I hardly ever see anyone actually discussing books
>with their authors?
Ahem!
(Well, OK, you did say "hardly ever".)
Seth
Lilith
In article <343B12...@erols.com>, Justitia wrote:
>Lilith wrote:
>> Mainly, I just don't see any reason TO go to cons. My perception of people
>> at cons... and please don't take this personally if you love cons...
>> is: a place for people who are considered socially inept by society in
>I have never before seen society in general referred to by that alias,
>but it works for me.
>to a business conference or prom?
>- Getting drunk: See above.
>- Issues that are not real: Let's see; dozens of cons, thousands and
>thousands of attendees, a multi-million dollar industry, regular
>appearance on the Times list of best-sellers... Would you define "real"
>please?
>- Hero worship of actors: Not at the cons I've attended, but even if
>it had been, how does this bolster your "inept" view? Near as I can
>tell, worship of actors is a feature of "society in general." (But
>take heart; sf fans actually tend to be better than that.)
>- Having sex: This needs to be reconciled with "society in general"?
>I don't take your remarks personally, but you should. They say rather
>more about you than about fans.
Oh boy.
You missed the entire point of the post, and snipped off the rest.
FOR THE SARCASM IMPAIRED: Different people choose different subcultures,
and go do very similar activities in different places.
I believe it is more common now for younger people to bond around a genre
of music than around sf-fandom.
I think *most* people got that from the original.
-althea
BillyBond
>From: nojay@ibfs._nospam_demon.co.uk (Robert Sneddon)
>
> The manticores which stand outside the Holy of Holies, the SFWA suite,
>keep mere mortals from tresspassing into the domain of the Gods of SF.
>Such worms as ourselves cannot hope to intrude into the debates of the
>immortals.
You do realize, of course, that the number of pros who lock themselves away in
the SFWA suites is pretty small, don't you? There ARE autograph sessions,
pros do appear on panels and usually hang around afterward.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: r...@xochi.tezcat.com (RJ-)
>Actually, there are all sorts of different fandoms. Lit fandom,
>trufandom, music fandom, furry fandom, media fandom... each with its own
>rituals and bonding. Chances are pretty good that your one con experience
>only exposed you to a small slice of the potential.
Well, to explore more slices of the potential, you have to have a taste for
what you'll find in that slice, don't you? I have utterly zero interest in
furry and music fandoms, for example. I think that this splitting of fandom
has helped diminish the attendance at some conventions.
I've never been to a DragonCon -- too far away, hence too expensive -- but
someone here said that the attendance at the last one was over 17,000. Isn't
that larger than the biggest WorldCon? If so, it's not necessarily a >bad<
thing, but it is an interesting thing.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans)
>
>Okay, so how come I hardly ever see anyone actually discussing books
>with their authors?
Good point. Additional point, maybe good: when you do see people talking with
authors about their books at conventions, how often are those people "trufen"?
I.e., active in fandom?
(Hi, Lawrence)
Bill Warren
Alec Orrock
>Lilith (lil...@dorsai.org) wrote:
>
>: I've only ever been to one con.
>: So my opinions are not the most well-informed.
>: However, it does place me in that category of
>: people-under-30-who-love-sf-but-don't-go-to-cons.
>
>: Mainly, I just don't see any reason TO go to cons. My perception of people
>: at cons... and please don't take this personally if you love cons...
>: is: a place for people who are considered socially inept by society in
>: general (AKA dorks) to get together, pretend to be characters that they
>: are not, get drunk, talk obsessively about issues which are not real,
>: participate in hero worship of actors, and have sex.
>
>Most of the conventions I attend do not have "actors" to "hero-worship".
>Those conventions are called media-cons, and a good portion of sf-reading
>fandom avoids them like the plague.
Let me tell you just how much this kind of attitude really -pisses me
off-! I ran a "media-con" back in march of this year here in SoCal
called AgamemCon. Personnnaly I can't stand the term "media-con" (vs.
"lit-con" of whatever) because it limits what people think. As fas as
I'm conncerned, AgamemCon was a _SF_ con, with a focus on B5. And
before you go off, yeah, B5 is the current 'hot media' or whatever you
want to call it, but a con shouldn't be judged on it's focus. It
should be judged on how well it's run, how many different things fans
can do, yada yada yada. I'll be the last person to defend "pro-cons"
such as Creation and the like. Their main, and as far as many can
tell, ONLY interest is making as much money as possible. Even the term
"pro-con" has it's fualts. Why can't or shouldn't a fan-run con be
done professionaly? Yeah, you want to make your money back, and maybe
even more. And that should be top on your list otherwise you'll never
do another one again. BUT, you can also do things in a way that are as
you say "fannish", such as con-suites, disscussion groups, readings,
etc., etc.. Just because a con has a focus on a media element dosn't
mean it's "bad" or should be avioded for whatever reason.
And for the record, AgamemCon I had a very good attendance, everone
(both fans and guests) said they had a great time, and we're doing A2
next year.
>When I go to a convention, I do so to meet and talk with old friends, meet
>one or two of my favorite authors and discuss their books with them, and
>sing the night away at the filk. I enjoy perusing the artshow and the
>dealers' room.
All of these elements could have been found at A1 or are planed for A2
next year. But, we're still a "media con" as far as your concerned.
>
>Lori Coulson
Enjoy!!
Alec Orrock
AgamemCon 2
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>In article <343fce01...@news.clark.net>
> lawr...@clark.net "Lawrence Watt-Evans" writes:
>
>> Okay, so how come I hardly ever see anyone actually discussing books
>> with their authors?
>
> The manticores which stand outside the Holy of Holies, the SFWA suite,
>keep mere mortals from tresspassing into the domain of the Gods of SF.
>Such worms as ourselves cannot hope to intrude into the debates of the
>immortals.
You mean the whingeing about lousy contracts and low advances and the
shameless hustling after markets for short stories that have been
cluttering up the trunk for years? Those debates of the immortals?
Besides, most conventions don't have SFWA suites.
--
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997, $24.95
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 8/5/97
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <3439CC...@concentric.net>, Kelly Lockhart <kel...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Geoffrey C Marshall wrote:
>>
>> Kelly Lockhart wrote:
>
>> > Please define "ordinary average con."
>> >
>> The one you don't go to. <egrin>
>
>At the sake of being humor impaired, I don't understand your response.
>Was it supposed to be humorous?
I thought it was pretty witty, actually.
The point is that we tend to exclude the stuff we're familiar with from the
set of things from which we abstract "averages." The things we're familiar
with are all Special Cases, after all. It's a common tendency, and very
human.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Mike Scott
> Eastercon in Liverpool this year had a massive fanroom that was deserted
>90% of the time, and an art show in a badly-lit room with not enough
>space for the artists to hang their work and the visitors to view it
>without standing on each other's feet. It should have been the other
>way round, IMO.[1]
The Derby Room (where the fan programme was) is difficult to secure
overnight (though not as difficult as the Large Boardroom, which is a
fire exit). This limits what you can do with it.
Morgan Gallagher
In article <876354132snz@ibfs._nospam_demon.co.uk>, Robert Sneddon
<nojay@ibfs._nospam_demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <61gt49$h...@xochi.tezcat.com> r...@xochi.tezcat.com "RJ-" writes:
>
>> If the B5 programming takes place in an auditorium that seats 1000 while
>> fan programmin is in a spare closet, yeah, that does impair the ability of
>> D*C to have fannish activities.
>
>90% of the time,
Well, at the Adelphi, that's because everyone is in the front lounge!
That's the 'real' fan room.
--
Morgan
"Nunc demum intellego," dixit Winnie ille Pu. "Stultus et
delusus fui," dixit "et ursus sine ullo cerebro sum."
Justitia
P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> ...we tend to exclude the stuff we're familiar with from the
> set of things from which we abstract "averages." The things we're familiar
> with are all Special Cases, after all. It's a common tendency, and very
> human.
I'd tend to expect the reverse, myself. People often preface their
remarks to me with, "Most people think..." only later revealing that
they should have said, "My personal experience has been..." Mind
you, some of those folks think of _themselves_ as Special Cases. But
it's the stuff they're familiar with that seems to set some people's
standards of what is average. For a person of reasonable breadth and
life experience, that may actually not be such a bad place to start.
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <Pine.BSF.3.95.971008...@tommygun.eng.mindspring.net>,
Paul King <ki...@mindspring.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Mike Scott wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily. It's like saying that a ten gallon bucket with two
>> pints of beer in it, topped up with water, must be more "beerish" than a
>> pint of beer because it's got more beer in it. Of which would you rather
>> partake?
>
> Is fannish activity then, by your analogy, lessened in some
> irrepairable way by the presence of a babylon5 programming
> down the hall? Or even by the drunken fratboy down the hall?
> If so your analogy is valid, if not your analogy is bogus. I
> understand that D*C partakes of aweful heresy, like guests
> from TV shows and such and we wouldn't want that sort of
> thinking at a genuine fannish event, or even in the hotel
> across the street from a genuine fannish event.
>
fannish activity. Anything that makes this more difficult, whether
it's the drunken fratboy or the loud rock music leaking into
into a major public space, makes the con a lot less satisfactory.
Also, part of the point of a convention is concentrating the kind
of people you want to hang out with so they're easier to find.
I was at the DragonCon before the most recent one, and the *huge*
dealer's room had only two or three smallish book dealers who
weren't being overwhelmed with customers--this probably means
it isn't my sort of a crowd.
I don't mind media programming, but I'm not going to have as
much fun at a convention where it overwhelms the book programming.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
October '96 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Bruce Sheffer
BillyBond wrote:
>
> >From: Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer "@ aol.com>
>
> >My experience is that they haven't come close to the increase in my
> >income (compared to then) so it is much more economical to go to cons
> >now that it was.
>
> Well, I think your experience is not exactly a wide-spread phenomenon.
>
No? When I started I was making minimum wage. Now I receiving a salary
as a professional. Then I was single. Now I am married and have
someone to share the room and provide another income, which makes paying
for that hotel much easier. I've also accumulated a huge amount of fan
stuff so I don't spend my money on what I've already got at cons. That
leaves more money for hotels. Also, from sheer experience I've learned
how to economize to maximize what I do want to spend my money on.
Regardless of the latter statements, I don't think that the majority of
fandom is working at the same level of income as they started (unless
they just started). In other words, they have made a better life for
themselves over the years and that provides more money that can be spent
at a con (though they may choose to spend it elsewhere and so not have
it for cons).
Bruce Sheffer
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
<snip>
> Besides, most conventions don't have SFWA suites.
>
No, but most have "Green Rooms" where guests tend to hang out rather
than mixing with the common rabble.
If an author is popular, the chance of any meaningful conversation in an
autograph session is practically nil.
I always feel like I'm keeping an author from another engagement when I
buttonhole one after a session.
Sessions rarely are about what you want to ask the author so asking
during a session is a problem.
My conclusion is that the kind of author/reader experience that most
want is only attainable in a relaxed setting where an author can
demonstrate that he/she is in an approachable mood. That occurs usually
only in the con suite or if the author is at a room party.
Though my experience is limited, one guest that comes to mind who is
very careful to do this is Majel Barrett-Roddenberry (I sure I spelled
this wrong, sorry). My wife always goes to conventions that she appears
at for this very reason.
It is a shame that such encounters happen so infrequently since one of
the big draws of a literary convention is "meeting the authors".
Bruce Sheffer
Alec Orrock wrote:
<snip major rant>
> BUT, you can also do things in a way that are as
> you say "fannish", such as con-suites, disscussion groups, readings,
> etc., etc.. Just because a con has a focus on a media element dosn't
> mean it's "bad" or should be avioded for whatever reason.
>
Your argument would have more merit if you listed what you did at
AgamemCon that made it more than a "meet the stars" con. Did you have
sessions on how current physics would interpret the hyperspace gates
used in B5 and is there any theoretical validity to them (or other such
topics)?
> And for the record, AgamemCon I had a very good attendance, everone
> (both fans and guests) said they had a great time, and we're doing A2
> next year.
You polled EVERYONE? What a great job. :)
Ed Kramer
In article <61in10$4...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net
(Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>Also, part of the point of a convention is concentrating the kind
>of people you want to hang out with so they're easier to find.
>I was at the DragonCon before the most recent one, and the *huge*
>dealer's room had only two or three smallish book dealers who
>weren't being overwhelmed with customers--this probably means
>it isn't my sort of a crowd.
Nancy,
In 1997, there were seven book dealers in the room, as well as Del Rey
Books, HarperPrism Books, and three additional literary book additional
publishers. All of the book dealers and publisher were very pleased with
their sales and promotion. In fact, one of the rare book dealers noted
that he did over twice the amount of his best WorldCon. (In 1996, we had
seven book dealers and three publishers.)
>I don't mind media programming, but I'm not going to have as
>much fun at a convention where it overwhelms the book programming.
We have exceptional literary and book programming at Dragon Con. This
includes a complete writer's track (which is larger than any of the
non-literary or fan tracks), daily coffee klatches with over 80 authors
participating, and a complete reading track. Some of our larger literary
programming panels drew well over a thousand participants.
How much of the literary programming did you actually attend (minding your
dealer table and all)?
Ed Kramer
Dragon Con
Bruce Sheffer
Robert Sneddon wrote:
> Me, I'd describe D*C as a row of pint glasses on the bar - one's got
> orange juice in it, one's got keg bitter, one's got vodka'n'coke, one's
> got Bateman's XXXB, etc. The line of glasses stretches off into the distance.
> You can't drink them all - not enough time and not enough capacity. You
> choose what you want and leave the rest on the bar. For some weird
> reason, this bar is a lot more popular than the one down the road that's
> only got a single kind of drink on tap. It used to be the only one in town,
> but it's getting less and less custom. Rumours abound it'll close up shop
> soon...
I figure that older bar will stay in business as long as folks get tired
of waiting in line for their "beer" and go somewhere that serves it up
on a timely basis.
John Lorentz
BillyBond <bill...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971008235...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >From: "John Lorentz" <john_l...@planar.com>
>
> >
> >Yes, we now see many fans who are in their 40s & 50s at conventions.
>
> We always have; it's just that now >they< are >us<.
>
Actually, no. (Always seen many fans in their 40's & 50's, that is.) When
OryCon started in 1979, very few of the folks attending were > 39. But
that's changed as the 20- & 30-year-olds of 1979 (I was 27) have continued
to come to OryCon, while the newer folks have also started attending. (At
this point, we have more than 40 people who have been to =every= OryCon.)
-- John
Dante
Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer "@ aol.com> wrote:
>I figure that older bar will stay in business as long as folks get tired
>of waiting in line for their "beer" and go somewhere that serves it up
>on a timely basis.
There are a few attendees that will never go to the new bar simply for
loyalty to the old one (and may even bad-mouth those that try the
new). They want the one drink they've always wanted and nothing more.
The new bar, however, provides lots of choices (including the old
standard), with a great deal more bar staff to assure that the wait
and service equals that of the old.
Ed Kramer
Janice Gelb
In article 876354132snz@ibfs._nospam_demon.co.uk, nojay@ibfs._nospam_demon.co.uk (Robert Sneddon) writes:
>
>[1] I plead bias on this - I've sort of ended up as "the guy who puts
>up the artshow" at British Eastercons, mainly (I think) because I've got
>the right size spanner and know how to use it.
>
This sounds like it should be in the thread in r.a.sf.f. on great
pickup lines...
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
janic...@eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html
"The first Halloween prank ever, played by a group of Druid teenagers,
was Stonehenge. (`HEY! You kids get those rocks OFF my LAWN!')"
-- Dave Barry
********************************************************************************
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
><snip>
>
>> Besides, most conventions don't have SFWA suites.
>>
>No, but most have "Green Rooms" where guests tend to hang out rather
>than mixing with the common rabble.
Sigh. "Common rabble"?
I'll admit to hanging out in the Green Room at some conventions.
That's because the Con Suite at those conventions is full of people
half my age discussing role-playing games I don't like and anime I
haven't seen, or playing Magic: The Addiction, or trying to talk each
other into bed.
IN the Green Room, though, I'm at least as likely to talk to the con
staff as the other guests.
Finding fans who actually want to talk to authors is not that easy.
>If an author is popular, the chance of any meaningful conversation in an
>autograph session is practically nil.
Thanks for defining me as "not popular." Not that it comes as a big
surprise.
The only time I don't talk to people at autograph sessions is when the
line's so long I'd feel guilty doing so. This has happened, but it's
not the norm.
>I always feel like I'm keeping an author from another engagement when I
>buttonhole one after a session.
You could ASK whether you are. Usually, after a panel or signing, I
either (a) am desperate to find food before my next program item, (b)
have another program item immediately, (c) am desperate to reach the
men's room, (d) have arranged to meet someone (usually my family)
somewhere, or (e) have nothing in particular to do and would be glad
to chat. (e) isn't at all rare.
>Sessions rarely are about what you want to ask the author so asking
>during a session is a problem.
Now, THIS is an interesting point, and what kaffeeklatsches are for.
I note that kaffeeklatsches at many conventions tend to be
undersubscribed.
>My conclusion is that the kind of author/reader experience that most
>want is only attainable in a relaxed setting where an author can
>demonstrate that he/she is in an approachable mood. That occurs usually
>only in the con suite or if the author is at a room party.
So what's wrong with con suites and room parties?
>Though my experience is limited, one guest that comes to mind who is
>very careful to do this is Majel Barrett-Roddenberry (I sure I spelled
>this wrong, sorry). My wife always goes to conventions that she appears
>at for this very reason.
Really? The one time I met Majel Barrett-Roddenberry (which I think
you spelled right), she vigorously ignored me.
This was, I admit, because she was eager to talk to Charles Sheffield.
>It is a shame that such encounters happen so infrequently since one of
>the big draws of a literary convention is "meeting the authors".
Is it really one of the big draws?
RJ-
dan...@idt.net (Dante) writes:
>Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer "@ aol.com> wrote:
Your argument seems to be saying that if I like my corner bar, I'll
really, really love Bennigan's.
Somehow, I doubt it.
RJ Johnson
Minister of Propaganda
Congenial 9 - Emperor Norton Returns From Bermuda Triangle!
Neil Rest, GoH
Marilee J. Layman
In <memo.19971008...@bugshaw.compulink.co.uk>,
bug...@cix.co.uk (Bridget Hardcastle) wrote:
>A year or so later, out comes 'Seasons of
>Plenty'.
How come I didn't know about this?! I liked TAKE BACK PLENTY (I don't
like chocolate -- the absence of it in her purse didn't bother me) and
then, even knowing HARM'S WAY was a different milieu, I bought it and
spent the entire time while I was reading it waiting for something to
happen. Ick. Fortunately, Amazon has SEASONS. Thanks for mentioning
it, Bug!
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
RELM Mu...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
**New** Web site: http://home.virtual-pc.com/outland/owc/index.html
AOL keyword: FR > Science Fiction > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)
Marilee J. Layman
In <daverin-0910...@davebr.apple.com>, dav...@apple.com
(Brenda Daverin) wrote:
> I've also found that authors respond best when you talk to
>them like human beings instead of walking reference material on their
>latest novel
The former is really the only reason I generally want to talk to
authors (unless we're friends otherwise, although I guess I treat them
particularly like human beings). I rarely have questions about the
books, but sometimes because of what they've written in the books, I
think they'll be fun to talk with. I know that when I type for
authors for OMNI, we frequently spend most of the time talking about
non-book things and it's very enjoyable.
Bruce Sheffer
Brenda Daverin wrote:
>
> In article <61iop5$119$1...@client2.news.psi.net>, Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer
> "@ aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Besides, most conventions don't have SFWA suites.
> > >
> > No, but most have "Green Rooms" where guests tend to hang out rather
> > than mixing with the common rabble.
>
> convention guest, are only open when panels are being held. Since most
> conventions don't do a full run of panels into the wee small hours of the
> morning, this usually means the room is only open between 10 AM and 6 PM.
> Do you think the authors are hiding under rocks the rest of the night?
Depending on the type of convention they can be a) Eating dinner and
sightseeing in a town they may have not been to before rather than
rehashing discussions they've had time and again but with new audience,
b) in their rooms spending time with their spouses or whatever, c)
attending offerings but sitting in the "guest" section and surrounded by
a phalanx of guest relations staff, c) attending a guest and media only
party, d) hidden in the back of the hotel bar, or e) they might be
actually, visibly, available for conversation
> do you have any idea how many authors think of themselves as "common
> rabble?"
This was meant as a wry comment. I don't think it matters how many
authors "I" believe think of themselves in that fashion. If you have an
opinion that's your business. The fact that there are authors who act
as if they were nobility and the fans are commoners (or, as intended,
they feel their obligation to the convention is to show up and attend
their contracted appearances only) is one reason that fans don't
approach authors. This inadvertenty alienates guests who genuinely
desire to interact with their fans.
>
> > If an author is popular, the chance of any meaningful conversation in an
> > autograph session is practically nil.
>
> You've got to be kidding. I've had perfectly wonderful conversations
> outside of the green room over the years with such "unpopular" authors as David Weber.
Your personal experience does not invalidate mine.
>
> > I always feel like I'm keeping an author from another engagement when I buttonhole one after a session.
>
> Have you ever offered to buy them a drink? It works wonders, even with the teetotalers. I've also found that authors respond best when you talk to them like human beings instead of walking reference material on their latest novel (NOTE: I am not saying you do). The latter behavior from a fan sends a clear signal to the author that the speaker is fanboy material and not worth the time.
So I have to be an author's biographer before he gives me the time of
day? The drink offering is fine after 5 PM but I hesitate to make the
same offering after a 10 AM session. Secondly, not everyone feels
comfortable offering liquor to others (not usually a problem at cons I
know, but some of us see a connection between alcohol and society's
problems).
<snip>
> > It is a shame that such encounters happen so infrequently since one of
> > the big draws of a literary convention is "meeting the authors".
>
> It is? I thought it was having discussions with like minds.
Like minds? Who wants to talk to like minds? How pointless. Better to
talk to differing minds. :)
More to the point, you are the second person to question this which I
find very odd since every con flyer I've every gotten had the names of
the attending guests in BIG BOLD 18 point type. Apparently someone
thinks this is important or they wouldn't waste the space to draw
attention. Never have I seen "DICUSSIONS WITH LIKE MINDS" in big bold
letters on the flyer.
Chris Krolczyk
orr...@ix.netcom.com (Alec Orrock) writes:
>I'll be the last person to defend "pro-cons"
>such as Creation and the like. Their main, and as far as many can
>tell, ONLY interest is making as much money as possible.
No argument here. After a while, I started ghosting Destruction Cons
simply out of spite back in the 80's when they were still big around here;
I haven't done that in years, and I'm _still_ on their mailing list even
though I haven't paid them squat in membership money since at least '83.
--
Chris Krolczyk
krol...@mcs.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3048
UCE: just another way of saying that you're greedy *and* stupid.
Gary Farber
In alt.fandom.cons <61iop5$119$1...@client2.news.psi.net>
Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer"@aol.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: My conclusion is that the kind of author/reader experience that most
: want is only attainable in a relaxed setting where an author can
: demonstrate that he/she is in an approachable mood. That occurs usually
: only in the con suite or if the author is at a room party.
Fair enough. While reading your earlier paragraphs, I had in mind
pointing out talking to writers at room parties, as is normal.
: Though my experience is limited, one guest that comes to mind who is
: very careful to do this is Majel Barrett-Roddenberry (I sure I spelled
: this wrong, sorry). My wife always goes to conventions that she appears
: at for this very reason.
: It is a shame that such encounters happen so infrequently since one of
: the big draws of a literary convention is "meeting the authors".
You must not be going to standard sf cons, since meeting and chatting at
room parties *is* the norm. What cons have you been going to, and
whereabouts do you live?
--
--
Copyright 1997 by Gary Farber; Experienced Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC
Brenda and Larry Clough
>
> Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer"@aol.com> wrote:
> [. . .]
> : My conclusion is that the kind of author/reader experience that most
> : want is only attainable in a relaxed setting where an author can
> : demonstrate that he/she is in an approachable mood. That occurs usually
> : only in the con suite or if the author is at a room party.
>
>
>
That's funny. Because why spend a lot of money and energy to go to a
con, unless you don't mind being approached? If a writer wants to be
alone, she stays home and saves her money. The only reason might be
that you went to the con, and then caught the flu or something. When I
go to cons I expect and want to talk to readers, and if I don't (this
has happened, at large cons with a heavy media emphasis and bad
programming) it's depressing.
Of course it's also good and important at cons to talk to other writers,
and editors, but there are plenty of other opportunities to do this.
Also, this assumes that you don't approach me in an obnoxious,
threatening, or irritating way. If you buttonhole an author outside a
stall in the ladies' room, you're not going to speak to a cordial
author.
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Irv Koch
Bruce Sheffer wrote:
> This is specifically a literary convention where the focus is on the
> authors and their work. Except for getting a signature to increase the
> value of your book collection, why else would you want the author
> there? You've already read the books right? That's why they plaster
> the names of the authors in 18 point type on the flyers.
>
> There are some authors who get invited to conventions just to see what
> kind of trouble they can get into but I won't name names. Right,
> Harlan?
Huh?!!!!! About 2/3rds of those characters were either originally fen
or have been dragged into fandom along the way. Other than the
principle of "if author X is coming, then lots of people will assume
that their own friends will be there and come also," every con I've ever
had anything to do with ... EVERY ONE ... both the /sarcasm on/ evial
geriatric Northeastern/Midatlantic ones and the rambunctious
multi-generic Southern ones /sarcasm off/ ... invite the pros mainly for
one reason: The people who work the con or their friends LIKE the pro
... want to talk to them ... etc.
And they do. Authors like ATTENTION, lots of attention. They hang
around at cons just so fen (and their own friends, fan and pro) WILL
talk to them.
And as for those manticores guarding the SFWA suite ... you don't seem
to know where they were hired from. Other concoms. Fans who're friends
of the SFWA officers. You want such a job ... the bribe you will be
given is ... guess what?
--
Finally ... a web page ... sorta:
http://www.fantek.org/merchant/irv.html
To reply to me, remove the obvious characters from my address.
Chris Krolczyk
lil...@dorsai.org (Lilith) writes:
>Mainly, I just don't see any reason TO go to cons. My perception of people
>at cons... and please don't take this personally if you love cons...
>is: a place for people who are considered socially inept by society in
>general (AKA dorks) to get together, pretend to be characters that they
>are not, get drunk, talk obsessively about issues which are not real,
>participate in hero worship of actors, and have sex.
Uhmmmm.... I've got a few problems with this paragraph, so allow me to
elaborate:
1) Your definition of "dork" needs some tweaking. Some people who look,
in the words of a certain Billy Crystal character, "simply mahvelous"
are _still_ going to be defined as "dorks" by mundanes simply because
they - shock of *shocks*! - are participating in something which Mundanes
Don't Get, namely a SF con. If that's _not_ what you meant, fine, but "dork"
is a rather broad term (my personal usage connotes stupidity rather than
social ineptitude).
Now, if by "dork" you mean those poor souls who have *no* clue how to function
socially _even at a SF convention_, well, there are those as well. However,
let it be stated that they are far from being a majority at these gatherings,
and they tend to make themselves unwelcome after a while; one of my former
hotel roommates fits this definition, and let me assure you that if cons
are gatherings by fellow borderline-sociopathic "dorks" he's probably quite
perplexed at how much people go out of his way at the things to avoid him.
2) Your definition of "pretending to be a character I'm not" is a fairly
loose one as well. Are we talking about masquerading, or people who really
think that they _will_ turn to dust if they go out for breakfast in the
morning and get hit by sunlight?
3) Some people don't drink. Some people favor more, er, _elicit_ substances;
but some don't even bother taking things as potent as aspirin.
4) Lots of people "talk obsessively"; I've had 4 hour conversation over the
phone, and many of 'em didn't even _involve_ fandom, much less "things that
are not real".
5) I don't hero-worship actors. Or many other people, for that matter.
6) Sex? Well, _yeah_, but only if you've shown up with a SO, are looking
to find an SO _really quick_, or are willing to to go looking for the Lowest
Common Denominator. Like the latter definition of "dork", LCD-types do
in fact exist; they're just not exclusive to cons.
>At "more sedate" cons, eliminate the drinking and sex.
Uh, no. Not unless you have videotaped footage of _all_ the hotel rooms
at these conventions proving this, that is.
>HOWEVER... for the past few years I have regularly spent many 100's of
>dollars travelling overseas to go to music festivals, for the purpose of
>listening to bands, talking obsessively about music and "scene" issues,
>meeting people, getting drunk, and sometimes having sex.
>Big difference, right?
You seem to've answered your own question, actually....
>I guess it's just that I don't see a love of sf as sufficient basis to
>form a subculture around. I don't feel a common bond with other sf fans,
>as I do with other members of my own subculture group.
Why?
>I think this newsgroup bears that out too.. people don't post
>introductions, don't really talk about their lives & personal issues. It
>centers around the fiction, not around a social culture. (Which I like.)
As (probably) stated before, head over to alt.fandom.cons or rec.arts.sf.fandom
if you're interested in this aspect of fandom.
Seth Breidbart
In article <61j9ch$5pt$1...@client2.news.psi.net>,
Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer "@ aol.com> wrote:
[Authors might be]
> c)
>attending offerings but sitting in the "guest" section and surrounded by
>a phalanx of guest relations staff,
Not at any of the conventions I'm familiar with.
> c) attending a guest and media only
>party,
Even less common that the first c).
> d) hidden in the back of the hotel bar,
which is open to the public, so go say hello.
> or e) they might be
>actually, visibly, available for conversation
> The fact that there are authors who act
>as if they were nobility and the fans are commoners (or, as intended,
>they feel their obligation to the convention is to show up and attend
>their contracted appearances only) is one reason that fans don't
>approach authors.
Why shouldn't I approach an author just because other authors have a
bad attitude?
>> > If an author is popular, the chance of any meaningful conversation in an
>> > autograph session is practically nil.
>> You've got to be kidding. I've had perfectly wonderful conversations
>> outside of the green room over the years with such "unpopular" authors as David Weber.
>Your personal experience does not invalidate mine.
When you say the chance of something is "practically nil" and others
have found it to be fairly common, then the chance is clearly much
greater than "practically nil".
>So I have to be an author's biographer before he gives me the time of
>day?
No, you have to be willing to discuss something other than the
author's books.
> The drink offering is fine after 5 PM but I hesitate to make the
>same offering after a 10 AM session.
Coffee is a drink.
Seth
Ray Radlein
Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
> I was at the DragonCon before the most recent one, and the *huge*
> dealer's room had only two or three smallish book dealers who
> weren't being overwhelmed with customers--this probably means
> it isn't my sort of a crowd.
FWIW, Nancy, D*C '96 had by far a smaller number of book dealers than
either D*C '95 or D*C '97. Or D*C '94, or... anyway, while D*C is
obviously not the exemplar of a book-oriented litcon, 1996 really was
something of an aberation in that regard, as far as I can tell.
This year, for all the sheer size of the Dealer's Room, there were about
as many book dealers as there were anything else.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"Well, before my sword can pass all the way through your neck, it has
to pass *half way* through your neck. But before it can do *that*, it
has to first pass *one-fourth* of the way through your neck. And
before it can do *that*...." - Zeno, Warrior Princess
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Steve Davies
In article <343fce01...@news.clark.net> on Wed, 08 Oct 1997
18:17:10 GMT lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:>
>
> Okay, so how come I hardly ever see anyone actually discussing books
> with their authors?
>
Because by now most authors have learned the magic incantation "What's
everybody drinking?" when faced with someone demanding a complete
exegesis of their latest epic. (Usually "How come Aarghsbane the
Barbarian is carrying a ten-foot pole-arm on page 465 when on page 217
we were told that he never lets go of his two-handed axe and tower
shield?" Either that or a long diatribe on how the author has mystically
written down exactly what happened to the questioner when she was a
Celtic priestess in a previous life only he's got a few of the details
wrong and they really ought to be changed in the second edition...)
SteveD
Sally Aaron
Brenda and Larry Clough wrote:
>
> > Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer"@aol.com> wrote:
> > [. . .]
> > : My conclusion is that the kind of author/reader experience that most
> > : want is only attainable in a relaxed setting where an author can
> > : demonstrate that he/she is in an approachable mood. That occurs usually
> > : only in the con suite or if the author is at a room party.
>
> That's funny. Because why spend a lot of money and energy to go to a
> con, unless you don't mind being approached? If a writer wants to be
> alone, she stays home and saves her money. The only reason might be
> that you went to the con, and then caught the flu or something. When I
> go to cons I expect and want to talk to readers, and if I don't (this
> has happened, at large cons with a heavy media emphasis and bad
> programming) it's depressing.
>
WorldCon, in an elevator in one of the hotels. The first thing that
shocked me was that there were only three people in the elevator, then
that the other two were Christopher Stasheff and Jack Chalker. I
introduced myself and we had a very nice, though admittedly very short
conversation. In '91 at Chicon V I was again able to talk to Jack
Chalker while eating lunch in the hotel one afternoon. The authors are
out and about, you just have to be receptive!
--
*********************************************************************
Everything in the world is controlled by a small evil group to which,
unfortunately, no one we know belongs.
*********************************************************************
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <343DB4...@learnlink.emory.edu>,
Ray Radlein <rad...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>>
>> I was at the DragonCon before the most recent one, and the *huge*
>> dealer's room had only two or three smallish book dealers who
>> weren't being overwhelmed with customers--this probably means
>> it isn't my sort of a crowd.
>
>FWIW, Nancy, D*C '96 had by far a smaller number of book dealers than
>either D*C '95 or D*C '97. Or D*C '94, or... anyway, while D*C is
>obviously not the exemplar of a book-oriented litcon, 1996 really was
>something of an aberation in that regard, as far as I can tell.
>
>This year, for all the sheer size of the Dealer's Room, there were about
>as many book dealers as there were anything else.
>
>
off at d*c 96 wasn't just the lack of book dealers, but that
they weren't mobbed. Of course, if the reason that there weren't
many book dealers in 96 was that they did badly in 95....then
there isn't an aberration.