Cons and Programming
The call for programming, and promise of a scholarship for programmers for Sirens 2011 makes me think about the whole programming thing. Well, 'think' is probably too strong a word for two hours of sleep.
Anyway.I really enjoy convention programming. My guess is, most people who have gone to cons for a long time like to get their fingers into the pie and toss in their own ingredients. It's both fun and interesting putting together panels and watching the discussion spark. Roundtables, too.
One doesn't always get to participate. Most cons, the program is put together by the con committee, and you find out what is on it when you arrive as an attendee. Sirens differs in that the con committee does organize panels and roundtables, but they leave space for attendees to submit papers, roundtables, presentations, panels, or any other kind of event they'd like to share.
I don't get to a lot of cons, but of those I do attend, my favorite programming tends to be offered by the Berkeley Mythies, of which calimac is a part, and by the group of people around James Hay in San Diego. His group is doing World Fantasy Convention this year, which is very exciting . . . though WFC is touted as the "pro" con, it's had some of the most uninteresting programming I've ever experienced: one year it was nothing but "Best of" lists (without ever defining what they meant by 'best', and often with the same panelists, who unsurprisingly repeated their favorite names at each iteration), or else horror topics, which might be brilliant but I don't have any interest in horror.
Readercon offers some interesting topics, but they seem to limit the panels to the same names. Debbie Notkin's Sercon 1986 was faboo, but I think that was a one-shot--at least, if they did any more, I didn't get to them.
Some say about WFC, But I don't attend WFC for the programming, I go to connect with other pros and editors. And it's true, WFC at its best is a kind of floating party, with spinoffs in various directions--often behind closed doors.
Anyway, I was thinking of the things that make a good panel. Questions that define the topic, offer contrasts, draw out discussion. Sometimes that's difficult if you get a panelist who tends to deliver proclamations from the mount. Or who hijacks a general discussion by the deadly prepositional phrase, "In my story/novel/work . . ." though I hasten to say that some writers carry that off brilliantly, and of course, if the writer is the GOH, presumably people are there to hear that very thing. But too often, the work in question hasn't been sold, so there's no chance to actually discuss a thing no one has read. And what about the times when you have read it, but disagree with the author's fond recognition of their own genius?
Then there's the entirely human tendency to get wildly sidetracked. A good moderator is as important as a good panel topic. A few times, when bittercon discussions have sprung off panel topics, someone comes in later and says, "Wow, this is way more interesting than the actual panel, which I attended, and all they did was ramble." That calls for preparation and a fund of knowledge about the topic and the ability to impart it coherently, so I guess the third thing, besides good topic and good moderator is picking interesting panelists.
Anyway.I really enjoy convention programming. My guess is, most people who have gone to cons for a long time like to get their fingers into the pie and toss in their own ingredients. It's both fun and interesting putting together panels and watching the discussion spark. Roundtables, too.
One doesn't always get to participate. Most cons, the program is put together by the con committee, and you find out what is on it when you arrive as an attendee. Sirens differs in that the con committee does organize panels and roundtables, but they leave space for attendees to submit papers, roundtables, presentations, panels, or any other kind of event they'd like to share.
I don't get to a lot of cons, but of those I do attend, my favorite programming tends to be offered by the Berkeley Mythies, of which calimac is a part, and by the group of people around James Hay in San Diego. His group is doing World Fantasy Convention this year, which is very exciting . . . though WFC is touted as the "pro" con, it's had some of the most uninteresting programming I've ever experienced: one year it was nothing but "Best of" lists (without ever defining what they meant by 'best', and often with the same panelists, who unsurprisingly repeated their favorite names at each iteration), or else horror topics, which might be brilliant but I don't have any interest in horror.
Readercon offers some interesting topics, but they seem to limit the panels to the same names. Debbie Notkin's Sercon 1986 was faboo, but I think that was a one-shot--at least, if they did any more, I didn't get to them.
Some say about WFC, But I don't attend WFC for the programming, I go to connect with other pros and editors. And it's true, WFC at its best is a kind of floating party, with spinoffs in various directions--often behind closed doors.
Anyway, I was thinking of the things that make a good panel. Questions that define the topic, offer contrasts, draw out discussion. Sometimes that's difficult if you get a panelist who tends to deliver proclamations from the mount. Or who hijacks a general discussion by the deadly prepositional phrase, "In my story/novel/work . . ." though I hasten to say that some writers carry that off brilliantly, and of course, if the writer is the GOH, presumably people are there to hear that very thing. But too often, the work in question hasn't been sold, so there's no chance to actually discuss a thing no one has read. And what about the times when you have read it, but disagree with the author's fond recognition of their own genius?
Then there's the entirely human tendency to get wildly sidetracked. A good moderator is as important as a good panel topic. A few times, when bittercon discussions have sprung off panel topics, someone comes in later and says, "Wow, this is way more interesting than the actual panel, which I attended, and all they did was ramble." That calls for preparation and a fund of knowledge about the topic and the ability to impart it coherently, so I guess the third thing, besides good topic and good moderator is picking interesting panelists.