More thoughts on panels
alecaustin has put up a post about good panels and bad panels and what he thinks makes both. Lots of chewy ideas here.
The one that gets me thinking is the "leaving the audience behind" panel. Is that possible, given a subject that doesn't require arcane knowledge, such as a panel on advanced mathematics or chemistry or the sophisticated interconnection of sciences that go to make up space flight?
Talking about books, is it possible to go over the reader's head? I guess if points are made with oblique references to works long out of print in such a way that context isn't clear. Or even to popular works in such a way that the context isn't clear. In other words, Midway through the book the protagonist pulls an unconvincing Lobelia might be oblique to anyone who hasn't read Lord of the Rings or doesn't remember all the characters, whereas saying Midway through the book, the protagonist who started out so obnoxious does something unexpectedly heroic, kind of like Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in LOTR, but I didn't find it convincing in this particular novel. At least that gives the reader who hasn't read LOTR a hint of context.
But then I really like a book panel that begins with people defining what they mean by terms, because not everyone uses them the same way. The meaning of "trope," for example, has done some swift metamorphosis over the past couple of decades. I've seen people adopting Jo Walton's "incluing" and using it in some wildly different contexts. Just the other day, rushthatspeaks mentioned a term "New Orientalism" that snaps into focus a strand of dialogue that's been emerging on the Net of late.
Yes, no?
The one that gets me thinking is the "leaving the audience behind" panel. Is that possible, given a subject that doesn't require arcane knowledge, such as a panel on advanced mathematics or chemistry or the sophisticated interconnection of sciences that go to make up space flight?
Talking about books, is it possible to go over the reader's head? I guess if points are made with oblique references to works long out of print in such a way that context isn't clear. Or even to popular works in such a way that the context isn't clear. In other words, Midway through the book the protagonist pulls an unconvincing Lobelia might be oblique to anyone who hasn't read Lord of the Rings or doesn't remember all the characters, whereas saying Midway through the book, the protagonist who started out so obnoxious does something unexpectedly heroic, kind of like Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in LOTR, but I didn't find it convincing in this particular novel. At least that gives the reader who hasn't read LOTR a hint of context.
But then I really like a book panel that begins with people defining what they mean by terms, because not everyone uses them the same way. The meaning of "trope," for example, has done some swift metamorphosis over the past couple of decades. I've seen people adopting Jo Walton's "incluing" and using it in some wildly different contexts. Just the other day, rushthatspeaks mentioned a term "New Orientalism" that snaps into focus a strand of dialogue that's been emerging on the Net of late.
Yes, no?