Thoughts on World Fantasy Con

Oct 02, 2013 09:30


I’ve been hearing a fair amount of frustration with this year’s World Fantasy Convention over various issues.

WFC was the first “world-level” convention I attended, more than a decade ago now. It was intimidating and overwhelming, but also fun and rewarding. Sadly, I won’t be at WFC in Brighton this month. Which could raise the question, “Why am I ( Read more... )

wfc

Leave a comment

Comments 47

jemck October 2 2013, 17:44:03 UTC
I agreed to be on the 'Broads with Swords' panel for exactly the same reasons as suricattus.

Having attended one WFC in the US, I foresee some major culture clashes, as this particular con committee have very Fixed Ideas about what/who is/is not wanted - and also despite the attempts at 'exclusivity' a fair few UK fans have signed up, thinking they're going to get something more akin to the usual UK FantasyCon which is a very different beast indeed.

I personally am appalled at the idea of charging for kaffeeklatches. However it is a fact that setting up anything like a US con suite in a UK hotel is impossible - more's the pity. Having made extensive use of such facilities in the US, I hate to think what visitors' reactions will be when they see Hilton Metropole prices. Fortunately Brighton is well supplied with much cheaper eateries.

Reply

jimhines October 2 2013, 20:18:01 UTC
I'm very curious to hear how that panel goes, now...

Reply


redredrage October 2 2013, 17:47:50 UTC
I am not thrilled by the idea of paying for koffeeklatches, et al, but I can also understand it. But I do have to say that yes, WFC is definitely designed as a "professional" convention. I attend both when I can afford to (I'm going to Brighton this year and it's costing me dearly) but I go to them for different reasons. When I attend Dragon-Con in Atlanta, for example, I go to be on a few panels and to enjoy the energy of the con and to meet with the occasional fan. When I go to World Fantasy it's definitely much more about business for me. There are a few cons that manage the best of both, but they are exceptions and not the rule.

Reply

jimhines October 2 2013, 20:17:36 UTC
But I think, as a few commenters have clarified, that there's a very important distinction between "professional" and "people who can afford to pay more." I do see a value in events aimed at professionals, just as I see the need for events aimed more toward fans. I have a harder time buying the need for SF/F conventions aimed at "people with more disposable income."

Reply

blitheringpooks October 2 2013, 21:50:20 UTC
It seems to me that the organizers place a high fee to make money [and claim that exclusivity is a good thing], but perhaps the attendees are the ones who are seeing that it ends up being a professional conference and they like that benefit. Cause/effect, but not truly intent/effect.

Reply

redredrage October 4 2013, 01:14:36 UTC
I agree, Jim. But I don;t think that WFC is necessarily aimed at more disposable income. They have a very small dealer's room that is basically only allowed to have artwork and books. They have a no costume policy. This is nothing to do with more disposable income and, to my way of thinking (and I'm the first to say I am often wrong) is more a nod at making sure that the convention is, if anything, less appealing to the fan-oriented base. Mostly because it's meant to be more of a trade show and less of a convention in the larger sense. i believe there is also a very strict cap on how many attendees can actually be at the convention that was set in the by-laws of the convention when it was established. The people running the show have no control over that aspect, because it is in the by-laws, and THAT increases the overall cost of running the convention because there is less leeway in how you can generate monies and what sort of guarantees you can make with the hotel. I know that several conventions, like Dragon-Con, make guarantees to ( ... )

Reply


ursulav October 2 2013, 22:21:04 UTC
I'm still rolling my eyes about the comic thing.

Frankly, if they don't want comics, they don't want me, because that's what I do. (I also do some other stuff, but comics are my primary outlet.) And if Maus, Watchmen, and Sandman am not literary enough for them, then I can cheerfully write them off. Probably a lot of very nice people are going, but I can hang out with them at other cons--I don't need to go where my art form is dismissed across the board as without literary merit.

Reply

jimhines October 3 2013, 00:19:11 UTC
I can't argue with that, but in my opinion, it's their loss.

Reply


lenora_rose October 3 2013, 21:36:45 UTC
Re Comics; You have to remember that a Sandman issue won the World Fantasy Award one year for best short fiction. IMMEDIATELY After which they explicitly changed the rules so no comic ever could do that again. This is just the continuation of that idea.

I LIKED the two WFCs I attended (more as artist than writer). I'm fine with WFC being a more professional con and setting up their panels and activities to reflect that, not having hall costumes or masquerades, movie rooms or other such fannish-side things. I'm fine with the art show entrants being juried to make sure they fit a minimum standard - I passed, so the bar isn't *too* high. I think the fact that they ALSO refuse to do writing workshops or pitch sessions somewhat .... undermines that premise, to my eye, and on their FAQ those are also strictly excluded due to the same "exclusivity" excuse.* But, well, it's their call what professional means when it comes to what happens at a convention, and I don't have a BIG issue with where they drew that line.

But, as you say, Cost ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up