Comments | oursin: Cliques, hierarchies etc

oursin

Cliques, hierarchies etc

May 31, 2007 11:15

Have been seeing a number of posts re Wiscon claiming that it was cliquey, that there were various hierarchies of who you were etc. And okay, I think I tend to be at least slightly dim about this sort of thing. (I think my lj and other mates whom I saw there are Coolest People Ever, but have no idea how this would map onto the apparent hierarchy of ( Read more... )

wiscon, friends, cliques, hierarchy

Comments 20

ironed_orchid May 31 2007, 16:42:39 UTC

I'm not nobody, I READ.

Oh yeah, and I BUY books.

And I DISCUSS them with my friends and anyone else who will listen.

Clearly my ego is a bit more robust than some.

wordweaverlynn May 31 2007, 16:44:25 UTC

Oh dear. If I'd only known you were interested in Thompson and Bywaters.

I'm still pondering the cliquishness issue.

A thought wordweaverlynn May 31 2007, 20:01:13 UTC

Edith Thompson died for her fiction.

Re: A thought wordweaverlynn May 31 2007, 20:02:13 UTC

Well, and so did her husband and her lover. Just in somewhat different ways.

oursin June 1 2007, 12:59:12 UTC

BB L is more interested (since she's doing a chapter on them for a book on gender, race, and celebrated trials of the interwar period - not sure if she's published a preliminary essay somewhere), but they intersect with a lot of my interests.

(The comment has been removed)

flats May 31 2007, 21:16:55 UTC

You're calling it 'discourse' and you still think it's out of your league?;p Damn, how elevated can this Wiscon thing be?!

hhw June 1 2007, 04:25:43 UTC

While it's entirely possible you wouldn't like it/feel comfortable/enjoy the experience, I'm pretty sure you'd be able to follow the conversations! If that's what you mean by "out of your league" -- I'm not sure, exactly. I read the entry on your other blog, and while I only know you in the blog context, the feminism you express there is not any less serious than some of the feminisms voiced or practiced at Wiscon. I'm not going to badger you about it, but I hope you have other reasons besides not being sufficiently feminist.

Anyway, this is somewhat off topic, and I don't mean to hijack oursin's journal.

oursin June 1 2007, 12:52:45 UTC

I don't think it's as up in the discourse stratosphere as all that, but I've been to conferences on Foucault, which does tend to set the bar rather high!

(The comment has been removed)

oursin June 1 2007, 12:54:23 UTC

In my experience, over the years, I like and have got on with various individuals but been extremely loathe to get involved with their posses.

hafren May 31 2007, 17:16:10 UTC

I can see how that idea might take root, because the few cons I have been at, I spent a lot of time alone, not through others being cliquey but because, when finally face to face with people I thought I knew online (and was quite at ease with online), I found myself cripplingly shy and unable to make coherent conversation. Thinking about it, I always had been that way at gatherings, but online interaction had caused me to forget it, or to think I'd overcome it, and it may be that way for others - they loosen up online, think they'll now be ok face to face and then find nothing's actually changed. I've more or less decided not to go to any more cons unless with someone I know in RL.
Mind you, my time clock is all wrong too. I am wide awake at 6am when nothing's going on, and yawning by 10pm when the fun starts...