incidents and accidents, hints and allegations

Readercon in short: a few panels, which went well; bake sale; naps; sitting in the lobby to stitch and talk.

Readercon at greater length:

We arrived Friday about 90 minutes before my 6pm panel and I chose sleep over food, which fortunately was not a disaster, as I feared it might be when I was hastily downing granola bars after waking from my nap. Anyway, that panel was:

( Collapse )

Oh, and I asserted that the narrator of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (who is omniscient and a person, specifically a woman, but of the time being written about and therefore not Susanna Clarke) also wrote the footnotes, and now I'm not sure that's the case. I am sure that the footnotes are not academic in the sense of being written by present-day scholars (I went through once and determined that, as far as I could tell, the latest reference is to something in the 1830s (chapter 40, note 3, the dates for the Duke of Wellington's horse)), but I can't put my finger now on why I thought the narrator of the text wrote the notes and not, say, her contemporary publisher. Anyone?

ETA 2011-08-16: the narrator wrote the footnotes, see chapter 5, note 4, which uses the first person ("why I do not know," in describing Mr Tubbs' actions.)

Anyway, I thought this started a little slowly but it seemed to pick up life as we went on—this may just be the waking-up-from-a-nap talking—and there were some good questions from the audience.

(Generally speaking, I'm not sure any of my panels needed to be the full 75 minutes like Arisia or WisCon, but they definitely could have been more than the 50 minutes we had (as we were told to start at 5 after and end at 5 of).)

Then I had a congenial meal at the mall food court with some people I wound up talking to after the panel, came back and put up signs for the bake sale the next day, and then lobby-sat for a while working on stitching and talking to people.

Saturday I got the bake sale set up, put the keys in the capable and generous hands of sparkymonster, and then went to my panel for the day:

( Collapse )

Anyway, this also seemed to be well-received, which was nice, but I ran right out to get back to the bake sale because the time between panels is the busiest.

The bake sale wrapped by 12:30 and did very well; at least one person pointed out that Readercon's con suite and green room have traditionally been on the minimalist end of things, which probably accounts for a lot. That actually let me get to a panel on the critical uses of the term "urban fantasy," notes for which are forthcoming.

Then I got as far as sitting down in the lobby with some work I should have been doing when I realized I couldn't keep my eyes open, so napped again before going out to a grown-up dinner with Chad (who, alas, had not had a particularly satisfying experience at the "book inflation" panel that morning). Then I lobby-sat again and for the rest of the night, skipping out on Kirk Poland because I wasn't in the mood, and like the night before, had some lovely conversations before turning in fairly early.

Sunday I was spared the need to go to the Panera down the street for breakfast by the ever-bountiful Viable Paradise brunch, and then went to my last panel:

Borders (if Any) Between Fan Fiction and "Original Fiction"

( Collapse )

I'm not cutting anything else because I have links to other people's notes instead of my own recollections! Or, well, in addition to. Anyway: Erin Kissane and kouredios both posted notes; I meant to comment at the first, but never got around to it, and saved all my clarifications and additions for kouredios's post, so you might start there. I do want to apologize here as well as there, though, for laughing when Madeleine Robins asked if there was such a thing as real person fic; it wasn't malicious but it was rude, and I'm sorry.

This was fun and was more in-depth than I thought it might from the description, which suggested a pretty 101-type panel to me (which I didn't mind, because it is Readercon). (Oh, and for those wondering at the sole guy being the mod, the panel was his idea.)

Then I went to rushthatspeaks's reading of reviews from the 365 Books project, which IIRC were:

• The Singing Creek Where The Willows Grow by Opal Whiteley (alas, it wasn't clear to me that the reading had started so I missed the killer first paragraph)
• The Golden Gate by Vikram Seth
• 300 by Frank Miller
• Sarashina Nikki + Master and Commander by Patrick O'Brian

all of which I commend to your reading attention. These were well and fluidly read, and the audience laughed in all the right places, so that was a pleasure.

And then I was basically done.

I had a good time; my panels went well and I had a bunch of good conversations and some naps, all of which was refreshing in its own ways. I do remain unconvinced that it's a good idea for Readercon to start on Thursday night of a non-holiday weekend that follows closely upon a major US holiday weekend, but I suspect that boat has sailed.

Mine, that is; you can also see a PDF program grid and the full item descriptions.

Friday July 15, 6:00 PM, Salon F: The Dissonant Power of Alternative Voicing.
Glenn Grant, Paul Levinson, Kate Nepveu, Kenneth Schneyer (leader), Howard Waldrop.

At Readercon 21, there was a panel discussion on the use of documentary text in fiction to lend "authority" to the voice. It can be argued, however, that alternative voicing strategies, particularly the use of documents, framing narratives, etc., are powerful precisely because they are not authoritative. Readers know that they are reading an incomplete version of the document, and consequently are led to imagine what is not being said. What lurks in the interstices between texts? What is this particular document-writer failing to say, or deliberately omitting? This panel will explore the use of dissonance occasioned by indirect voicing to make the reader a fuller, more active participant in the process of creating the fiction.

Get the bake sale set up, and then run to:

Saturday July 16, 10:00 AM, Salon G: Paranormal Romance and Otherness.
Victoria Janssen (leader), Alaya Dawn Johnson, Toni L.P. Kelner, Kate Nepveu, JoSelle Vanderhooft.

In science fiction, aliens are often used to explore aspects of otherness in our own society, such as gender and race. How are the mythical creatures of paranormal romance and urban fantasy being used to explore these same issues? What are the advantages and the pitfalls for writers?

Sunday July 17, 11:00 AM, Salon F: Borders (if Any) Between Fan Fiction and "Original Fiction".
Gwynne Garfinkle, Eileen Gunn, Kate Nepveu, Madeleine Robins, Kenneth Schneyer (leader).

Maguire's Wicked books. Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Chabon's The Final Solution. Kessel's "Pride and Prometheus." Resnick's "The Bride of Frankenstein." Reed's "A Woman's Best Friend." Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Heinlein's The Number of the Beast. All of these stories employ characters, settings, and pre-existing plots from other authors, yet these authors (with the possible exception of Chabon) would probably deny that what they have written is "fan fiction." Lee Goldberg has spent thousands of words explaining why his dozens of authorized television tie-in novels are not "fan fiction." Is there an actual, definable difference between fan fiction and original fiction, or this just another instance, like Margaret Atwood's, of authors rejecting a label or genre in order to remain "respectable" or "marketable?"

I am very excited about these, but also a little apprehensive because I am swamped at work and so preparation time is going to be tough. Feel free to comment on any of these, especially if you won't be there (I promise to give you credit)!

This morning, I woke up from a dream about writing a brief and only gradually realized that the sentence I was repeatedly rewriting was about how much floor space was available on the spaceship.

Readercon program descriptions are up. Who's going?

I have two general thoughts about discussion methods and modes prompted by the prior three panels (Vigorous Debate, or Verbal Harassment?; The Body Language of Online Interaction; FAIL!) and various discussions I had during the con.

( Collapse )

( Collapse )

Feedback? Other general or panel-spanning thoughts?

This panel report is the third of a set; the first panel report was Vigorous Debate, or Verbal Harassment?, and the second was The Body Language of Online Interaction. There is also a fourth post for my general thoughts and for comments spanning more than one panel.

This is a panel I was on, which as usual means that I have notes for what I was planning to say and a couple of scrawled notes from during the panel on things I wanted to return to. This report is therefore a reconstruction—and, sadly, a very incomplete one, because when I first started working on it a week later, I could think of almost nothing specific. Please, please add your own recollections, correct mine, or request clarification.

The not-very-helpful description:

Racefail, Open Source Boob Project… so many ways to fail. How do we keep stepping in it? What is it we're stepping in? How can we avoid stepping in it?
E. Cabell Hankinson Gathman. Molly Aplet, Florian, Rachael Lininger, Kate Nepveu

( Collapse )

This panel report is the second of a set; the first panel report was Vigorous Debate, or Verbal Harassment?, and the third is FAIL! There is also a fourth post for my general thoughts and for comments spanning more than one panel.

This is a panel I attended, so the notes that follow were taken on a netbook and should be close paraphrases unless otherwise noted, either by quotation marks which indicates that I believe I am reporting verbatim, or by a qualifying statement. Corrections, additions, and requests for clarification are welcome. For the reasons stated in my first panel writeup, I will refer to panelists by their first names after the initial mention.

Description:

Contrary to received wisdom, it's possible to convey emotional information in text. In addition to the widely scorned emoticons, there's an evolving body language expressed through sentence length, word choice, timing, as well as purely typographic means. Every online community has its own nuances, and it can bewilder those hoping to join. This paraverbal information is used to maintain the boundaries between the cool kids and newcomers. Learn how to identify the body language in use to become a more confident net citizen.
M: Jaymee Goh. Lisa C. Freitag, Debbie Notkin, Heidi Waterhouse

( Collapse )

( Collapse )

I was going to post about three panels together, but even though I hate splitting discussions it would have been just unreadably long. But they are all a set and I strongly encourage reading all three panel reports; the other two are The Body Language of Online Interaction and FAIL!. The fourth post of this set is for my general thoughts and for comments spanning more than one panel; you can of course leave comments specific to one panel on the report for that panel.

This is a panel I was on, which means that I have notes for what I was planning to say and a couple of scrawled notes from during the panel on things I wanted to return to. What follows behind the cut is therefore a reconstruction of what I said and some things I remembered other people saying. (Which nevertheless turned out ridiculously long, even after considerable editing. Sheesh.) Please do add your own recollections, correct mine, or request clarification.

Panel description:

One of the strengths of the SF community is that it's almost always open for discussion and debate. Unfortunately, when discussions get intense, the line between "vigorous debate" and "verbal harassment" can go from blurry to invisible. How can we tell when a discussion has crossed that line? What do we do if we're the one who's crossed it? How can we step in to call back a friend who's crossed it? Let's discuss how to recognize verbal harassment and brainstorm strategies for addressing it within a community where everyone is a friend of a friend.
M: Jess Adams. Andy Best, Kate Nepveu, Maevele Straw

(I was convinced that this had been changed to leave out the "Verbal" in the panel title as well, but the online schedule doesn't reflect that.)

First, I'm going to excerpt from the updated version of a post I wrote last year, How to Discuss Race and Racism Without Acting Like a Complete Jerk. That post was in two parts, steps to take and things to consider; the steps to take are quoted below because I referenced them during the panel.

( Collapse )

( Collapse )

I was pretty happy with this panel, not that I thought we'd solved the problems of the world or anything, because obviously we hadn't, but it seemed that people were listening and interested and that we were able to get a good amount of discussion across in a fruitful way. However, I am aware that I talked a lot, and though at the time it seemed not excessive, I would genuinely welcome feedback and constructive criticism as to my conduct. Seriously: no-one wants me to be that person, least of all me.

Note: after I had finished this and moved on to the other three panels in this set, I saw bcholmes's writeup, which contains a number of things I had forgotten; please do take a look.

You know what? I'm tired. Let's do something easy and fun.

Back for a third go-round, by popular demand! Writers of color working in F/SF face unique challenges, it's true. But, at the end of the day, being a "person of color" is only one aspect of what makes up our identities as writers. While it's very flattering to asked to be on panels, most of these panels never crack the ceiling of Race 101. With that in mind, wouldn't it be nice for multiple writers of color to sit on a panel that isn't about race at all? Here's our chance to do just that. So, what are we gonna talk about, instead? Practically anything! Presented in game show format, SIBLING OF REVENGE OF NOT ANOTHER F*CKING RACE PANEL brings together writers of color to get their geek on about any number of pop culture topics—none of them race related.
M: K. Tempest Bradford. Amal El-Mohtar, LaShawn M. Wanak, Isabel Schechter, Candra K. Gill

So the audience member rolls a 20-sided die and that determines which of a pre-determined number of topics they ask a question about. (This rule is subject to change if it would be more fun.) Someone brought a beach-ball-sized d20, which wouldn't stay inflated, so a heroic non-panel-member stuffed it with newspaper until it was sufficiently full and before then everyone used regular-sized die. The categories were:

• superhero costumes/powers
• ways to punish enemies
• anime, manga, cartoons, comics
• urban fantasy
• desserts
• Doctor Who
• technology
• franchise reboots
• If you had a ____ name, what would it be?

(Each had two numbers assigned. If you rolled a 1, you could choose any from there; if you rolled a 20, you could ask anything at long as it wasn't about race.)

As before, I took notes on a netbook, and was typing furiously to keep up. I believe this is fairly complete and is a close paraphrase unless otherwise noted, either by quotation marks which indicates that I believe I am reporting verbatim, or by a qualifying statement. Corrections, additions, and requests for clarification are welcome.

( Collapse )

Mary Doria Russell has apologized.

And if anyone else is having trouble commenting without an DW/LJ/OpenID login, you can always e-mail me at knepveu@steelypips.org (you can look for e-mail addresses by clicking on the little gray head/body icon next to people's usernames, which brings you to the user's profile page, though not everyone lists one).