A Tale of Two Natcons

[dalekboy]

In the early 90's the media Natcon was going gangbusters (300-400+ attendees), the lit Natcon was dying with a slowly decreasing (around 200) and aging membership. With the success of a couple of joint media/lit Natcons, it was suggested that Australia's population was so small the two cons should be joined.

It would mean a bigger overall Natcon with a larger budget. Everyone would win. The media fans had no reason to do this. Their Natcon was doing fine. The only reason they did it was out of a sense of community. It would be good for fandom as a whole to have a single, bigger Natcon.

Both Natcons had their own awards. The ASFMAs (Australian Science Fiction Media Awards) and the Ditmars. Having both sets of awards would be huge and unwieldy. The only reason we still have the Ditmars is because the media fans not only agreed to the joining of both Natcons, but agreed to continue the Ditmars and discontinue their own award since a lot of older fans were concerned about the loss of the Ditmars, and their history, if a new award were started.

The only real requirement media fandom had was that the Ditmars have categories changed or added so that the media side was adequately covered, and the new Natcon have a program that fairly represented both media and lit fandom interests.

In a short time, with no separate Media Natcon to compete against, the Natcon program became heavily lit based.

With no guest or programs that addressed their passions, the fan clubs and groups more or less stopped attending the Natcon, and with their own yearly Natcon and awards gone, there was nothing to hold media fandom together through other issues.

We stopped having regular cons and Natcons in Victoria as we approached the worldcon, and while Perth picked up the slack with regards to the Natcon, it didn't advertise in the east terribly well. With no experience of a Swancon, which does tend towards a more balanced program, the east coast media fans expected more of the same they had already been given - Natcons with nothing for them. Why spend all the money getting to Perth just to be disappointed again?

Having already been hurt by the Natcon, to then have someone loosely associated with the then upcoming WorldCon loudly state at a major pre-Aussiecon 3 event, "We don't need the media fans!" didn't help things. For a group than had already been well screwed, a group that had been far more active in con-running over the previous decade than the majority of the fans working on A3, this was telling them that they, and their expertise, really weren't welcome.

The lack of action on the part of the WorldCon committee to rectify the damage didn't help. Having the creator of Babylon 5 as a guest was all well and good, but other than that, the only answer received to the question, "Why should we attend?" was "Because it's the WorldCon." The attitude was that if you didn't want to come to the WorldCon, there was something wrong with you.

On top of all this, fan politics within and between several clubs further damaged things within the media scene.

The big media expo-style cons had tried to get a foothold in Australia a few times, but previously couldn't compete with the fan-run media cons. Why go to a con where you couldn't really talk to or interact with the guest?

The best of the fan-run media cons was Multiverse, which not only ran good cons (and tried with variable success to also cater to lit fandom) but raised thousands and thousands of dollars for charity into the bargain. That was one of the interesting things about Media fandom - the profits of most Media cons were donated to charity. Again, there's that attitude of trying to help and be a part of the wider community - the same attitude that lost them their own Natcon.

But eventually the folks behind Multiverse decided it was time to finish up. Once they did, in came the expos to fill the vacuum.

Media fandom in Victoria had lost their last interesting media cons, while media fandom in general had lost its awards, its Natcon, and its history. Even the Doomsday Book, a book filled with humourous advice, info, and illustrations from previous Media Natcon committees to future ones, was lost. I think it was later recovered, but couldn't swear to it.

Certainly for a time before the Natcons joined, the two media fandom centres of Australia were Melbourne and Brisbane. But it would be up to someone from Brisbane to tell what effects, if any, losing the Media Natcon had on Queensland fandom.

With this history in mind, take the time to find and go through the last decade of Natcon program books, and decide for yourself if you think Australian media fandom has been well-served by their selflessness.

One of the architects of the change, in light of all that has happened, has commented to me on several occasions over the last ten-plus years, that he thinks they killed the wrong Natcon.

Comments

[mortonhall.livejournal.com]

indeed.

I believe there was also something about, if I accepted their result, it absolved them of any future responsibility. They wore me down and I accepted their outcome (too stupid to know better).

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

$10,000 US, first or business class airfare, etc. it all becomes too much.

That said, would totally consider it for Bruce Campbell. Contacted him for Continuum ages back, explained that we can't afford appearance fees etc. I got an email from the man himself explaining politely that after some bad experiences, he doesn't make exceptions to his requirements. He was firm but really lovely, and I was very impressed.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Hell yeah! The media clubs were heavily involved, the advertising was fabulous and everywhere, and every club had a massive influx of new members post con, partially because A2 brought in a lot of first timers.

Re: Aussiecons...

[angriest.livejournal.com]

They're kind of their own thing, and aren't really organised into too strong a fandom in WA.

[baby-elvis.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the 'message' we picked up on was 'don't do it - it destroys fandom', which was probably a Chinese whispers version of 'the people who organised it were exhausted, and some who had been friends fell out with each other.' Just because it was a fannish maxim doesn't mean it was true!

I know there was a lot of resistance to bidding for Worldcon in Perth because the con-running fannish base was so small that we were concerned that it's kill Perth fandom for years.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

If there was, then that goes beyond being an incompetent bureaucracy into being maliciously cheap and evil.

I remembered you being treated shoddily, but if I knew this I had forgotten it.

*furious*

[kaths.livejournal.com]

I have a 1996 ASFMA for Frontier which is the glass cityscape, but on more glass rather than wood. Was the design revisited? I think it was Basicon.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I do think it's a mix of lazy salesmanship, and not moving with the times.

Fan run cons tend to tell people to come along and lots of fun... oh, so long as you have fun our way. No, don't worry, you'll learn.

We'll make you.

[angriest.livejournal.com]

That's it in a nutshell.

One of the things that's driven me up the wall in recent years is the wholesale inability by organised fandom to recognise they are closed off, unwelcoming and based around cliques.

Even when there are people holding up their hands saying "um, I'm a big fan of SF and I've felt deeply unwelcome", people deny it to their faces.

I'm not making this up: actual people verbally denying newcomers' experiences to their face. The conversation goes like this:

NEW FAN: "This place isn't very welcoming or nice to me."
OLD FAN: "You're wrong."

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I tend to think that's a bit rude. If the convention doesn't offer you anything you enjoy, either don't turn up, or do something to change it.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I've seen that happen too, though it took me a while to realise it was happening.

It's one of the reasons I try my best to talk to new people. I've always tried to do this, but as I've become better known just felt it was even more important.

This year I had someone who was new a year or two back tell me how much it meant to them that I took the time to chat with them, not just at their first con, but at subsequent cons too.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Actually, it might be something you hear Perth fans say, but they say it because some prominent Melbourne fans well known to Perth fans seem to strongly believe it. I think it certainly originates with Melbourne fandom, not Perth.

Personally, I had more the impression that A3 was good for Melbourne fandom - it took a couple of years, but from Convergence 1 onwards there was a big resurgence in Melbourne con-running - but I had had Melbourne fans try strenuously disabuse me of this notion.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I consider this argument to be nonsense. Because of the rotating swancon committee thing, Perth has more people with experience in running a reasonably sized con than practically anywhere.

What Perth doesn't have is people with experience in running a worldcon sized con, but that experience is difficult to acquire without running a worldcon.

[baby-elvis.livejournal.com]

Which is surely the case now, but was it in 1985???

[baby-elvis.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, Perth fans didn't make it up out of nowhere!

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I would like to thank you for making this post, and it gave me a lot to think about. I admit I have been guilty of seeing the history of Melbourne con-running largely in lit con terms (which is where I come from in fandom, I'll freely admit my bias), and ignoring the role of media natcons, which I knew about but not much about. Thank you for filling in the other side of the story.

I knew the great natcon convergence had been badly handled, for a variety of reasons, but I didn't really appreciate how badly. I know that I was probably unwittingly part of the problem. I ran the 2001 natcon pretty much ignoring the media natcon purely out of ignorance - I of course tried to put media in the program, but that was because it was a Swancon (traditionally mixed media/lit) rather than because of the media natcon aspect. Not that I am particularly blaming myself -- I was ignorant because no one told me, because no one knew, because records were lost (notably, the minutes of the Natcon BM that covered all this have never been seen) and things badly handled, etc. Note also that another problem due to the poorly handled combining of the two was the horrible great Ditmar controversy of 2001, which had its origins in the 2000 committee being told to combine the two sets of awards with no guidance whatsoever as to how to do so.

I don't think it will surprise anyone when I say that I am rather glad the lit natcon wasn't killed, given the amount of time and effort I have put into the maintenance of that institution over the years via chairing and minuting meetings and committees, attending and sometimes running natcons, changing its rules, etc. But I certainly think the killing of the media natcon was a bad thing, and a loss for Australian fandom. Perhaps the combining of the two might have been a positive, had it been handled well. But it certainly wasn't, and I think did a lot of damage to media fandom nationally.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

The problem isn't so much cons becoming writers festivals -- though I like very diverse cons myself, a very writerly/lit focussed con would also be fine as long as it isn't the only game in town.

The problem is really cons organised as giant writers workshops, with the attitude that most content is aimed at wannabe writers. It doesn't work - and not just because fans that aren't writers (even very involved ones, who take a very critical stance) don't want it, but also because real pros (who already know how to write, and know that they could write in other genres but they write SF because they love it, and they enjoy talking about it) don't want to attend an event aimed at wannabe professionals.

An event aimed at actual professionals is different to an event aimed at wannabe professionals. World Fantasy is a good example of the former, and the professionals I know who attend love it, and good for them. Not all cons need to be fannish. But the event aimed at wannabe professionals sits in an awkward place in between, and I think if you want to organise a giant writers workshop, do it, just don't pretend it is a general interest con.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Of course we had a lot less experience in 1985, though the memory of the (apparently mighty) swancon 5 was still fresh in peoples memory.

But I've heard people repeating the same argument in the last decade.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

And I just wanted to say that this post about the history of the Media natcon goes a long way to lettting me know why my perspective is very different to some Melbourne fans, and probably not as well informed as I thought.

[baby-elvis.livejournal.com]

Have they? Ah well, fear is the mind killer!

[baby-elvis.livejournal.com]

That's lovely to hear.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Have media fans actively participated in the universal natcon committees and submitted ideas and panelists for programme that were rejected?

The history of the Natcon post A3 has been dominated by Swancon, and Swancon has always had a fairly mixed media/lit approach, especially post a certain degree of changing of the guard around swancon 16-18. High profile, primarily media, fans like angriest and robinpen (who are also avid readers) made quite a bit of difference there.

But I don't think the media fans have been as consistently well served by Natcons other than Swancons -- and to some extent this isn't just because of the historical issues that dalekboy refers to, but also a natural bias because several East Coast con-running organisations grew out of writers groups/writer focussed organisations, and so had a big books and writing bias. I'm very happy that those organisations exist and run cons, bias and all, because seeing the resurgence of strong natcon bids from a variety of states has been terrific, but they do have a natural bias, and it does sometimes show.

And I'm pretty sure that this point of view isn't just my Swancon bias showing here, just that Swancon does have a very strong mixed media/lit culture that isn't shared by all Australian con-running organisations - it is notably shared by the Continuum Foundation, but the Continuum Foundation has not so far in its existence been in a position to run a Natcon.

More Ranty History!

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

...I had had Melbourne fans try strenuously disabuse me of this notion.

And I'm one of them, because I lived there. One con a year in a city that used to hold as many as three to five a year does not count as a resurgence. Especially when ConVergence 1 had to be saved by the same group of us (mortonhall, mireille21, Greg Clarke) that then went on to run the first Continuum. Though that rarely gets a mention, while we have never been shy of mentioning that the seed money for Continuum 1 came from ConV1.

I had the idea for Continuum in 1995, then my father died in '96, which gutted me and derailed my fan life. And then Gunny died!
I still have the scraps of paper with the original ideas on them for logos, awards, and stuff. It's what made getting C1 off the ground so easy - the plans already existed.

And Continuum owes it's 1995 inception to the fact that I could see we needed to get people trained up pre-A3, and a yearly con was a good way to do that. Even before it won the bid, A3 was then presenting itself as if it was going to be completely run by the old guard, many of whom had not been on a con committee in years. That's the problem with event fandom, it rarely seems to plan well for the future.

I can tell you without trying that a lot more cons ran in Melbourne between 1990 and 1996 than have run between 1997 and 2009. If I could be bothered going out to the garage, I'd go through all my old con books and give you the list. I am not exaggerating when I say you used to have to really seriously look for an empty long weekend if you wanted to run a con in Melbourne.

The first time I heard the concerns that a worldcon would wipe out Perth fandom, it came from well-known Perth fans. And their arguments were pretty sound. Aussiecon 2 did wipe people out. A lot of folks dropped out of active fandom for a long while or permanently after A2. And Perth fandom had a much smaller base group to work from.

But A2 was so very, very successful at bringing in tonnes of new folks, that the gain was far greater than the loss, and we suddenly had a lot of new fresh people wanting to do stuff.

And I do think that Perth is more or less at the point now where it could do it.

/ranty history lesson

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

It's not the experience, though that's pure gold, it's having enough people who can pick things up and keep them running post-WorldCon, that's the hard ask.

I reckon Perth could manage it now, though.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

to be slightly fair on WASFF, a fair bit of the responsibility for the particular clusterfuck was on specific individuals who screwed up very badly. Not saying WASFF didn't make the wrong decision, but it would have been a hell of a lot easier for them to make the right decision without said screwups.

None of which makes it any fairer on Sue Ann, of course.

And you are quite right in your attitude - WASFF should have seen part of its role as shielding good people from the screwups of others, and they singularly failed to do so in this case, quite the opposite in fact.