I think one issue here is that, from a Natcon/lit perspective, it seemed that while Melbourne had plenty of fannish activity, including media activity and the MSFC, the lit natcon seemed to be something that was dying in Melbourne post-Constantinople (Basicon 2 seemed like evidence that it wasn't dead yet, but wasn't very healthy). And general Perth fandom, for whatever reason, saw the lit Natcon as a much bigger deal than the media Natcon -- and certainly saw the institution of the Natcon as something that seemed perfectly healthy every time it visited Perth. So Melbourne was lacking in the sort of cons that a lot of Swancon people were looking for, even if there was lots going on we tended not to see (and instead see only an ailing natcon). Since then, there have been both natcons and Continuum (which Perth folk are much more aware of due to both your involvement (and Sue Anns, etc) and its deliberately Swancon-like attitude). So there has certainly been a resurgence in the sort of cons that get noticed in Perth.
(FWIW, the 90s was also an absolute golden age for eastern states gaming conventions, which also generally didn't get much noticed from Perth, because there simply wasn't a scene here to introduce people to gaming cons)
I certainly heard the argument that Perth would be wiped out by a Worldcon a lot post-A3, at which time Perth clearly did have a lot of con-running talent. There were a lot of people around who had given up running Swancons, but could be dragged back into con-running for for a worldcon, plus a very large and enthusiastic next generation of con-runners. At that time, it was always justified by referring back to Melbourne. Perhaps the argument was justified the first time it came around, but not the second - but I've certainly always seen it justified, rightly or wrongly, by reference to A2 and A3, rather than being an invention of Perth fandom as kremmen suggests.
It is also worth noting that A3 seemed to drag new people into fandom, but most of the resulting burst of activity was in small press/writing/publishing. A3 might have had a bit of a revitalising effect on fandom generally, it just might not have manifested particularly in con-running. I don't have any particular numbers etc to argue, but it certainly seems that there was a lot of small press activity both just before and after A3, and several new people dragged into that scene by it. I just think its worth mentioning, there is probably a good discussion to be had about what this says about the A3 committees success or failure -- perhaps these people might have been organising cons sooner had the A3 committee been more welcoming to involvement from broader fandom?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: More Ranty History!
Date: 2009-06-02 10:11 am (UTC)(FWIW, the 90s was also an absolute golden age for eastern states gaming conventions, which also generally didn't get much noticed from Perth, because there simply wasn't a scene here to introduce people to gaming cons)
I certainly heard the argument that Perth would be wiped out by a Worldcon a lot post-A3, at which time Perth clearly did have a lot of con-running talent. There were a lot of people around who had given up running Swancons, but could be dragged back into con-running for for a worldcon, plus a very large and enthusiastic next generation of con-runners. At that time, it was always justified by referring back to Melbourne. Perhaps the argument was justified the first time it came around, but not the second - but I've certainly always seen it justified, rightly or wrongly, by reference to A2 and A3, rather than being an invention of Perth fandom as
It is also worth noting that A3 seemed to drag new people into fandom, but most of the resulting burst of activity was in small press/writing/publishing. A3 might have had a bit of a revitalising effect on fandom generally, it just might not have manifested particularly in con-running. I don't have any particular numbers etc to argue, but it certainly seems that there was a lot of small press activity both just before and after A3, and several new people dragged into that scene by it. I just think its worth mentioning, there is probably a good discussion to be had about what this says about the A3 committees success or failure -- perhaps these people might have been organising cons sooner had the A3 committee been more welcoming to involvement from broader fandom?