dalekboy: (Serious Thoughts)
dalekboy ([personal profile] dalekboy) wrote2009-06-01 09:07 am

A Tale of Two Natcons

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.

[identity profile] dalekboy.livejournal.com 2009-06-01 04:01 am (UTC)(link)
There are cons that are so writer focussed I have no interest in attending them. Interestingly enough, there are comparatively recent wannabe authors who hold those same cons up as perfect examples of what conventions used to be.

And I know Pro authors who dislike them because it's no fun for a pro - they want panels on Lost and Battlestar!

I've been doing the fan thing for 30 years, and the best cons have always had a great balance of media, lit, and just enough fan-related panels to embrace our history without drowning newbies in it.
ext_208355: (Default)

[identity profile] king-espresso.livejournal.com 2009-06-01 04:23 am (UTC)(link)
Absolutely. Some pros want diversity in content (you know who you are and I love ya for it), some want to network and self-promote and spruik up their works of variable content. I'd hate to see Natcons become writers' festivals (there are so many of them, some of which I've enjoyed attending) rather than passionate fora for fans to discuss, teach, learn and share their enthusiasms.

My own belief is that podcasts are the new fanzines, but that meme still has a little way to go before it becomes an axiom in fandom.

[identity profile] jocko55.livejournal.com 2009-06-01 10:01 am (UTC)(link)
Most fans can talk and talk. I suspect you put as much work into a podcast as you did some fanzines in times past.
ext_208355: (Default)

[identity profile] king-espresso.livejournal.com 2009-06-01 10:16 am (UTC)(link)
To be honest, Jocko, even more. This next one I'm looking at six movies all in a foreign language, plus wikipedia and deep googling research. And I do that every three weeks.

For the podcast on "The Mna From Hong Kong" I had to spend a fair while tracking down on-line rumours that the star of the film, Jimmy Wang-Yu is now a hitman and enforcer for the Taiwanese triads. I site hopped until I found a site for an English language newspaper in Taipei and searched their archives for references. Took hours, but it's the kind of detail that separates podcasts that review the same movies.

[identity profile] jocko55.livejournal.com 2009-06-01 10:25 am (UTC)(link)
There it is. What happened to the Aussie media Natcon; part of it is The Internet. Some of what we did as fan clubs you can now do online. Constantinople had the Babylon 5 pilot. I got a video copy sent from US by Weller, who I knew through ANZAPA. Today i would just torrent such a show and get an update on the cast list from a fan site. The Aussie media natcon was globalised out of existance by the net. It hasn't happened to books, YET...

[identity profile] mireille21.livejournal.com 2009-06-01 01:02 pm (UTC)(link)
I think there should be a seperate award for writtne fanzines and one for electronic medium. Why not? Is there a shortage of materials to make awards from? I think not. And why try to shoehorn one thing into a category that is it essentially quite different from? I think it makes more sense to have Best Fanzine (online or print) - there's your lit award, and Best Podcast (or equivalent, it's not my oeuvre) - there's your media award.

I have also thought for a long time that the Ditmars should be more balanced in a number of ways, but ... I don't have the time or the shoutiest online voice to argue over such things ad nauseum, nor am I often able to attend the actual Business meeting where such things are voted upon, so my voice essentially doesn't count, along with so many others in a similar situation. 'Shoutiest person wins' is also a pet peeve of mine.
ext_208355: (Default)

[identity profile] king-espresso.livejournal.com 2009-06-01 01:30 pm (UTC)(link)
I think podcasting is a natural medium for fandom, but it sometimes takes a significantly different skill set than a fanzine. My podcast is more or less scripted, with a number of diversions and improvisations, so in that way it's not entirely dissimilar to a zine. But also, a fanzine is a craft and a podcast is a performance. You're essentially whispering in your audience's ears, so it's more intimate and you're less able to hide yourself than you are with a fanzine. Phoniness comes across more easily, as does passion.

Having said that, I still don't have a problem with fanzines and podcasts competing in an award. Both can easily be made accessible to the voters: one as pdf the other as mp3. But I do think this is a conversation we should be having. I'd love to see an emergence of podcasting as a fannish medium. Someone like Rob Jan would be the perfect person to help fandom learn the medium. His radio show Zero Gee is a podcast in all but name. The only things that vary are the resources, the quality and the delivery mechanism.

I also agree that the most strident voices get the hearing. As a sometimes strident voice, I can say it is very satisfying to be one. But that's why I think LJ and other media are a good fora for exploring ideas. Quieter voices can have a say and an opportunity to persuade.

(Anonymous) 2009-06-01 01:53 pm (UTC)(link)
See, I think they are sufficiently different to warrant seperate awards, for all the reasons you've outlined. And as a consumer, I still read a number of fanzines but have never really got into the podcast thing. Again, I think a lot of other people would feel similarly. To use an analogy, lots of people who watch TV don't listen to the radio and the two mediums are sufficiently different to warrant their own awards, yet you could still argue that they are similar enough that you could group them into one set of awards.

[identity profile] strangedave.livejournal.com 2009-06-02 08:46 am (UTC)(link)
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.