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

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

I had no idea about any of this - only got involved in conpolitics around 1999. All I knew is that people keep saying - Don't have a Worldcon, it destroyed Victorian fandom. Perhaps there was a problem before the 1999 Worldcon?

Also, with this in mind, what can I do to make the art stream more media-friendly? Given that the guests are already chosen, what would you like to see? Who should I approach to be on art-themed panels?

[dcrisp.livejournal.com]

How do we go about tracking down the Doomsday Book? I think its time this was reaquired and worked on again with current and up to date information.

[mortonhall.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure the Doomsday Book *did* resurface but I couldn't tell you where it is nowadays

[mortonhall.livejournal.com]

thank you for this history lesson. So many of the modern active fans do not appreciate the struggle and take it all for granted.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I obviously was not part of this and didn't know a lot of the history. However, reading this account, I have a few follow-up questions:

* Why did the Multiverse people disband if they were successful? Is this another example you're citing of Australian media fandom's "selflessness"?

* Did the media fans actively participate in the 1999 worldcon committee and submit ideas and panelists for programme that were rejected?

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

[mynxii.livejournal.com]

This was incredible to read - and saddening. Being relatively new to this side of things I had no notion. Given the wank, I too wonder if the wrong convention was killed.

Wow.

[callistra.livejournal.com]

Ditto.

[robinpen.livejournal.com]

I remember all this happening watching it unfold from over here in Perth. Funny how Perth fandom has a very different history (with the noted exception of the year media fandom saved Swancon) but I do remember when that animosity of lit fan towards media fan did exist here. Our successful transition benefited both sides of the community and lit vs media has become indiscernable except on an individual basis. Of course, Danny, you played a role in that, as did Sue-Ann, who faced a lot of the brunt of the transition which, though smooth on a historical level was not always so smooth on an individual one. Sue-Ann, your sacrifice to the cause has not been forgotten by me.

[magnapops.livejournal.com]

hmmm, strange, but my memory is somewhat different. I definelty remember walking into the MSFC kitchen and convincing Alan Stewart that the MSFC should run a natcon, and seeing as the MSFC was full of both Media and Lit fans we probably should try and combine the 2 cons.

I had done some work with the Lit natcon constitution, so went to work on the media constitution which at the time all were completely over as it was several pages long and contradictory and hard to work with for the organising committee. Once we had a working constitution that matched and was workable with the lit constitution we got it passed by the media fen and then was able to run the combined natcon as Constantinople.

At the time there was enough politics to ensure that there were insufficient people around wanting to stick their heads up to run multiple natcons, it was decided that the best way forward was to concentrate the effort.

Now there may have been some discussion at the media end that I was not aware of, but that was the reasoning behind it.

As to the gradual decline of media content in natcons, whose fault? I loved and was greatly amused when at the end of constantinople I had people from both sides coming up to me and complaining that they weren't well represented with panels at the con. it was amusing because when you counted the panels we carefully managed about 1 panel more for one side. over 4 days we were properly satisfied that we did our best to cater for both sides.

Having worked on programming I know that a lot depends on the availability and willingness to participate in a programme to actually get it off the ground. No use saying we are going to have 20 media panels if you only have 5 people willing to run 2 - 3 panels. You have what people will volunteer for. Something that the politics of the day was carefully ensuring we had very little of.

So yes, media fandom may have died out but I suspect that the combining was a symptom and not the cause.

memory may be dimming, I remember a few Brissy cons, Always Swancons, Sydney ran a couple of cons, but was dissappearring at a great rate. SA ran 1 con, Tassie ran a couple. Melbourne was busy as, too many cons, not enough long weekends.

[paul-ewins.livejournal.com]

It was recovered from NZ last year. I think it was passed to Donna Hanson and I think she passed it on to somebody else again, although I won't swear to that. We can grill her in Adelaide. One way or another it ended up in safe hands.

[paul-ewins.livejournal.com]

Multiverse was the passion of two people. Although the idea was for it to be a shared project of all of the Melbourne media clubs it really came down to those two people driving it. When they finally decided to move on in life it all collapsed. At the time there was a bit of the changing of the guard with quite a few club stalwarts moving on. For a time a number of the clubs looked ready to collapse but only the alternate ST club (Enterprise) and the alternate DW club (Gallifrey) ultimately folded.

The media clubs have for a long time been the bulk of Melbourne fandom. A lot of the people involved in A3 were unknown to them and vice versa. A3 stuck to people it knew and didn't consult. There was a lot of talent out there that could have been used but wasn't. Ultimately A3 made the lit/media divide larger than before.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Quick replies (in the middle of looking after Lex :) )

Multiverse disbanded as a con-running entity for two reasons.
One was that they had a hard time finding people willing to take it on. This is one of the reason I tried to build in my own obsolescence with Continuum. I didn't want people saying, "Only such-and-such can do XYZ."
The other of the reasons is also part of why they had a hard time finding people to take it on. Serious changes would have had to be made to the running due to public liability issues. Around that time we had the chair-lift disaster and a number of other things happen that meant for a large volunteer group to get insurance was difficult in Victoria. Some people would have needed to take on running Multiverse as a full-time job to meet the requirements of insurance at the level they were operating.

Multiverse still exists as an entity, and every year raises money for the Good Friday appeal. To date they have raised over $350,000 for charity.


I can't say how many would have been willing to participate in A3 after they had already been told they weren't needed, but you of all people know how that program came together. Even if they did submit ideas and panels, it doesn't mean the programmer followed through on them. However there may have been significantly fewer items submitted simply because they didn't feel welcome.
I do know that Multiverse did a hell of a lot of advertising for A3 off their own bat and out of their own pocket. Sending out flyers to their fairly huge membership list, other cons and clubs, etc. They got dragged over the coals for referring to JMS as a Guest of Honour on flyers. While this may have been an issue for the WorldCon committee with regards to woldcon politics, it could probably have been handled more graciously at the local level.


As I mentioned, media fandom was also having its own issues at the time which hurt things. Media fandom was having a meltdown, and the Natcon wasn't catering to them, so they weren't going to it, and therefore weren't likely to be involved in its politics, committees, program, etc.

And while you can say, well they did nothing to change things, the Natcons didn't do anything to draw them in, either.

[medge42.livejournal.com]

Alison has it

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I'll reply to this at length once Lex is down. But I was hoping you'd reply because you were on the ground for a chunk of the changes.

Yes, the MSFC cons were the two. Huttcon and Constantinople. There was lots of discussion, and as I've been reminded, public liability issues in Victoria also played a hand.

I remember for nearly two years before Aussiecon 2, there were Aussiecon representatives going around to most of the fan club meetings in Victoria and actively asking people to contribute to the program, to join the committee, to become volunteers, rather than expecting the fans to come to them. It worked a treat.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Ultimately A3 made the lit/media divide larger than before.

Yep. A2 asked the clubs to be involved, and made the media fans feel like their knowledge and expertise would be welcomed and could only make the WorldCon greater, which would in turn help their clubs. It was very much a, "Of course we want you on board, without you this will be a lesser event for everyone."

[paul-ewins.livejournal.com]

I think one thing that hastened the end was the "combined natcons" where the lit-cons wanted the extra numbers but didn't want to bother with the responsibilities that went with it. The one that probably did the most damage was the NZ con, which beat the bid from StarWalking. It seemed like a good idea at the time (that selflessness again) but didn't do the NZ con any good and persuaded the SW people not to bother bidding for the Natcon in future. That was the one where the doomsday book went missing and the people who won the ASFMAs never actually received a trophy. When it comes to that, I still have the paper certificate that one of the Swancons deemed a suitable replacement for the ASFMA trophy.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Hooray! It's in excellent hands :)

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I still remember the Natcon business meeting following the NZ con. People were saying that NZ should never ever be allowed to have the Natcon again, because they ran it badly.

By that criteria, Melbourne, Sydney, and Perth should never have been allowed another Natcon either :)

[king-espresso.livejournal.com]

I think one of the issues not yet addressed is that cons in Australia have become, for whatever reasons, trade shows for pros. I've seen conventions where the programming was stacked with tonnes of professional oriented streams but I've rarely seen a pro writer on a convention committee for a Natcon. It seems to be beneath them. Let the serfs provide the venue, let the pros reap the benefits.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I can't recall if Huttcon was a double Natcon or not. Both it and Constantinople were certainly the biggest Melbourne cons held up until that point. I suspect other than WorldCons, only Continuum 3 and perhaps one of the Multiverses got more people.

The media natcon rules were a dog's breakfast, thrown together by various committees trying to reach agreement *shudders*

At the time, media natcons were doing fine. There was enough interest from various states that there were always at least two groups bidding. Sometimes it was two groups in the same city.

The lit natcon was slowly losing people, and we had a number of lit natcons where a second bid was literally organised the night before the bunisness meeting so that a committee wouldn't get the natcon without a fight.
The ditmars were also becoming a lesser award - not helped by the Best Fannish Cat category, or the stuffed canetoad version of the award, both of which happened at Suncon. Funnily enough, that was done to shock people into reacting and doing something to take them seriously, but made them look worse.

The discussion at the media end that I saw was along the lines of, "One natcon for both would be good!" A lot of the media people in favour of this went to both, so it was seen as a way to save money while creating a much bigger convention.


With regards to programming - if a program doesn't have enough variety there's only one way to improve that, and that's to be proactive. You don't wait for people to come to you, you put the word out and you say, "We want to do a panel on why Dollhouse sucks big hairy donkey balls. Who wants to talk for and against?" "Hey, we're doing panels on the new versions of Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Battlestar... Does anyone want to talk about the original shows?"

There's already plenty of lit content, so people feel comfortable suggesting more. And we've seen the end result of this unchecked - general cons that have become so lit focused that now they are practically writer's cons. And some writers complain if there's not enough stuff on how to write.

If you want panels on anime, gaming, furry fandom, costuming, and you don't already have these people attending, then you need to start asking people to do them. And when people see panels of interest to them appearing at the con, they're more likely to attend and feel comfy making other suggestions.


Constantinople was wonderful for its balance. All the lit fans said, "It was a good con, but there was too much media stuff," and all the media fans said, "It was a good con, but there was too much lit content."

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

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.

conventions

[kattilz.livejournal.com]

I'm over it....would never be involved ever again or even probably contemplated going ...maybe just the one...

[dcrisp.livejournal.com]

Would we be able to get a copy of it?

[paul-ewins.livejournal.com]

To be fair, the most prominent in that regard, Conflux, was started by the CSFG which is a bunch of writers. They did their share of the heavy lifting. Melbourne is now perceived as anti-writer because the cons have continued with the usual fannish emphasis.

[king-espresso.livejournal.com]

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.