Most cons advertise poorly outside their immediate fan community. Outsiders look at the cost of the cons and think they're a rip off.
vs.
when our whole culture is geared to 'have fun, but on our terms.'
There's a tension here that I don't think you're addressing - 'our community, our rules, our fun' vs a more corporate con that's more accessible to "outsiders'.
How many people go to the effort of talking to someone who is new at a con?
I don't want to rehash this discussion except to say, again, that it will be pretty much the same proportion of people that would do so in any other sub-culture or community. Probably a greater proportion, in my experience, because the fan community tends to think about those issues a little more than others.
So by that logic, media fandom should have let the Lit Natcon die. Way to build community.
Maybe they should have, but they didn't. But I'd also refer you back to my comment about rose tinted glasses.
Here's my fundamental problem with what you're arguing:
You seem to be casting media fans community as the victims of a conspiracy of an organised and united lit fan group that's dedicated to marginalising their interests and using their money to run Cons full of things they don't like.
I think that's bollocks.
These days more than ever the divide (if there ever was one) is less than it ever was before. To be a hard core media fan in the 90s was pretty hard work - tracking down imported vids, comics, tv shows etc was more work than most people whose primary introduction to the fan community came through books could manage.
Now its easy, and every 'lit fan' I know has easy access to all the movies and TV series they could ever want - the divide has shifted in favour of media fans because you don't have to work as hard to get into the material.
And, similarly, the opportunities to discuss and share experience in those fandoms has also expanded, and cons aren't the only place they happen anymore.
On a programming front, maybe that means the pressure isn't on committees in the way used to be to provide those opportunities at cons - I dunno. Like I said, I don't really accept the argument that programs don't reflect media fandom on a more or less equal basis, but neither of us has any figures to back that up, so it's pretty much a moot point.
I think that divide was always a little artificial, and it's even more so now.
no subject
vs.
when our whole culture is geared to 'have fun, but on our terms.'
There's a tension here that I don't think you're addressing - 'our community, our rules, our fun' vs a more corporate con that's more accessible to "outsiders'.
How many people go to the effort of talking to someone who is new at a con?
I don't want to rehash this discussion except to say, again, that it will be pretty much the same proportion of people that would do so in any other sub-culture or community. Probably a greater proportion, in my experience, because the fan community tends to think about those issues a little more than others.
So by that logic, media fandom should have let the Lit Natcon die. Way to build community.
Maybe they should have, but they didn't. But I'd also refer you back to my comment about rose tinted glasses.
Here's my fundamental problem with what you're arguing:
You seem to be casting media fans community as the victims of a conspiracy of an organised and united lit fan group that's dedicated to marginalising their interests and using their money to run Cons full of things they don't like.
I think that's bollocks.
These days more than ever the divide (if there ever was one) is less than it ever was before. To be a hard core media fan in the 90s was pretty hard work - tracking down imported vids, comics, tv shows etc was more work than most people whose primary introduction to the fan community came through books could manage.
Now its easy, and every 'lit fan' I know has easy access to all the movies and TV series they could ever want - the divide has shifted in favour of media fans because you don't have to work as hard to get into the material.
And, similarly, the opportunities to discuss and share experience in those fandoms has also expanded, and cons aren't the only place they happen anymore.
On a programming front, maybe that means the pressure isn't on committees in the way used to be to provide those opportunities at cons - I dunno. Like I said, I don't really accept the argument that programs don't reflect media fandom on a more or less equal basis, but neither of us has any figures to back that up, so it's pretty much a moot point.
I think that divide was always a little artificial, and it's even more so now.