Actually, I'm not saying cons were better when I was younger, I'm mainly saying there was more of them. I went to some bloody stinkers run by both camps.
If the media natcon hadn't been closed down, would east coast media fandom have survived insurance issues, internal fan politics, big companies like Paramount looking over their shoulders, and the impact of the internet? No idea. But with at least one yearly convention actively geared towards pulling them together, it's reasonable to assume it might have kept things chugging along through the hard times. Or it might not. Like you, I have no crystal ball.
The issues of media guest availability and pricing goes back to the 80s, when suddenly US cons started paying people stupid amounts of money because they were in a series no-one had watched in five years. Personally, I find that the vast majority of actors are seriously over-rated as guests. Give me a Howard Waldrop over almost any 'big' genre actor you want to name.
For media guests I would much prefer decent screenwriters, directors, effects people, etc.
Constantinople's carefully balanced program of lit and media panels meant both sides complained they'd been under-represented, so it was seen as a success by the committee. Fans like to argue and complain, as we're both showing :)
With Continuum, we very carefully avoided calling it a science fiction convention, just because of the stigma associated with that term in the general public. People assume a requirement that attendees wear Trek costumes and pointy ears.
We were certainly doing a fair job of getting new people along to their first con, and we got a fair number of those returning to later cons. In fact a portion of the current committee found fandom through Continuum.
That said, I still think we've got a long way to go before I'd say we were anywhere near having a significantly broader appeal. Which is difficult to do without 'mainstreaming' it, which the expos do much better.
I do hope that as we get more and more new folks on board that they'll start to steer things in bold new directions. Of course I may not like the way the cons change, but there were a lot of old farts that hated video rooms when they first came in, too. If their success means that I no longer have a place there, so be it.
And no, I don't think there was a conspiracy to destroy media fandom, nor have I claimed that. I would be surprised if it was anything more than pure laziness on the part of organisers. 'This is what we know and like, other people will just have to deal with it.'
Which is fine to some degree, because you can't please everybody and it's insane to try. But it's also stupid to cut yourself off from the potential bigger audience.
And no doubt that the divide is artificial. It always has been. And while I'm using the terms lit and media, it's mainly because those are terms most people get, plus I don't necessarily have better ones.
Is there any way to sort the situation? No idea. But us disagreeing with each other matters less than the fact we're having the discussion. The only way to get things moving and to find out one way or the other if things need to, or can, be fixed is to talk about it.
no subject
If the media natcon hadn't been closed down, would east coast media fandom have survived insurance issues, internal fan politics, big companies like Paramount looking over their shoulders, and the impact of the internet? No idea. But with at least one yearly convention actively geared towards pulling them together, it's reasonable to assume it might have kept things chugging along through the hard times. Or it might not. Like you, I have no crystal ball.
The issues of media guest availability and pricing goes back to the 80s, when suddenly US cons started paying people stupid amounts of money because they were in a series no-one had watched in five years. Personally, I find that the vast majority of actors are seriously over-rated as guests. Give me a Howard Waldrop over almost any 'big' genre actor you want to name.
For media guests I would much prefer decent screenwriters, directors, effects people, etc.
Constantinople's carefully balanced program of lit and media panels meant both sides complained they'd been under-represented, so it was seen as a success by the committee. Fans like to argue and complain, as we're both showing :)
With Continuum, we very carefully avoided calling it a science fiction convention, just because of the stigma associated with that term in the general public. People assume a requirement that attendees wear Trek costumes and pointy ears.
We were certainly doing a fair job of getting new people along to their first con, and we got a fair number of those returning to later cons. In fact a portion of the current committee found fandom through Continuum.
That said, I still think we've got a long way to go before I'd say we were anywhere near having a significantly broader appeal. Which is difficult to do without 'mainstreaming' it, which the expos do much better.
I do hope that as we get more and more new folks on board that they'll start to steer things in bold new directions. Of course I may not like the way the cons change, but there were a lot of old farts that hated video rooms when they first came in, too. If their success means that I no longer have a place there, so be it.
And no, I don't think there was a conspiracy to destroy media fandom, nor have I claimed that. I would be surprised if it was anything more than pure laziness on the part of organisers. 'This is what we know and like, other people will just have to deal with it.'
Which is fine to some degree, because you can't please everybody and it's insane to try. But it's also stupid to cut yourself off from the potential bigger audience.
And no doubt that the divide is artificial. It always has been. And while I'm using the terms lit and media, it's mainly because those are terms most people get, plus I don't necessarily have better ones.
Is there any way to sort the situation? No idea. But us disagreeing with each other matters less than the fact we're having the discussion. The only way to get things moving and to find out one way or the other if things need to, or can, be fixed is to talk about it.