Loscon: a wee bit of a con report
Nov. 26th, 2005 12:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pjthompsonSubtitle: Adventures of a Con Virgin
Yeah, I'd never been to a convention before, but I really had no excuse not to go to this one, since it was only about five miles from where I live. I'm good at making excuses not to do things if my native bashfulness gets the better of me. But my local friends threatened me with dire consequences if I didn't go this time, so I will be proudly waving my ID badge in their faces and chanting "neener, neener" when I see them next.
So, I took in four panels and didn't take copious notes, but did have a good and interesting time. I came in about halfway through Genre Fiction: is it really about writing for a target audience? The consensus there seems to have been (from my half-a.....er, halfway-through vantage point) that the market is shifting constantly and sometimes the readers/writers are ahead of the publishers on that particular curve. The lines are currently being redrawn in a big way thanks to TV and the internet. If you want to read about this from a panelist's POV, wander over to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sartorias's place. (And yes, Sherwood, I did rather follow your panels around that day. You were an anchor in a strange situation. And, truthfully, your panels were mostly the ones I thought would be most interesting in the time slot.)
Next I took in Joy of Research: The importance of research and having FUN while you're doing it. Considering how I'm always getting myself into historical situations and having to fight my way out of them, this seemed like a good panel to sit in on. Panelists: Elizabeth Malartre, Richard Mueller, Keith Thompson, Karen Willson, Janine Ellen Young. I did manage to have a nice chat with Ms. Willson and Ms. Young before the panel began. It looked like there was only going to be the panel plus 3 of us in the audience, but just before the bell, the room filled up quite a bit more. And I was able to chat with the ladies because I was actually sitting in an audience seat. My "personality disorder" is such that if I am in an audience/classroom I can talk freely with some semblance of intelligence, but if it comes to walking up and introducing myself I go all over geeky. But enough about me, fascinating as I am. What did the panel have to say? Since I actually took notes for this one, I have more to report here (if you are uninterested in research, skip ahead to ☟☟☟):
"Good research = good skimming." Basically, finding the balance between research and story is the important part. And find out enough to ask intelligence questions of real researchers and librarians. (Hi, Matt.) Try writing the story first, then doing just the research you need to be credible and accurate (credible being the buzz word here—and for an SFF audience. I suspect if you're writing historical fiction, the bar is probably higher.). And don't define peripheral things too closely. For instance, in a story I wrote set in the 18th century, I got a little too specific about some things. Instead of just saying "lace," for instance, I said "Irish lace." In the time and place I set my story, Irish lace would have been out of the question, an historical inaccuracy. Unless I am prepared to do intensive research on each small reference like this (and the panelists agreed that was unnecessary and counterproductive in story terms), it's better to be more generic with things like that. What you absolutely must research is the milieu, the day-to-day things that are necessary for that character's survival, the things that must be defined in order to be historically accurate and give a feel for the times. So, using my 18th century example again, it was vital for me to know country tavern practices in 1727, the social tensions and milieu surrounding the character, his medical/folklore knowledge,etc., but maybe not so necessary to define what kind of lace was used on milady's nightgown—unless the type of lace becomes a crucial character or plot point.
Hopefully, I'm not completely misrepresenting what they've said here. And I'm sure much of this would be obvious to experienced researchers. Any uses I have put their statements to are my interpretations, and etc., etc., blah, blah.
Good sources mentioned:
☛Practical Research: Planning and Design by Paul Leedy
☛histories of manners and customs
☛The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects by Martyn Denscombe
☛Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day: A Guide to Starting, Revising, and Finishing Your Doctoral Thesis by Joan Bolker (a good one for staying focused on just what you need)
☛Remedies, Potions, and Razzmatazz by Don Roberts
☛the writers guild expert pages
☛research abstracts
☛court records and trial transcripts
☛dramaturgy journals (those things stage designers need to put on stage to convince an audience of authenticity - these often offer shortcuts, as the work has been done already)
Now, isn't that more than you really wanted to know? I geeked on this since I've been giving myself fits over research lately.
☟☟☟
I also attended a reading of excerpts from Atlanta Knights, the the Travis Tea opus used to expose the scamming practices of PublishAmerica. That was hilarious. The discussion about scammers like PA wasn't so amusing, as they take advantage of a lot of people unfamiliar with publishing practices, but interesting nonetheless. And I must say, I will never use ellipses in the same way again.
The last panel I attended was Birds of a Feather: Live journal - innocent hobby or cyber drug? with Vera Nazarian, Sherwood Smith, and Curt Steindler. Fascinating to listen to the various stories of how people got hooked--lots of good back and forth with the audience. There was some agreement that there were drug-like aspects to blogging, but that what most of us got from LJ was a sense of community and finding like-minded folks. There's a salon aspect to some blogs, and they tend to be movers and shakers. Many other people use blogs for various sorts of creative expression, whether that entails the daily record of their lives or essays or venting or what-have-you. But everyone seemed to agree that the best sense of community could currently be found on LJ. It's become the replacement for older, defunct forums where people used to gather online. And ten years from now, this community may have moved on to something else, as well.
And then, my head so stuffed with knowledge I was dizzy...or maybe it was because the cheese and pumpkin pie I had for breakfast was wearing a bit thin (who knew I had to bring a sack lunch?), I went in search of sustenance that didn't cost and arm and a leg. I went home. Somehow, through some fluky miracle, I managed to avoid paying for parking—though it was through sheer loopy good luck, not evil machinations. Yay, me, whatever I did.
Hmm. This wasn't such a wee post after all. My bad.
Yeah, I'd never been to a convention before, but I really had no excuse not to go to this one, since it was only about five miles from where I live. I'm good at making excuses not to do things if my native bashfulness gets the better of me. But my local friends threatened me with dire consequences if I didn't go this time, so I will be proudly waving my ID badge in their faces and chanting "neener, neener" when I see them next.
So, I took in four panels and didn't take copious notes, but did have a good and interesting time. I came in about halfway through Genre Fiction: is it really about writing for a target audience? The consensus there seems to have been (from my half-a.....er, halfway-through vantage point) that the market is shifting constantly and sometimes the readers/writers are ahead of the publishers on that particular curve. The lines are currently being redrawn in a big way thanks to TV and the internet. If you want to read about this from a panelist's POV, wander over to
sartorias's place. (And yes, Sherwood, I did rather follow your panels around that day. You were an anchor in a strange situation. And, truthfully, your panels were mostly the ones I thought would be most interesting in the time slot.)Next I took in Joy of Research: The importance of research and having FUN while you're doing it. Considering how I'm always getting myself into historical situations and having to fight my way out of them, this seemed like a good panel to sit in on. Panelists: Elizabeth Malartre, Richard Mueller, Keith Thompson, Karen Willson, Janine Ellen Young. I did manage to have a nice chat with Ms. Willson and Ms. Young before the panel began. It looked like there was only going to be the panel plus 3 of us in the audience, but just before the bell, the room filled up quite a bit more. And I was able to chat with the ladies because I was actually sitting in an audience seat. My "personality disorder" is such that if I am in an audience/classroom I can talk freely with some semblance of intelligence, but if it comes to walking up and introducing myself I go all over geeky. But enough about me, fascinating as I am. What did the panel have to say? Since I actually took notes for this one, I have more to report here (if you are uninterested in research, skip ahead to ☟☟☟):
"Good research = good skimming." Basically, finding the balance between research and story is the important part. And find out enough to ask intelligence questions of real researchers and librarians. (Hi, Matt.) Try writing the story first, then doing just the research you need to be credible and accurate (credible being the buzz word here—and for an SFF audience. I suspect if you're writing historical fiction, the bar is probably higher.). And don't define peripheral things too closely. For instance, in a story I wrote set in the 18th century, I got a little too specific about some things. Instead of just saying "lace," for instance, I said "Irish lace." In the time and place I set my story, Irish lace would have been out of the question, an historical inaccuracy. Unless I am prepared to do intensive research on each small reference like this (and the panelists agreed that was unnecessary and counterproductive in story terms), it's better to be more generic with things like that. What you absolutely must research is the milieu, the day-to-day things that are necessary for that character's survival, the things that must be defined in order to be historically accurate and give a feel for the times. So, using my 18th century example again, it was vital for me to know country tavern practices in 1727, the social tensions and milieu surrounding the character, his medical/folklore knowledge,etc., but maybe not so necessary to define what kind of lace was used on milady's nightgown—unless the type of lace becomes a crucial character or plot point.
Hopefully, I'm not completely misrepresenting what they've said here. And I'm sure much of this would be obvious to experienced researchers. Any uses I have put their statements to are my interpretations, and etc., etc., blah, blah.
Good sources mentioned:
☛Practical Research: Planning and Design by Paul Leedy
☛histories of manners and customs
☛The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects by Martyn Denscombe
☛Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day: A Guide to Starting, Revising, and Finishing Your Doctoral Thesis by Joan Bolker (a good one for staying focused on just what you need)
☛Remedies, Potions, and Razzmatazz by Don Roberts
☛the writers guild expert pages
☛research abstracts
☛court records and trial transcripts
☛dramaturgy journals (those things stage designers need to put on stage to convince an audience of authenticity - these often offer shortcuts, as the work has been done already)
Now, isn't that more than you really wanted to know? I geeked on this since I've been giving myself fits over research lately.
☟☟☟
I also attended a reading of excerpts from Atlanta Knights, the the Travis Tea opus used to expose the scamming practices of PublishAmerica. That was hilarious. The discussion about scammers like PA wasn't so amusing, as they take advantage of a lot of people unfamiliar with publishing practices, but interesting nonetheless. And I must say, I will never use ellipses in the same way again.
The last panel I attended was Birds of a Feather: Live journal - innocent hobby or cyber drug? with Vera Nazarian, Sherwood Smith, and Curt Steindler. Fascinating to listen to the various stories of how people got hooked--lots of good back and forth with the audience. There was some agreement that there were drug-like aspects to blogging, but that what most of us got from LJ was a sense of community and finding like-minded folks. There's a salon aspect to some blogs, and they tend to be movers and shakers. Many other people use blogs for various sorts of creative expression, whether that entails the daily record of their lives or essays or venting or what-have-you. But everyone seemed to agree that the best sense of community could currently be found on LJ. It's become the replacement for older, defunct forums where people used to gather online. And ten years from now, this community may have moved on to something else, as well.
And then, my head so stuffed with knowledge I was dizzy...or maybe it was because the cheese and pumpkin pie I had for breakfast was wearing a bit thin (who knew I had to bring a sack lunch?), I went in search of sustenance that didn't cost and arm and a leg. I went home. Somehow, through some fluky miracle, I managed to avoid paying for parking—though it was through sheer loopy good luck, not evil machinations. Yay, me, whatever I did.
Hmm. This wasn't such a wee post after all. My bad.