Escapade con report, part one
Mar. 6th, 2003 11:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tenayaEscapade 2003 was moved to the Radisson Hotel in Oxnard. I found the hotel to be a good fit for the con. The two main panel rooms were roomier, with only a couple of panels where attendance exceeded chairs. I liked that the art show had its own room, and then there where the two small alternate programming rooms, so there was plenty of stuff happening. The only drawback was that the con suite was up on the sixth floor and it seemed like it might be a little cramped to have most of the con membership in it at the same time. I admit I didn't get up there for the free lunch (we'd just eaten), so I may be mistaken. The guests rooms were comfy and spacious, the hotel staff were painless to deal with and the restaurant was adequate and timely. Baker's Square and Starbucks was just a few minutes walk away, so the whole venue was quite comfortable.
The first panel was "Sex, Schmex, Give Me a Story! I admit I thought this was going to be another attack on the PWP, but it turned out to be a much more moderator panel. PWP means Plot What Plot and in the past, this has been defined (at least in the circles I ran in) as a sex scene/story without an external plot. I was surprised to see most folks effortlessly accepted that such a story could have an internal, character driven plot. Someone suggested that PWP might better thought of as Point, What Point, or better yet, Character, What Character? This seemed to be a fairer classification or spin on the definition than just dismissing the whole genre as not having anything solid to offer. My biggest kink in fan fiction is good characterization. I would rather read a well characterized story where the protagonist deals with some inner conflict than an intricately plotted story with more action and science than characterization. Of course, a story having solid internal and external plots with great characterization would be fantastic, but I understand very well that those are a lot of hard work.
But I digress so let's go back to my notes. I have a notation about the Wave Theory of Fandom but I can't quite remember how that fit in with this subject. It seems like there was something about stories starting now with the 4th Wave, so they are jumping past those other steps. Hmmm....
There was a brief but spirited debate about the term "pre-slash." Apparently this phrase is much despised in certain circles, but nevertheless, consensus was that it did work to define a certain type of story: a gen story that lays the ground work for an eventual sexual relationship between same sex characters. If the same story featured a romantic storyline between a male and female but ended without reaching a sexual interlude, this story would be considered 'het,' so there did seemed to be a need for a word to describe to the same situation in the slash genre. It was with great reluctance, an uneasy agreement was made that such stories might be termed pre-slash.
So, I left the first panel feeling satisfaction that the terms 'pre-slash' might eventually be moved out to the bastard child status and that the reputation of the PWP had been rehabilitated. A good start!
The second panel was Smallville--Secrets and Superpowers. I have to say I haven't seen the first season; I thought the whole teenage "S/he does/doesn't like me!" too annoying for words. But because a good friend in London *really* wanted copies, I agreed to tape 'em...and thereby discovered the rather brilliant and twisted Luthor element. Suddenly, it was much easier to watch this show. The three days before Escapade I spent in LasVegas, shopping, eating, drinking lattes and chattering about Smallville with Kitty and Lorelei (miss you both!!) Thus primed, I had no choice but to go to this panel.
Some interesting observations that people made:
Every time Clark discovers a new superpower, he is around Lex.
That Knowing Clark's secret equates to intimacy.
There was some reference to the Cupid/Psyche relationship with reference to betrayal but it went right over my head.
Consensus was that Lionel must have been raised by wolves and that he doesn't consider himself evil.
Lionel is more honest about his dishonesty while Jonathan knows he is doing wrong but he does it anyway.
Lionel is proud of Lex when Lex sees through his schemes.
Clark is strong physically but weak emotionally, while Lex is the opposite; as archetypes, they fit together very nicely.
The last notation is that Lex is "out." I can't recall what that was in reference to.
The next event on the agenda was the free lunch but as we had just eaten so we took a walk through a gloriously brilliant day down to the local Starbucks.
This is a good place for a break; I'll continue with that second part later.
The first panel was "Sex, Schmex, Give Me a Story! I admit I thought this was going to be another attack on the PWP, but it turned out to be a much more moderator panel. PWP means Plot What Plot and in the past, this has been defined (at least in the circles I ran in) as a sex scene/story without an external plot. I was surprised to see most folks effortlessly accepted that such a story could have an internal, character driven plot. Someone suggested that PWP might better thought of as Point, What Point, or better yet, Character, What Character? This seemed to be a fairer classification or spin on the definition than just dismissing the whole genre as not having anything solid to offer. My biggest kink in fan fiction is good characterization. I would rather read a well characterized story where the protagonist deals with some inner conflict than an intricately plotted story with more action and science than characterization. Of course, a story having solid internal and external plots with great characterization would be fantastic, but I understand very well that those are a lot of hard work.
But I digress so let's go back to my notes. I have a notation about the Wave Theory of Fandom but I can't quite remember how that fit in with this subject. It seems like there was something about stories starting now with the 4th Wave, so they are jumping past those other steps. Hmmm....
There was a brief but spirited debate about the term "pre-slash." Apparently this phrase is much despised in certain circles, but nevertheless, consensus was that it did work to define a certain type of story: a gen story that lays the ground work for an eventual sexual relationship between same sex characters. If the same story featured a romantic storyline between a male and female but ended without reaching a sexual interlude, this story would be considered 'het,' so there did seemed to be a need for a word to describe to the same situation in the slash genre. It was with great reluctance, an uneasy agreement was made that such stories might be termed pre-slash.
So, I left the first panel feeling satisfaction that the terms 'pre-slash' might eventually be moved out to the bastard child status and that the reputation of the PWP had been rehabilitated. A good start!
The second panel was Smallville--Secrets and Superpowers. I have to say I haven't seen the first season; I thought the whole teenage "S/he does/doesn't like me!" too annoying for words. But because a good friend in London *really* wanted copies, I agreed to tape 'em...and thereby discovered the rather brilliant and twisted Luthor element. Suddenly, it was much easier to watch this show. The three days before Escapade I spent in LasVegas, shopping, eating, drinking lattes and chattering about Smallville with Kitty and Lorelei (miss you both!!) Thus primed, I had no choice but to go to this panel.
Some interesting observations that people made:
Every time Clark discovers a new superpower, he is around Lex.
That Knowing Clark's secret equates to intimacy.
There was some reference to the Cupid/Psyche relationship with reference to betrayal but it went right over my head.
Consensus was that Lionel must have been raised by wolves and that he doesn't consider himself evil.
Lionel is more honest about his dishonesty while Jonathan knows he is doing wrong but he does it anyway.
Lionel is proud of Lex when Lex sees through his schemes.
Clark is strong physically but weak emotionally, while Lex is the opposite; as archetypes, they fit together very nicely.
The last notation is that Lex is "out." I can't recall what that was in reference to.
The next event on the agenda was the free lunch but as we had just eaten so we took a walk through a gloriously brilliant day down to the local Starbucks.
This is a good place for a break; I'll continue with that second part later.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-10 08:20 am (UTC)I would rather read a well characterized story where the protagonist deals with some inner conflict than an intricately plotted story with more action and science than characterization.
This dichotomy confuses me. Can't you have an intricately plotted story that's about a character dealing with some inner conflict? Complex plot does not equal external conflict.
Also, you might be interested in Rache's post-Escapade discussion on the term 'pre-slash', which also grew out of that panel (http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=wickedwords&itemid=109913).
-J
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-10 09:03 am (UTC)And absolutely. I must not have been very clear. I prefer complex inner conflict. In the past, I've heard plot defined as only external events and no matter how intricate the internal stuff was, it didn't count as plot. I think complex inner conflict can be the most riveting.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-10 09:07 am (UTC)Wow, that's fascinating to me. In my fandom (West Wing), I'm known for being a plot junkie, and yet the internal stuff has always been paramount in my stories. I *have* external stuff going on, but it's always in the background. I've never heard anybody say that it didn't count as plot unless it was external. Huh.
I'm glad you enjoyed the panel, though! I sure did, too. :-)
-J