Escapade 2004, part one: Friday
Feb. 25th, 2004 02:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tenayaI must be getting blasé about slash because while I was looking forward to the con, it was with a comfortable eagerness, rather than the usual nearly naughty nervousness. I roomed with my usual 2 roomies who were armed with a 10 cup coffee pot and Starbucks. We arrived on Thursday and enjoyed a quick and easy registration at a table set up in the lobby. The fandom chosen to be on the program this year was Firefly. The graphic on our name tags was a derelict shack, which left me a tad puzzled. I watched Firefly, but
I didn't recognize the building. Luckily, one roomie had printed up name cards with our fav fandoms on it. I ended up with a Stargate one that featured both Spader and Shanks as Daniel Jackson. We went out to our favorite Thai restaurant but were turned away as they were booked by a private party, so we went back to the hotel restaurant for a pretty good meal.
Friday morning we got a late start and I came in late to "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Fannish discourse in the Age of the Internet. By sheer quantity, has the quality of our conversaton declined to predominately static?" I wish I'd been present for all of it, but oh well. Points that were made after I arrived: If fannish communities are made up of like minded individuals, then there is zero to talk about, that communities need a 'villiage idiot.' There was worry that we have become our own content. On Live Journal, are Friends truly our friends or "entertainers?" There was a bit of disagreement on whether there is Off Topic in a LJ, and a certain impatience when person talks about their lives instead of merely fannish content. Is that considered noise? LJs were praised as a way to tailor your fannish experience by choosing who you interact with. Does the structure of LJ and the increased volume of discussion cause a decline in quality? It was noted that there's a repetitiveness, that essays become interpretations that that community takes as a given.
It was also observed that LJ facilitates BNF nodes, and fans of fans type relationships.
Some people are put off by shallow "I went and bought cigarettes" type of entries, while others were repelled by TMI ones, where the poster revealed too much, too quickly for some folks' comfort. It was summed up that people will give what they want to give and it was up to the reader to regulate their consumption of that conversation. Oh, and Jen had a great bumper sticker: It's a control-freak thing; I won't let you understand.
Next was: "Plot and Slash Stories: Do we really want it? If so, how do we write it or encourage others to do so?" Plot is what makes you remember a story, while a PWP one forgets as soon as one has finished it. Plot could be something like character development, while PWP could also be defined as one of those stories where all that occurs is a character thinks about things; there are no changes, no consequences. It was noted that TV shows give us action, and us fans have to fill in the reactions, the missing scenes, the emotional reverberations. The magic triad was stated as Plot, Characterization and Style. Some despaired of all the redundant plots in a fandom (Post Guada Prime in B7 for example), but I think that goes with the territory as those are significant canon events, and style and characterization will provide the variety there.
People also said that they didn't mind reading stories that had the same plot if they liked it, as the themes would give variations. A sex scene or a dinner or doing the laundry should still advance the plot of a story. Drabbles are 100 word stories that usually plunge deep into an emotional state, and thereby a case could be made that they are poetry, the Haiku of Fan fiction. But are they shorthand or shortcuts? Some thought that the emotion happened too fast for the reader to really experience. Others thought that drabbles were difficult to make specific to a particular fandom. Arcs are the buildup, the climax and the denouement. Grisham novels were given as an example of a case file story, where stuff happens to people we don't care about. Plot is changes that happen, but story is why stuff happens and is attitude. Someone defended fanon as the filigree over the structure of canon, and that it was a rich depository. Others dismissed fanon as irritating clichés.
Next was Defending Slash. Apparently this is now a kerfuffle in LJland. I'll just sum up that I found it illuminating and thought provoking. The bottom line would be that the PTB could take away our subtext in the episodes themselves and that controlling fans can inhibit creativity and newbies (controlling fans are those BNFs that won't allow disagreement with their interpretation and get aggressive in response...this would be a domestic, or internal threat to the slash community.) Loss of community seemed to be the big impact of all that was discussed.
"Live Journal, Boon or Bane? Has the advent of LJ brought about the demise of mailing lists? Has it splintered the venue of discussion to the point where it's impossible to have meaningful conversations? Is the LJ phenomenon just one big egotrip?" I must admit this was the panel I was most interested in attending. Interestingly enough, many observations were in direct opposition of other observations. Negatives were that LJ promotes less discussion and more proclamations. That there's no index, can't find the fiction, can't follow the threads, is too personal, nothing is off topic and that's it's easier to stalk or harass someone. Positives are increased community, you can get to know fans better, you can filter fandom and customize it, that it's less inhibiting and less stressful. Negatives are the politics of Friending, and that its a venue that's better for journaling than for the fannish community; that it's killed discussion, killed lists and gives writers one more thing to distract themselves from writing. It can broaden your exposure to fluff and noise, or to new fandoms and other interests such as music and politics. Icons were noted to be very creative and droolable. It has promoted fandom blending, creative energy, challenges, permanent public urls, cliques, and BNFs. But there is a loss of archives, that there are too many aliases, encourages short, short stories. The main differences see to be that LJ is good for sorting content by "who" while lists sort by "what." Obviously, there is a huge difference of opinion on how useful this particular tool is to fans.
The next panel I went to was a Harry Potter one. I've seen the movies, read the books, but
haven't partaken of the fandom yet. I was just interested in hearing a bunch of HP fans chat among themselves.
At five, I met up with a large contingent of Stargate fans and joined them for dinner. Had a good time, too. After that, I went to the bar/lounge area and chatted with a great variety of friends that wandered by. It was very nice to have a comfy socializing spot in a central location.
And that was Friday. All in all, it was very satisfying and fun. I'll finish this on another day.
I didn't recognize the building. Luckily, one roomie had printed up name cards with our fav fandoms on it. I ended up with a Stargate one that featured both Spader and Shanks as Daniel Jackson. We went out to our favorite Thai restaurant but were turned away as they were booked by a private party, so we went back to the hotel restaurant for a pretty good meal.
Friday morning we got a late start and I came in late to "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Fannish discourse in the Age of the Internet. By sheer quantity, has the quality of our conversaton declined to predominately static?" I wish I'd been present for all of it, but oh well. Points that were made after I arrived: If fannish communities are made up of like minded individuals, then there is zero to talk about, that communities need a 'villiage idiot.' There was worry that we have become our own content. On Live Journal, are Friends truly our friends or "entertainers?" There was a bit of disagreement on whether there is Off Topic in a LJ, and a certain impatience when person talks about their lives instead of merely fannish content. Is that considered noise? LJs were praised as a way to tailor your fannish experience by choosing who you interact with. Does the structure of LJ and the increased volume of discussion cause a decline in quality? It was noted that there's a repetitiveness, that essays become interpretations that that community takes as a given.
It was also observed that LJ facilitates BNF nodes, and fans of fans type relationships.
Some people are put off by shallow "I went and bought cigarettes" type of entries, while others were repelled by TMI ones, where the poster revealed too much, too quickly for some folks' comfort. It was summed up that people will give what they want to give and it was up to the reader to regulate their consumption of that conversation. Oh, and Jen had a great bumper sticker: It's a control-freak thing; I won't let you understand.
Next was: "Plot and Slash Stories: Do we really want it? If so, how do we write it or encourage others to do so?" Plot is what makes you remember a story, while a PWP one forgets as soon as one has finished it. Plot could be something like character development, while PWP could also be defined as one of those stories where all that occurs is a character thinks about things; there are no changes, no consequences. It was noted that TV shows give us action, and us fans have to fill in the reactions, the missing scenes, the emotional reverberations. The magic triad was stated as Plot, Characterization and Style. Some despaired of all the redundant plots in a fandom (Post Guada Prime in B7 for example), but I think that goes with the territory as those are significant canon events, and style and characterization will provide the variety there.
People also said that they didn't mind reading stories that had the same plot if they liked it, as the themes would give variations. A sex scene or a dinner or doing the laundry should still advance the plot of a story. Drabbles are 100 word stories that usually plunge deep into an emotional state, and thereby a case could be made that they are poetry, the Haiku of Fan fiction. But are they shorthand or shortcuts? Some thought that the emotion happened too fast for the reader to really experience. Others thought that drabbles were difficult to make specific to a particular fandom. Arcs are the buildup, the climax and the denouement. Grisham novels were given as an example of a case file story, where stuff happens to people we don't care about. Plot is changes that happen, but story is why stuff happens and is attitude. Someone defended fanon as the filigree over the structure of canon, and that it was a rich depository. Others dismissed fanon as irritating clichés.
Next was Defending Slash. Apparently this is now a kerfuffle in LJland. I'll just sum up that I found it illuminating and thought provoking. The bottom line would be that the PTB could take away our subtext in the episodes themselves and that controlling fans can inhibit creativity and newbies (controlling fans are those BNFs that won't allow disagreement with their interpretation and get aggressive in response...this would be a domestic, or internal threat to the slash community.) Loss of community seemed to be the big impact of all that was discussed.
"Live Journal, Boon or Bane? Has the advent of LJ brought about the demise of mailing lists? Has it splintered the venue of discussion to the point where it's impossible to have meaningful conversations? Is the LJ phenomenon just one big egotrip?" I must admit this was the panel I was most interested in attending. Interestingly enough, many observations were in direct opposition of other observations. Negatives were that LJ promotes less discussion and more proclamations. That there's no index, can't find the fiction, can't follow the threads, is too personal, nothing is off topic and that's it's easier to stalk or harass someone. Positives are increased community, you can get to know fans better, you can filter fandom and customize it, that it's less inhibiting and less stressful. Negatives are the politics of Friending, and that its a venue that's better for journaling than for the fannish community; that it's killed discussion, killed lists and gives writers one more thing to distract themselves from writing. It can broaden your exposure to fluff and noise, or to new fandoms and other interests such as music and politics. Icons were noted to be very creative and droolable. It has promoted fandom blending, creative energy, challenges, permanent public urls, cliques, and BNFs. But there is a loss of archives, that there are too many aliases, encourages short, short stories. The main differences see to be that LJ is good for sorting content by "who" while lists sort by "what." Obviously, there is a huge difference of opinion on how useful this particular tool is to fans.
The next panel I went to was a Harry Potter one. I've seen the movies, read the books, but
haven't partaken of the fandom yet. I was just interested in hearing a bunch of HP fans chat among themselves.
At five, I met up with a large contingent of Stargate fans and joined them for dinner. Had a good time, too. After that, I went to the bar/lounge area and chatted with a great variety of friends that wandered by. It was very nice to have a comfy socializing spot in a central location.
And that was Friday. All in all, it was very satisfying and fun. I'll finish this on another day.
