Arisia 2011 Report
Jan. 20th, 2011 01:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fredericksI should start by saying that I don't consider myself a frequent Con goer. My first sci-fi/fantasy convention was New York City Comic Con during its inaugural year. NYCC is trying to become an East Coast answer to San Diego Comic Con (not going to happen any time soon) with a de-emphasis of fan-based panels and forums and a big film/TV push. The second convention I went to and still frequent is Dragon Con in Atlanta, a Con with a number of big media names, but also a good number of fan panels.
My interest in Arisia stemmed from the fact that it appeared to be mainly fan-based panels, and thought-provoking panels at that. The few times I went to panels at Dragon Con expecting stimulating conversation and debate I found myself sorely disappointed in the direction chosen by the moderators. Not that the folks at Dragon Con aren't an audience amenable to such discussions: I've had any number of great conversations with folks while waiting on lines for various celeb panels. But the programming (IMO) seemed to focus on celebrities and squee, with a number of informative science panels.
So my expectations for Arisia were quite high. And they were pretty much met. The first panel I attended was Taboos in Fiction. The question addressed in the panel was whether there are still topics considered taboo in fiction, and author Sheila Oranch won tons of Awesome Points from me by forcing the panelists to define and clarify the salient points before answering (what taboo means in the context, the difference between what is taboo and what is disliked on a personal level, how taboos originated). The panelists came to a consensus among themselves that in sci-fi/fantasy the only taboos left are incest and bestiality (with the whole rise in popularity of werewolves making the latter more nebulous). Suprisingly, rape was mentioned, but it seemed from their discussion that males being raped by other males would be considered more taboo than any rape involving a female (which could fuel at least one other panel). It was just a wonderfully lively discussion that raised questions and points about things that I usually push to the back of my mind.
Next I went to an Intro to Arisia panel. Exactly what it sounds like: all the newbies came together to ask questions about the Con and attempt to look less like tourists when walking around. I finally found out what they meant when they referred to "Con Suite".
The following panel was Race and Identity in SF/F. Only two panelists showed up (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
asim and kate_nepveu), but they were both great. They touched upon the "white default" in regards to protagonists of sci-fi/fantasy, the use of alien races as designated "others" along with fetishization and making the other exotic, the ways in which Rodenberry's Star Trek helped advance diversification on the screen, and Tolkien's description of the adversaries as "swarthy" and "slant-eyed." I'm summarizing and simplifying what was brought up to a great extent, but there was quite a bit covered.
Next was Species as Analogy for Race. I loved the way the moderator (writer Nisi Shawl) kept the group tightly focused. However, the panel was specifically to address the movies District 9 and Avatar. Out of the five panelists only two panelists watched both movies. One of the panelists (Suford Lewis) said that District 9 was too graphic and that she doesn't watch movies, and another (writer Andrea Hairston) seemed to say that video was a richer more stimulating media than literature (Walter Hunt attempted argue that the point of good prose is to be just as descriptive as a film clip, but Ms. Hairston could not be swayed otherwise). Nevertheless, it was an interesting topic and Ms. Shawl kept the panelists and the audience engaged.
My last panel on Friday was titled Tropes and Your Audience. This panel was at 11PM, and this ended up being my formal introduction to the con (ha) of a small Con: there ended up being only two other people in attendance. I was pretty tempted to get up and leave, particularly once the panel started and the conversation between the panelists was somewhat circular and sparse, but I felt it would have been too conspicuous for one-third of the audience to get up and leave. I felt it would have been better for the mod to clarify the meanings of "trope", "cliche", and "archetype" in regards to classic sci-fi/fantasy. But *shrug*. They did address the listed questions in regards to longevity of particular tropes in the genre. I do wish that the mod had decided to close the panel early (the panels were one hour and fifteen minutes long) seeing as there were only three people in the audience.
At 5:15am on Saturday there was a showing of the film version of Elizabeth Knox's A Vintner's Luck, a film I didn't even know existed (thank you, IMDB), but as the reviews seemed awful and I wasn't willing to get up early or stay up late to MST3K a movie I ended up passing.
Early Saturday is a bit of a blur panel-wise (my laundered and non-operational Droid had my entire Con schedule in an app called The Conventionist). I believe the first panel I went to was Take Back the Sci-Fi, on the use of sexual violence in sci-fi/fantasy. It was moderated by Shira Lipkin, who served as both a great resource (she works at a/the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center) and a firm moderator. Use of rape as a lazy plot device and without highlighting the power dynamic inherent in sexual assault were touched upon. It was *extremely* eye-opening for me.
Next was Race & Gender Politics in Comics. All the panelists were male, and I found that the discussion tended to center more on race than gender, but the audience had a number of females that asked pertinent questions in regards to gender politics in relation to comic writing and plots. I went in looking for suggestions for interesting comics to read as I haven't read many since high school outside of the occasional Alan Moore, Michael Bendis, and Neil Gaiman GN. Didn't get very many titles, but I did get to vent a bit about being torn purchasing comics with African-descent characters with Caucasian features and/or marginalized story lines.
Running into a bit of a blank when it comes to Saturday...? I recall going to a panel titled simply FAIL!!! next. It was supposed to be a discussion of various fandom related controversies, with RaceFail and Open Source Boob Project highlighted in the panel description. The panel only ended up touching upon RaceFail, but that raised enough dialogue for the alloted time and then some. I knew about those two incidences peripherally and do think it would have served the panel discussion and audience comprehension if the moderator had decided to spent more time dissecting and elucidating the facts of the two incidences for those not more familiar with the Internet-related dialogues, but the moderator (Victor Raymond) was an educator and did a great job making sure there was a lot of audience participation and nuanced back-and-forth between panelists.
Okay, I remember the first panel I went to on Saturday!emily_goddess had texted me to tell me she was in one titled Idols with Feet of Clay, a discussion about the connection (if any) between author's beliefs and their works (Harlan Ellison, Orson Scott Card, and James P. Hogan were mentioned in particular on the panel description), and it seemed interesting enough that I came down to join her around half an hour in. Hard to believe I'd forgotten this one, as it had more than a little bit of mansplaining and victim blaming in regards to racism and sexism on the part of one panelist. One point I distinctly remember him making was that people should have thicker skins in regards to the use of derogatory language. Points were raised by his fellow panelists (kate_nepveu in particular) in regards to the history of certain words and language, along with the idea of privilege. I found the entire panel (and, mind, I only ended up sitting through forty minutes or so) equally fascinating and frustrating. I spend so much time surrounded by people who tend to think along the lines to which I prescribe that hearing other points of view tends to be quite illuminating. And, let's face it, saddening (Kate kept pointing out how, as a reader of color, Tolkien's description of the bad guys in LotR as dark-complexioned was disheartening and the mansplaining panelist couldn't seem to comprehend why anyone would take anything they read to heart).
The last panel I went to on Saturday was Queer SF/F. I walked out of it twenty minutes into the proceedings. I was looking for either a discussion of what defined works as "queer" in the genre and then works that exemplified or seemed derogatory with reasons why, but what I found was a loosely moderated panel where one panelist ended up recommending the works of Mercedes Lackey and gave a rather poor explanation of yaoi while completely ignoring yuri and the power dynamics/cultural differences of yaoi. I wanted a deeper discussion, not a bunch of titles thrown at me. I only ended up leaving because an acquaintance of mine ended up walking out as well and I figured it wouldn't look as bad if we both left together.
Sunday's panel run began with What Women Want (in Their SF/F Females), a talk about "token" females, the hero vs the heroine journey, weak vs. strong female characters, and authors who are good at creating multi-dimensional female protagonists. Immediately after I went to Avoiding Culturefail, a discussion about avoiding stereotypes when portraying real world cultures in one's work. There was a lot of discussion about avoiding making the "exotic other" when creating characters and also about the protrayal of characters from the LGBTQ spectrum. The moderator, while excellent, did disappoint me a bit by condemning a book's protrayal of transgendered individuals (the book in question being Shadowman by Melissa Scott) after stating she only read the chapter headings, the blurb at the back of the book, and a couple of summaries online. She might have had valid points, but without having read the entire work I can't weight her argument equally.
Again I'm running into mental blocks when it comes to Con Recall (in my defense, Saturday and Sunday were broken up by NFL Playoff Games). I do remember going to a panel on Non-Superhero Comics, but being disappointed that I didn't leave with more titles to read. Next was a panel on Avatar: The Last Airbender, where I essentially got to squee about the show for an hour and fifteen minutes along with learn a little bit more about the upcoming animated series The Legend of Korra. The bad came when one panelist said the casting controversy related to the Airbender Movie was no big deal: his exact words were "white guys play Asian guys all the time". At which point I and one of the panelists tried to point out that just because Hollywood has historically cast "white" with the idea that that will make more money does not make it right. Pretty sure that fell on deaf ears, but a number of the audience members seemed like they understood where we were coming from.
The last panel I went to Sunday evening was Your Fandom is OK!, which was supposed to be a way to foster dialogue between fandoms. That's pretty hard to do if only four audience members show up, one of them being a 13 year old girl enamored with Twilight and another being a teenager who took offense to slash fanfic in her fandom (Hetalia). Seriously? The panel experience was hilarious, the panel itself? A waste of time. The moderator could have fostered some discussion, but instead she decided to share her experiences being made fun of by nuttier members of fandom based on her stated favorite characters.
The better take on a similar theme was the panel I ended up attending on Monday morning titled The Myth of Fannish Tolerance. We discussed the idea of fandom made of out outsiders yet with a distinct hierarchy (and I wish I could have presented the hierarchy graph in projection form) and that fandom is made up of individuals with individual biases and beliefs.
Sexual Harassment and Assault in Fandom came next. Shira Lipkin moderated this, and many of the panels from the Take Back Sci-Fi panel were here as well, in addition to a social worker. This ended up being one of the more empowering, educational, and supportive panels I've been to. The panelists left me wanting to do more research on rape culture so I can educate others around me. Truly great stuff.
Ten Days That Shook the World, a panel on the recent changes to Marvel and DC Comics (Marvel got purchased by Disney and Warner stepped up its supervision of DC) followed and ended up being my last panel of Con. The panelists *really* knew their stuff, particularly moderator (and Comic Track head) Jaime Garmendia. I received a great education on the history of comics at the Big Two and the possible changes that might occur in the industry, along with the state of comics today.
I really had a great weekend, and I owe a lot toemily_goddess for telling me about this convention and then sharing her time with me in Boston (had my first experience with Ethiopian food with her and her boyfriend, and she introduced me to an honest-to-God astronomer *grin*). I learned a lot and I had tons of fun and y'all totally need to come to this Con next year.
My interest in Arisia stemmed from the fact that it appeared to be mainly fan-based panels, and thought-provoking panels at that. The few times I went to panels at Dragon Con expecting stimulating conversation and debate I found myself sorely disappointed in the direction chosen by the moderators. Not that the folks at Dragon Con aren't an audience amenable to such discussions: I've had any number of great conversations with folks while waiting on lines for various celeb panels. But the programming (IMO) seemed to focus on celebrities and squee, with a number of informative science panels.
So my expectations for Arisia were quite high. And they were pretty much met. The first panel I attended was Taboos in Fiction. The question addressed in the panel was whether there are still topics considered taboo in fiction, and author Sheila Oranch won tons of Awesome Points from me by forcing the panelists to define and clarify the salient points before answering (what taboo means in the context, the difference between what is taboo and what is disliked on a personal level, how taboos originated). The panelists came to a consensus among themselves that in sci-fi/fantasy the only taboos left are incest and bestiality (with the whole rise in popularity of werewolves making the latter more nebulous). Suprisingly, rape was mentioned, but it seemed from their discussion that males being raped by other males would be considered more taboo than any rape involving a female (which could fuel at least one other panel). It was just a wonderfully lively discussion that raised questions and points about things that I usually push to the back of my mind.
Next I went to an Intro to Arisia panel. Exactly what it sounds like: all the newbies came together to ask questions about the Con and attempt to look less like tourists when walking around. I finally found out what they meant when they referred to "Con Suite".
The following panel was Race and Identity in SF/F. Only two panelists showed up (
asim and kate_nepveu), but they were both great. They touched upon the "white default" in regards to protagonists of sci-fi/fantasy, the use of alien races as designated "others" along with fetishization and making the other exotic, the ways in which Rodenberry's Star Trek helped advance diversification on the screen, and Tolkien's description of the adversaries as "swarthy" and "slant-eyed." I'm summarizing and simplifying what was brought up to a great extent, but there was quite a bit covered. Next was Species as Analogy for Race. I loved the way the moderator (writer Nisi Shawl) kept the group tightly focused. However, the panel was specifically to address the movies District 9 and Avatar. Out of the five panelists only two panelists watched both movies. One of the panelists (Suford Lewis) said that District 9 was too graphic and that she doesn't watch movies, and another (writer Andrea Hairston) seemed to say that video was a richer more stimulating media than literature (Walter Hunt attempted argue that the point of good prose is to be just as descriptive as a film clip, but Ms. Hairston could not be swayed otherwise). Nevertheless, it was an interesting topic and Ms. Shawl kept the panelists and the audience engaged.
My last panel on Friday was titled Tropes and Your Audience. This panel was at 11PM, and this ended up being my formal introduction to the con (ha) of a small Con: there ended up being only two other people in attendance. I was pretty tempted to get up and leave, particularly once the panel started and the conversation between the panelists was somewhat circular and sparse, but I felt it would have been too conspicuous for one-third of the audience to get up and leave. I felt it would have been better for the mod to clarify the meanings of "trope", "cliche", and "archetype" in regards to classic sci-fi/fantasy. But *shrug*. They did address the listed questions in regards to longevity of particular tropes in the genre. I do wish that the mod had decided to close the panel early (the panels were one hour and fifteen minutes long) seeing as there were only three people in the audience.
At 5:15am on Saturday there was a showing of the film version of Elizabeth Knox's A Vintner's Luck, a film I didn't even know existed (thank you, IMDB), but as the reviews seemed awful and I wasn't willing to get up early or stay up late to MST3K a movie I ended up passing.
Early Saturday is a bit of a blur panel-wise (my laundered and non-operational Droid had my entire Con schedule in an app called The Conventionist). I believe the first panel I went to was Take Back the Sci-Fi, on the use of sexual violence in sci-fi/fantasy. It was moderated by Shira Lipkin, who served as both a great resource (she works at a/the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center) and a firm moderator. Use of rape as a lazy plot device and without highlighting the power dynamic inherent in sexual assault were touched upon. It was *extremely* eye-opening for me.
Next was Race & Gender Politics in Comics. All the panelists were male, and I found that the discussion tended to center more on race than gender, but the audience had a number of females that asked pertinent questions in regards to gender politics in relation to comic writing and plots. I went in looking for suggestions for interesting comics to read as I haven't read many since high school outside of the occasional Alan Moore, Michael Bendis, and Neil Gaiman GN. Didn't get very many titles, but I did get to vent a bit about being torn purchasing comics with African-descent characters with Caucasian features and/or marginalized story lines.
Running into a bit of a blank when it comes to Saturday...? I recall going to a panel titled simply FAIL!!! next. It was supposed to be a discussion of various fandom related controversies, with RaceFail and Open Source Boob Project highlighted in the panel description. The panel only ended up touching upon RaceFail, but that raised enough dialogue for the alloted time and then some. I knew about those two incidences peripherally and do think it would have served the panel discussion and audience comprehension if the moderator had decided to spent more time dissecting and elucidating the facts of the two incidences for those not more familiar with the Internet-related dialogues, but the moderator (Victor Raymond) was an educator and did a great job making sure there was a lot of audience participation and nuanced back-and-forth between panelists.
Okay, I remember the first panel I went to on Saturday!
emily_goddess had texted me to tell me she was in one titled Idols with Feet of Clay, a discussion about the connection (if any) between author's beliefs and their works (Harlan Ellison, Orson Scott Card, and James P. Hogan were mentioned in particular on the panel description), and it seemed interesting enough that I came down to join her around half an hour in. Hard to believe I'd forgotten this one, as it had more than a little bit of mansplaining and victim blaming in regards to racism and sexism on the part of one panelist. One point I distinctly remember him making was that people should have thicker skins in regards to the use of derogatory language. Points were raised by his fellow panelists (kate_nepveu in particular) in regards to the history of certain words and language, along with the idea of privilege. I found the entire panel (and, mind, I only ended up sitting through forty minutes or so) equally fascinating and frustrating. I spend so much time surrounded by people who tend to think along the lines to which I prescribe that hearing other points of view tends to be quite illuminating. And, let's face it, saddening (Kate kept pointing out how, as a reader of color, Tolkien's description of the bad guys in LotR as dark-complexioned was disheartening and the mansplaining panelist couldn't seem to comprehend why anyone would take anything they read to heart). The last panel I went to on Saturday was Queer SF/F. I walked out of it twenty minutes into the proceedings. I was looking for either a discussion of what defined works as "queer" in the genre and then works that exemplified or seemed derogatory with reasons why, but what I found was a loosely moderated panel where one panelist ended up recommending the works of Mercedes Lackey and gave a rather poor explanation of yaoi while completely ignoring yuri and the power dynamics/cultural differences of yaoi. I wanted a deeper discussion, not a bunch of titles thrown at me. I only ended up leaving because an acquaintance of mine ended up walking out as well and I figured it wouldn't look as bad if we both left together.
Sunday's panel run began with What Women Want (in Their SF/F Females), a talk about "token" females, the hero vs the heroine journey, weak vs. strong female characters, and authors who are good at creating multi-dimensional female protagonists. Immediately after I went to Avoiding Culturefail, a discussion about avoiding stereotypes when portraying real world cultures in one's work. There was a lot of discussion about avoiding making the "exotic other" when creating characters and also about the protrayal of characters from the LGBTQ spectrum. The moderator, while excellent, did disappoint me a bit by condemning a book's protrayal of transgendered individuals (the book in question being Shadowman by Melissa Scott) after stating she only read the chapter headings, the blurb at the back of the book, and a couple of summaries online. She might have had valid points, but without having read the entire work I can't weight her argument equally.
Again I'm running into mental blocks when it comes to Con Recall (in my defense, Saturday and Sunday were broken up by NFL Playoff Games). I do remember going to a panel on Non-Superhero Comics, but being disappointed that I didn't leave with more titles to read. Next was a panel on Avatar: The Last Airbender, where I essentially got to squee about the show for an hour and fifteen minutes along with learn a little bit more about the upcoming animated series The Legend of Korra. The bad came when one panelist said the casting controversy related to the Airbender Movie was no big deal: his exact words were "white guys play Asian guys all the time". At which point I and one of the panelists tried to point out that just because Hollywood has historically cast "white" with the idea that that will make more money does not make it right. Pretty sure that fell on deaf ears, but a number of the audience members seemed like they understood where we were coming from.
The last panel I went to Sunday evening was Your Fandom is OK!, which was supposed to be a way to foster dialogue between fandoms. That's pretty hard to do if only four audience members show up, one of them being a 13 year old girl enamored with Twilight and another being a teenager who took offense to slash fanfic in her fandom (Hetalia). Seriously? The panel experience was hilarious, the panel itself? A waste of time. The moderator could have fostered some discussion, but instead she decided to share her experiences being made fun of by nuttier members of fandom based on her stated favorite characters.
The better take on a similar theme was the panel I ended up attending on Monday morning titled The Myth of Fannish Tolerance. We discussed the idea of fandom made of out outsiders yet with a distinct hierarchy (and I wish I could have presented the hierarchy graph in projection form) and that fandom is made up of individuals with individual biases and beliefs.
Sexual Harassment and Assault in Fandom came next. Shira Lipkin moderated this, and many of the panels from the Take Back Sci-Fi panel were here as well, in addition to a social worker. This ended up being one of the more empowering, educational, and supportive panels I've been to. The panelists left me wanting to do more research on rape culture so I can educate others around me. Truly great stuff.
Ten Days That Shook the World, a panel on the recent changes to Marvel and DC Comics (Marvel got purchased by Disney and Warner stepped up its supervision of DC) followed and ended up being my last panel of Con. The panelists *really* knew their stuff, particularly moderator (and Comic Track head) Jaime Garmendia. I received a great education on the history of comics at the Big Two and the possible changes that might occur in the industry, along with the state of comics today.
I really had a great weekend, and I owe a lot to
emily_goddess for telling me about this convention and then sharing her time with me in Boston (had my first experience with Ethiopian food with her and her boyfriend, and she introduced me to an honest-to-God astronomer *grin*). I learned a lot and I had tons of fun and y'all totally need to come to this Con next year.
