Musings on convention panels

[chipotle]

John Gruber recently wrote an article saucily titled “Let’s Have a Panel on What We Didn’t Like About SXSW 2007”; if you don’t know what SXSW is, it’s a festival in Austin, Texas, originally focused on music but now encompassing creative web media under the rubric of “SXSW Interactive.” But, really, SXSW itself isn’t what has me musing—it’s his observation that “at most conferences, the deal is that the content is great and the socializing is good. At SXSWi, the content is good, but the socializing is great.”

What this reminded me of is science fiction cons, except that instead of good I’d say variable for the content. And for furry cons, let’s face it, most of the time “variable” would be charitable.

Gruber goes on to write:

One problem, I think, is SXSWi’s emphasis on panels rather than lectures. Panels are good for an introduction, and they can be entertaining in the way that a talk show is. But there’s no sustained narrative, no way to build a case or leave the audience with a strong impression. I feel like I conveyed 50 times more information in my hour-long lecture at C4 in October than I did as one of three panelists in an hour-long session at SXSWi this year—and I thought our panel went well. Panels are dessert, lectures are meals.

Now, suggesting that having lectures rather than panels at cons—or even in addition to panels—is something I imagine would get one reflexively clubbed to death. “Lecture” is not a word that screams fun. It’s a word that, even in the best of circumstances, makes people think of—ick!—education.

Yet, if I look back over the most memorable programming I can think of from all my con-going time, the things that come to mind are essentially one-person shows: Pat Murphy’s writing workshop at Further Confusion, Orson Card’s “Secular Humanist Revival Meeting” (possibly at the Necronomicon he was a guest at in the late ’80s, but don’t quote me), a panel on linguistics at Anthrocon with a single panelist—a linguistics professor. Even a couple keynote speeches by guests, like Bob Shaw and Francis Ford Coppola at two WorldCons I went to.

And, really, don’t people who attend panel programming at cons actually want to be educated? They’re trying to learn something about how to tell stories or draw pictures or build costumes. And maybe it’s just me, but it seems that panels don’t do that unless at least one panelist treats the panel like something they need to prepare for. A little less like a coffeeklatsch and a little more like a presentation.

So. Where am I going with this, you may ask? Truthfully, I dunno. I suspect convention programming tracks would do better with panelists who are prepared, but in practice I’m not sure what that actually means. Simply telling panelists “think more about what you’re going to say” may be the gist of it, but I suspect it could go considerably beyond that—I’m just not sure in what direction. How can we make panel programming better at cons?

Comments

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

When Elizabeth Barrette and I did panels together, we would compile fliers, suggested reading lists with website links and reference books, and sheets of leading questions for further consideration. When the convention provided email addresses for all the panel members, she'd get in touch with them all to put together that material... otherwise, she'd go it alone.

She still does that, I think. I stopped because it got too hard to get in touch with people you were on panels with, and because panel assignments usually got to me from convention organizers so late that I would barely have time to go, 'Huh, what, I'm doing what where?' much less put some real thought into it.

[varjohaltia.livejournal.com]

I'm hardly a seasoned pro in this field, but what Haikujaguar describes seems to be a good part of what makes a good panel: panelists who are engaging, knowledgeable, take charge and want to share.

That being said, I would rather prefer an "informal lecture" or such over a number of panel discussions.
Much depends on the topic, of course; panels at DragonCon with TV and Movie stars are great in a question and answer format, and in offering a venue where the stars can banter with each other and play hijinx and demonstrate cast chemistry.
On the other hand, many of the science track panels are totally useless, often with crackpots that don't know how to shut up from the audience bogging things down. Especially in that field I prefer those presentations that take the form of lectures, or at least feature a solid narrative. A good example is the presentation one of the space station engineers held at NecronomiCon. It was essentially a slide show, where he gave a short explanation of each slide, and people could ask specific, technical questions. Yet the structure of slide show kept everything moving along well.
Yet further, for many crafts demonstrations and workshops may be the right format.
One wonders if the con organizers as well as congoers themselves aren't selling the audience a bit short in the impression that if it smells like school, it's bad?

[vulpesrex.livejournal.com]

It would perhaps help if the programming directors would take up the task of writing out a "mission statement" defining the point of a panel, and how the potential audience might benefit from it. Any panel that can't be defined with an objective, doesn't get included on the program.

At a furry convention, we have "species panels". I've never been to one that wasn't just a collection of people with an interest in a specific species, but what is there to discuss?

If one is going to have a panel, perhaps the first thing, after seeing if it can meet the "mission statement" test, is to appoint a MODERATOR, and have that person try to recruit and select the appropiate panelists, who _know_ the subject, and direct the panelists in answering either his questions, or those of the audience. The panels that we have now are so free-form, and paneled by whoever will volunteer, that they are ineffectual wastes of time.

The other crucial role of the moderator is drawing out the panelists. Many potential panelists know their subject cold, they are experts - but they don't communicate well. A moderator will be familiar enough with the topic itself, and the panelists' relationship to it, to be able to pry out the useful nuggets of info from each one.

DEMONSTRATIONS do quite well, so long as they are not transparent sales pitches to buy or join something. Having Baron Engel demonstrate how to mount, matte, and frame artwork is a good example of this sort of thing. Having a couple of fursuiters who have enhanced their suits with animatronic bits give a demonstration of how servos work, and how to interface to a miniature processor or tape programmer (I suspect that we can now store and run motion commands on memory sticks) would be good.

Writing? While there are writing round-tables and get-togethers and challenges, a LECTURE on fundamentals of style and manuscript format, and on where to find markets for your writing and how to submit, would be less entertaining, but far more useful. Give us tools that at least make us look competent when dealing with the world of publishers! For that matter, a panel of publishers' representatives or editors might be useful. Or how about a panel or lecture on the world of self-publishing, or small press? Let's hear from Jeff Ferris and Kris Kreutzman and Lance Rund - and from Watts Martin, for that matter - or the folks at Sofawolf Press about what that world was like, why it seems to have died, and what can be done to either revitalise it, or re-invent it to fit the modern realities.

People like stories; have for thousands of years, and will continue to do so for another couple thousand. Writing the story is only half of the thing - getting it told or read (distribution) is just as important.

Heck, even the THEMES that conventions - furry or otherwise - saddle themselves with, become the focus of a panel or two; but what can you say about Alice in Wonderland? Not as much as you can about long-lost ancient Egypt, apparently - and did anyone attending FC this year wish to know about _REAL_ intelligence and espionage, or just the throwback to '60's culture and adventure? I didn't offer to help with any intel panel, and I don't know if, outside of the "mad scientists and evil supervillians" panel, or the Kzinti Panel, if it was even touched.

Lectures.
Demostrations.
MODERATED Panels, with panelists who can present different points of view on things that they know about from experience.

Any of these can be made to work, if we just get over the idea that a "panel" must be an audience-participation thing. Don't rely on the audience of your panel to provide the content, or you _will_ wind up with a kaffeeklatsch...and a poor one, at that.