Mon
Feb 9 2009 9:53am
NYCC: A Problem with Panels

I have never been to a panel at Comic Con before. One hears, of course, about the thunderous applause that greets surprise guests (marked with “???: If we told you, we’d have to kill you” on the programming schedule), the screams that accompany the first glimpse of long-awaited footage. However, given the increasing publisher profile over the past few years (with over a dozen publisher booths and over thirty Literary Guests in residence this year), it seems as though Comic Con is taking note of the literary facets of fantasy and sci-fi, and is ready to give authors a forum to address an enormous and enthusiastic audience.

Not that you’d know it from going to the “Sci-Fi, Supernatural, and Fantasy Authors Round Table” on Saturday. The slug: “Veteran authors and the genres’ emerging voices gather to speak about their common influences, current projects, and the trends that are shaping the future.”

Great idea! In theory.

The Round Table aspect was an obvious bust the moment the panel was assembled. John Birmingham, S. C. Butler, Peter Brett , Kim Harrison, Alex Irvine, Jackie Kessler, Vicki Pettersson, Tamora Pierce, Jeff Somers, and Carrie Vaughn made up the panel. That’s ten participants, and the clock ticking down from sixty minutes.

By the time the moderator had read each introductory bio as the author in question raised his or her hand like he was taking attendance in homeroom, and each author had briefly answered the mod-posed “When did you know you wanted to be a writer?” there were only fifteen minutes left. Those fifteen minutes were devoted to a Question and Answer session about how to deal with writers’ block and advice for aspiring writers (frontrunners on the Motion to Outlaw These Questions petition filed in Panelist Supreme Courts across the world).

Topics discussed: Zero.

Much of the problem here is just an advertising issue; many of these writers have a book coming out this year (in some cases a debut novel), and marketing the panel as an introduction to established and rising speculative authors would have been a more honest avenue, and would have seemed less like a waste of these authors’ time. Many of them seemed to be engaging and intelligent and ready for a debate that never came.

As long as Joss Whedon is willing to emerge from his impenetrable fortress to answer fan questions, Comic Con will never have to worry about filling empty spaces in their programming with writers. At the same time, if they would like to promote writers and publishers, it might be worth considering having more and smaller panels, where more could come of the conversation than a recitation of names and book titles.

6 comments
Doug Knipe
1. SciFiGuy.ca
What a totally awesome lineup of talent and such a complete waste of opportunity. I can only imagine how dynamic the discussion would have been had they been given the chance. Condolences to the audience. A con committee would give their right arm for a panel like this.
René Walling
2. cybernetic_nomad
Well being a good programming director requires dedication, a good knowledge and love of the genre (by which I mean more than the names of the stars in the latest Hollywood offering or how much it took in on the opening weekend), an open mind to topics you are not particularly interested in and the ability to ask interesting questions for the panelists to discuss. All things the "we run conventions for money" crowds evidently seem not to have since it always looks like they assume that putting people at the head table is enough to entertain people.

Putting ten people on a panel is the first sign that whoever was in charge of programming was quite clueless. Longtime volunteer convention runners know that four to five people is the optimum number for a panel.
Peter V. Brett
3. Peter V. Brett
Yeah, it's true. When I was tapped for the panel, it was 7 authors, and even that seemed like a lot. I heard there were some last-minute adds, but 10 was just excessive.

A lot of people seemed to think I was picking a fight with Tamora Pierce towards the end, though, so maybe it's better that the panel ended when it did. 8o)
Peter V. Brett
4. Diatryma
Honestly, "Tamora Pierce gets angry" is a definite draw for me.
Peter V. Brett
5. Robert VS Redick
All depends on the expectations you walk in the door with. I had very few, and enjoyed myself for an hour. Sure, it was a fashion show--but walking into that room from a hallway where a lifesize R2D2 was goosing a high-heeled viking carrying a Dr. Who puppet, what do you expect?

There's always Readercon.
Peter V. Brett
6. John Birmingham
You're right. I was on that panel and with one or two exceptions everyone felt the need to be very constrained in their answers to the chair because all it takes is one person to go nuts, and the house of cards comes down. There is no real opportunity for a true discussion under those circumstances. In my experience, four participants is about the perfect limit.

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment