Mythcon 42: program
Jul. 20th, 2011 04:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacLike most recent Mythcons, this one was about half-populated by first-time attendees. These people are bright and intelligent, and they seem to be having a good time, so I wish more of them would come back for further doses than has been the case. (Certainly my reaction to my first Mythcon was, "I don't ever want to miss one of these again" and I never have.)
Many of these new attendees gave papers, and most of them, at least the ones talking on Tolkien, began by expressing their nervousness about discussing such a complex and pitfall-filled topic to such a formidable audience as the Mythopoeic Society. (What, us, formidable?) They really need not have worried: all the ones I heard - and I got to as many Tolkien session as I could - were at least thoughtful and competent, and some had strikingly original things to say. I particularly liked a papers session organized by Corey Olsen, who podcasts as "The Tolkien Professor". He got together some participants from an online seminar concerning the 1977 Silmarillion to give papers on that book. Laura Berkholtz followed the always-productive technique of studying a minor character in detail, choosing the Vala Nienna. There was a certain unspoken Whiggishly teleological implication that Nienna's sole purpose in life was to teach Gandalf pity and mercy so that he could make his famous comments to Frodo, but the connection is there and was worth noting. And a fellow called - near-identically to someone else I know - Jordon Brown gave a robust description of how the sin of Pride felled both Fëanor and Thingol. His best conclusion about the latter: Don't be rude to Dwarves. Note that the questionable provenance of this episode played no part in the paper; this session was on the 1977 text as a free-standing work of art.
In another session, Alex Taylor found similarities between some of Tolkien's theological concepts and those of classical Hinduism (as well as noting the resemblance, which has been pointed out before, between the early Elvish alphabets and Devanagari). So far so good; where he lost the thread was in casting about to figure out what Tolkien could have read that would have acquainted him with Hindu theology. That turned an otherwise good paper into ritualistic source-hunting. The similarities were striking, but not so much so that Tolkien couldn't have developed the ideas independently, which (as someone else noted) by the arguments for universal morality in C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man, would testify to the ideas' value more than straight borrowing would.
A passing remark in one other paper illustrated the corrosive effects of Jackson's movies on Tolkien scholarship. I don't want to come down too hard on the author of an otherwise decent paper, but when you write that "Sauron is reduced to a flaming eye," that's Jackson's character you're talking about, not Tolkien's. And this was a paper on Tolkien, not on Jackson. It's not the fact that Tolkien's Sauron has a full physical body that's so important (the many references to the Eye are a synecdoche); it's the word "reduced" that shows the harm. Jackson's giant floating eyeball looks diminished and impotent, but before the Destruction, Tolkien's Sauron is otherwise unstoppably powerful, and anything that makes you think otherwise eviscerates his story.
I gave my own paper on Roger Zelazny. He lived in New Mexico for many years, so the con's location was a good excuse to put together some thoughts on one of my long-time favorite SF authors. I described the high desert geographic references in Eye of Cat (also one of his most strikingly mythological novels) and Bridge of Ashes (a much easier book to read than its reputation suggests) and some short stories, and covered some of his other mythopoeic fiction, in particular arguing that the infamous chapter 2 of Lord of Light was not written solely for the sake of the infamous spooneristic pun near the end of the chapter, but that that pun marks the critical turning point generating the rest of the story. It went over well, particularly as I read aloud several long quotations to illustrate Zelazny's literary style. I also discussed "For a Breath I Tarry" (possibly the greatest SF story of all time), repeating the point I made about it here.
Many of these new attendees gave papers, and most of them, at least the ones talking on Tolkien, began by expressing their nervousness about discussing such a complex and pitfall-filled topic to such a formidable audience as the Mythopoeic Society. (What, us, formidable?) They really need not have worried: all the ones I heard - and I got to as many Tolkien session as I could - were at least thoughtful and competent, and some had strikingly original things to say. I particularly liked a papers session organized by Corey Olsen, who podcasts as "The Tolkien Professor". He got together some participants from an online seminar concerning the 1977 Silmarillion to give papers on that book. Laura Berkholtz followed the always-productive technique of studying a minor character in detail, choosing the Vala Nienna. There was a certain unspoken Whiggishly teleological implication that Nienna's sole purpose in life was to teach Gandalf pity and mercy so that he could make his famous comments to Frodo, but the connection is there and was worth noting. And a fellow called - near-identically to someone else I know - Jordon Brown gave a robust description of how the sin of Pride felled both Fëanor and Thingol. His best conclusion about the latter: Don't be rude to Dwarves. Note that the questionable provenance of this episode played no part in the paper; this session was on the 1977 text as a free-standing work of art.
In another session, Alex Taylor found similarities between some of Tolkien's theological concepts and those of classical Hinduism (as well as noting the resemblance, which has been pointed out before, between the early Elvish alphabets and Devanagari). So far so good; where he lost the thread was in casting about to figure out what Tolkien could have read that would have acquainted him with Hindu theology. That turned an otherwise good paper into ritualistic source-hunting. The similarities were striking, but not so much so that Tolkien couldn't have developed the ideas independently, which (as someone else noted) by the arguments for universal morality in C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man, would testify to the ideas' value more than straight borrowing would.
A passing remark in one other paper illustrated the corrosive effects of Jackson's movies on Tolkien scholarship. I don't want to come down too hard on the author of an otherwise decent paper, but when you write that "Sauron is reduced to a flaming eye," that's Jackson's character you're talking about, not Tolkien's. And this was a paper on Tolkien, not on Jackson. It's not the fact that Tolkien's Sauron has a full physical body that's so important (the many references to the Eye are a synecdoche); it's the word "reduced" that shows the harm. Jackson's giant floating eyeball looks diminished and impotent, but before the Destruction, Tolkien's Sauron is otherwise unstoppably powerful, and anything that makes you think otherwise eviscerates his story.
I gave my own paper on Roger Zelazny. He lived in New Mexico for many years, so the con's location was a good excuse to put together some thoughts on one of my long-time favorite SF authors. I described the high desert geographic references in Eye of Cat (also one of his most strikingly mythological novels) and Bridge of Ashes (a much easier book to read than its reputation suggests) and some short stories, and covered some of his other mythopoeic fiction, in particular arguing that the infamous chapter 2 of Lord of Light was not written solely for the sake of the infamous spooneristic pun near the end of the chapter, but that that pun marks the critical turning point generating the rest of the story. It went over well, particularly as I read aloud several long quotations to illustrate Zelazny's literary style. I also discussed "For a Breath I Tarry" (possibly the greatest SF story of all time), repeating the point I made about it here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-07-20 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 03:48 am (UTC)The trouble, for us, is that we feel very isolated at Mythcon. We're surrounded by people who have been going to a lot of them, and who are talking to each other, and very few of them seem interested in talking to us. I don't address this to you specifically; our conversation with you in 2009, over lunch, was probably the longest conversation we had with anyone but each other—until a young woman we knew from her playing in one of my campaigns, and from livejournal, and who wasn't even at the con, arranged to have lunch with us and took us to the train station. We had a lot of social interaction in 2010 with people who weren't Mythcon regulars.
Certainly, the two of us are not very good at that social interaction stuff; both of us are fairly introverted and find it hard to break through the glass wall. But I suspect a whole lot of people who show up at Mythcon are introverted. I think it was Schopenhauer who compare humanity to porcupines huddling together for warmth; that may not be true of human beings in general, but it's true of a lot of introverts. And I think you may be seeing introverts who come in from the cold, encounter more prickles than warmth, and go away disappointed.
Now,
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 11:14 am (UTC)1. The Society is aware of this problem, and Mythcon veterans are publicly encouraged to strike up conversations with newcomers, as that's easier to do than the other way around. Lynn Maudlin is particularly vocal about this, as not only is she the Society officer in charge of Mythcons, she's also one of our few genuine natural extroverts. Which brings me to:
2. You mention that many of the newcomers are introverted. Well, so are most of the oldtimers. I'm one, though I may not seem that way to you because Mythcon is one of my few comfort zones where I can relax and make a spectacle of myself in public. So I try to do my best to be welcoming with the limited social skills in my repertoire. But it's difficult for us too.
3. To me, the two of you are part of the Mythie community, largely because that's where I know you from. I regret you don't feel that way, and it's salutary to be reminded that things can look very different from other angles.
4. There's formal opportunities to communicate with newcomers if they give papers, in the discussion sessions afterwards. (Formally organized communication is easier for introverts.) I had a long talk in the hall afterwards with the author of the paper that mentioned Sauron, and I tried to be complementary about the much that deserved it, as well as lightly noting factual problems that any scholar would want to fix. But I have no idea how well I did at this.
5. I remain kind of puzzled by the "I don't feel instantly assimilated, so I won't come back" reaction of newcomers. There's always a learning curve when one joins an existing group. When I met SF fandom in the mid-70s, it was what the Mythopoeic Society is now, a group of people who'd been having a conversation for over forty years. I felt very much out of it, though some individuals had the social skills to be welcoming. But rather than it driving me away, because I was interested in the ostensible topic of conversation, I was enticed to learn the folkways and get up to speed so that I could become part of that conversation. And it worked.
(My experience with the MythSoc was different. I'd already been in a local discussion group for nearly two years before I attended a Mythcon, so I had a core group of acquaintances, and I'd been poring over publications with such intensity that I felt I already knew anybody whose name I recognized.)
6. I'm in favor of the Society growing and continuing so long as it can do so without fundamentally changing character. It only requires a few people who share our spirit; membership has never been much over a thousand even at our height. If it were necessary to turn the Society into, say, a generic fantasy club in order for it to continue, I'd be in favor of letting it fold. There are plenty of other groups that do that better than we could, but only the Mythopoeic Society that does what it does.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-22 04:01 am (UTC)I will say that, for myself, I make a concerted effort to meet and talk to folks that I don't recognize - this can be a mixed bag, however, as I can be a rather "strong flavor" for some, if you know what I mean!!
I do know a number of last year's first-timers planned to attend this year and then, about 1-2 months out, had life-situations change making it infeasible to attend MC42 after all. I've checked in with nearly all of them and they're planning to attend MC43 in Berkeley next year, as are quite a few of this year's first-timers.
I can't tell you, Bill, whether your reaction is partly age or partly keeping an eye out for C's needs and reactions or if Mythcon has appreciably changed. I do know that, for myself, it's important to be "in the moment" and enjoying the moment rather than comparing every moment to its early counterparts - too much of life would come up short, were I to do that.
I don't spend a lot of time on LJ these days (I find Fb does a better job *for me* of keeping me in loose contact with a lot of different people from a lot of different parts of my life) but I definitely connect with new Mythies on Fb (in fact, sitting in the hotel lobby Monday afternoon a group of us were 'friending' each other ;D).
Do you have concrete suggestions for how more-regular-attenders and draw in less-often-attenders? Like David, I think of you as a Mythie from 'way back and I'm surprised to find you don't... :(
As for Mythcon dying off, we don't seem to be that yet, not by a long shot. Both guests of honor this year approached me about having Mythcons in their environs (Michael Drout talking about *chairing* one) and we had 169 members - up from last year, up considerably from L.A. (which was problematic, being very $$ and much smaller than it should have been). No, not all first time Mythcon-members decide to return the next year (or, as in David's case and my own, EVERY year, if at all possible) but a significant number do.
Which makes me think it's some of *both* factors going one: old-time Mythies like hanging out with their old-time Mythie friends and, while they are reasonably good at reaching out to newcomers, if the newcomer doesn't engage fairly quickly ("break through the glass wall"), they may well turn back to the familiar conversation or to a different newcomer.
But yes please, concrete suggestions are very welcome. This year we had a "Steward's reception" but it was, imho, problematic in several ways: it was basically RIGHT after dinner, so most folks weren't looking for beverages & nibblies, and a sizable group of folks were taking off to attend Harry Potter 7.5. I wonder if maybe we should have a Steward & an "old-timer" sit at a designated table at every meal and hold spaces for newcomers/folks who don't consider themselves regular? Would that have made a difference to you?
no subject
Date: 2011-07-22 08:47 am (UTC)Similarly, if people who would enjoy Mythcon would only go to it, that would solve its problems of retaining people. So I guess it's not so off-topic after all.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-22 11:40 pm (UTC)I'm curious to see how Google+ works into the mix of it all!
I cannot imagine a platform that would be all things to all people, so I'm glad that B is on Fb and that way your household has both these platforms covered.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-23 01:54 am (UTC)And LJ is a great aggregator. It was LJ's brilliance at aggregation that attracted me to it in the first place.
I have no idea what's going on among my friends on FB other than what B. tells me, and what she sends me are mostly Pat Wynne's cat pictures.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-23 07:01 am (UTC)LJ is an ok aggregator but not as easy as FB when it comes to that.
As for tracking what's going on with your friends on FB via B, well, that's between the two of you - the possibility is there, anyway.
It's fine with me that you prefer LJ; there's plenty that's valuable about LJ. But there are different and useful elements to FB, whether you recognize or appreciate them or not. And that's okay, too.
A question and a comment
Date: 2011-07-21 02:13 pm (UTC)The comment — apart from echoing you, David, that even a lot of the "oldtimers" are introverts (though I am not one of these; nor would I yet call myself an oldtimer :) — is to suggest that one reason some first-timers don't come back is that some of them — an increasing number, I believe, though this is just an impression, not backed by any hard evidence — are graduate students looking for an opportunity to present a paper, and not necessarily looking for a new social group to belong to. If they can give a paper on a topic they enjoy at a fun event, so much the better, but the main objective is to fatten their vitae. Thus you find a number of *local* first-timers who come to Mythcon but for whom traveling to other cities in subsequent years is a bit more investment than they care to (or are able to) make. I know that at Mythcon 41 in Dallas we had quite a few of these. One or two are totally won over and do return, but many do not, or cannot.
Re: A question and a comment
Date: 2011-07-21 03:41 pm (UTC)I learned the hard way about the grad students looking for vita fodder when I chaired Mythcon four years ago. Grad students can't tell you if they'll attend until their department tells them they have funding, and that's after the deadline for setting the program. Grad students also submit proposals in April accompanied by e-mail addresses at which, it turns out, they can't be reached during the summer when you need them.