#wiscon 43

[sophygurl]

WisCon 43 panel Antisemitism at WisCon

   Over the course of its existence, there have been many examples of antisemitism at WisCon—a trend often echoed in other leftist spaces, where microaggressions to naked hostility to just plain erasure keep occurring. Let's talk about why this continues to happen, why it's so rarely talked about, and what we can do to prevent it.

Moderator: Becky Allen. Panelists: Gerri Balter, Paul Goodman, Jessica Plummer

Disclaimers: These are only the notes I was personally able to jot down on paper during the panel. I absolutely did not get everything, and may even have some things wrong. Corrections by panelists or other audience members always welcome. I name the mod and panelists because they are publicly listed, but will remove/change names if asked. I do not name audience members unless specifically asked by them to be named. If I mix up a pronoun or name spelling or anything else, please tell me and I’ll fix it!

[Quick Notes: 1) This panel was created in large part (though not exclusively) due to a panel that I also attended last year and wrote my notes up about - which can be found here for my tumblr post and here for my DW post - each having their own replies/comments for anyone who wants to see those. The panel last year, called The Desire for Killable Bodies, went sideways when one of the panelists started spouting nazi apologism and other awful things. There’s a context for all of this, which is why I’m linking to my panel write-ups as they served as a space for others to share what they heard and experienced so that you can understand this context and also understand that this wasn’t just a couple of people upset - there was a large audience for this panel and lots and lots of us were upset, and lots of us made reports to the concom, and there is a consensus about what happened. 2) I add all of this because the panel I’m about to write up also had a disturbance in regards to what happened last year and I want to make sure there is full context for what happened with That, as well. 3) Also of note: I had to edit out the tags “nazis” and “antisemitism” for my linked post to appear in my own tags on my own tumblr blog so fuck that noise. I’m getting angrier and angrier about tumblr’s tagging rules - we should be able to tag shit like that for content warnings for fuck’s sake. Anyway, on to the actual write-up. 4) Well, one last note - the panel is, obviously, talking about incidents of experienced antisemitism at both WisCon and in other leftist spaces and it was hard for me, who is not Jewish, to take that all in. So be prepared that this is a difficult, but very important, conversation about to be reported on.]

Notes:

Becky began the panel by saying she was both sad and glad to be doing this. Everyone on this panel is Jewish, and everyone on the panel has experienced antisemitic microaggressions here at WisCon at some point or another.

Jessica said the incident last year was the most extreme one, but certainly not the first.

Paul introduced himself as a lawyer for public policy at a non-profit and said that he has experienced antisemitism here and in every progressive space he’s ever been in.

Gerri introduced herself saying that she is 74 years old and that she has experienced antisemitism her whole life. Her parents escaped the Ukraine after WWI and she grew up hearing horror stories.

Becky gave some background on what happened at the Killable Bodies panel last year. She added that safety did a good job at handling things after it all happened. 

Jessica added that she proposed this panel due to what happened at that panel.

At this point, someone in the audience popped in, asking if we were going to talk about the specifics of that panel and arguing about what was really said. It was clear that this person was friends with the panelist who said the offending comments last year and he was defending her and arguing with the panelists about their own experiences at that panel. Both Jessica and Becky worked to shut him down, and I noticed several folks in the audience standing up and getting ready to escort this person out if necessary. Becky finally said that if he kept on, he would have to leave - or he could be quiet and remain and listen. He chose to remain quiet, and remained so for the duration (at least to my knowledge - he was seated a bit away from me, but I didn’t hear any more interruptions, at least). 

Jessica went back to explaining about how she proposed this panel. She was worried there might not be enough people to be on the panel - some of the people she approached had said maybe, to go ahead and suggest the panel and put them on as possibilities. 

[As a side note - there are a couple of ways of staffing a panel like this. One, which is what Jessica did, is to suggest some possible panelists and programming can see about adding them to the list but other people can still volunteer to be on the panel. The other is to hand-staff a panel, which means the person proposing the panel has already specified who should be on the panel and it is otherwise closed to other panelists. This is often done when a panel absolutely has to have a certain demographic - such as a panel like this which necessitates an all Jewish panel or a panel about trans issues where you want everyone on the panel to be trans, etc.]

So, Jessica had gone with that first way and suggested some possible panelists, but there was a mix-up with programming and all of the names of the suggested panelists were listed as panelists, the panel was closed to volunteers, and private communication that Jessica had submitted to programming was also added to the published panel information. 

This was problematic for a number of reasons. One reason is that the people Jessica has suggested were all people in her own friend group, which included mostly people similar to herself. This was keeping voices different from herself from being on the panel, including people marginalized for other reasons. 

Another problem was the listing of names of people who had not decided if they wanted to be on the panel or not. For obvious historical reasons (and the panel gets into this in more detail a little later), public lists of Jewish people causes a lot of anxiety for Jewish folks. 

At this point, Becky and Jessica acknowledged that most microaggressions are not intentional. They don’t think, for example, that programming did any of this on purpose. 

Gerri said that she wasn’t here last year, but that she’s been coming to WisCon for a long time. She said WisCon used to be mostly people talking about books they’ve read. She remembers many years ago when she’d read Wandering Stars: A Jewish Anthology of Fantasy and Science and Fiction by Jack Dann and she was excited to be reading stories about Jews in space. 

Gerri recommended the book to someone at WisCon and that person kind of took a step back and said “I didn’t know you were one of those.” Everyone else in the group walked away, leaving her to confront this on her own. He then asked her if her name was her real name. 

Gerri was raised by parents who were always telling her to get ready for when she was no longer welcomed. But even living in a world with a lot of overt antisemitism, she didn’t really believe them about that until the moment described above.

Paul talked about how 11-20% of Jews in the US are POC, that Jews are poor and middle class at the same rates as everyone else, and that these are things people don’t always understand. He also said they were not going to discuss Israel on this panel, adding there could be a whole entire con just about that, but that one thing that happens, especially in leftist spaces, is a conflation of Israel with Zionism and Zionism with Judaism and Judaism with every individual Jewish person. 

Jessica told about a panel a few years back about Agent Carter. The focus was on the lack of diversity, which was true. But season two heavily implied that Howard Stark came from a Jewish family who had changed their name. The moderator of that panel waved it away as not very important. Jessica, in the audience, had tweeted using the # for the panel about how significant that representation was to her. The mod saw the tweet during the panel and apologized. 

Jessica also said that friends of hers who were not here shared their own stories about incidents involving everything from off-color Anne Frank jokes to serious incidents that were brought to safety. 

Becky said that they all kept repeating that they know most of these things are not malicious, but she wants to acknowledge that they still hurt. She wants people to think harder about these things, but she’s not trying to call specific people out right now. 

Becky added that as a white Jewish person, she’s in a liminal space of privilege and oppression. She notes that leftists do these kinds of microaggressions a lot, but they’re the ones that should care about Not doing them.

Gerri talked about how fandom began with a lot of Jewish people. So when she got into it, she felt it would be safe. Many cons used to have spaces for services programmed in and one even had a Passover room with food they could eat during the holiday. She’s not sure how or when that went away, but she misses it. Some of it might be the lack of ability to accommodate all religions.

Gerri also talked about conversations that end up leading to “those Jews and their banks”. She objects, but has been told she doesn’t understand because she’s Jewish. “I understand I didn’t have toys as a child because we were too poor.” People try and take it back and it can be hard not to just say it’s okay. 

Jessica talked about more of these things people believe falsely about Jewish people. One is the “Christ killer” thing. In a poll she saw, 60% of Americans believe that Jews killed Jesus. Actually - it was the Romans.

Paul said intent in these things doesn’t always matter. For example, he was told Jews make the best lawyers - this is supposed to be a compliment, but it isn’t. 

Paul and Jessica talked about some of the antisemitic dog whistles that people use such as “globalist” and “lizard people” - it used to be “Hollywood.” 

Becky added that there are a lot of fannish memes that use the lizard people one - folks don’t get that it originates from antisemitism. (Example: “I, for one, support our new lizard overlords.”)

Becky also talked about growing up in a small town where hers was the only Jewish family. She was asked if she had horns, and was asked to come to church with friends so that she wouldn’t go to hell. 

Becky said that Jewish people are always in fear of when it might be time to pack up and leave. Trumpism is making that fear feel very real right now. The idea of knowing there are people in her neighborhood who want her dead is hard. But it’s also hard that with the people she organizes with politically - events are often held on Jewish holidays. “I can’t organize on Yom Kippur - I’m too hungry!” 

Jessica talked about a time she was in France and didn’t want to go with friends to the Jewish museum because she didn’t want to telegraph her Jewishness. She grew up in Brooklyn and believed when she was younger that all white people were Jewish. Then she moved to NJ and heard her first Jewish jokes, and learned about “looking Jewish.” 

Jessica told a story about a boy she and her friend both had a crush on. But then she heard this boy make a joke about someone who was Jewish, saying “oh he must be hiding in the oven.” Her friend said it was no big deal and that Jews should get over the holocaust. 

Jessica said that the holocaust was the largest manifestation of antisemitic genocide, but that is because technology allowed it to be. Jewish history is full of examples of genocide. The joke about Jewish holidays is “they tried to kill us, they failed, let’s eat.”

Paul brought up the concept of generational trauma. Even if it hasn’t happened to you or in your lifetime, knowing your culture’s history and being told about it from your elders instills trauma all the same.

Becky posed the question to the panelists of how they would like to see WisCon and other spaces supporting Jewish people.

Paul talked about Jewish holidays not being recognized. Also - when antisemitic microaggressions happen - someone else needs to step in. It can’t only be Jewish people doing the work themselves.

Gerri said to simply think before speaking and if something comes out bad - apologize and mean it. Then work harder at it.

Jessica said she thought the idea of services was a good one. She added that she requested this panel be on a Sunday due to Shabbat.

Jessica would also like more recognition about the pluralism of Jewishness. And generally just more axis of diversity when it comes to all religions.She notes that even discussions of atheism tend to come through a Christian lens. 

Becky said that a lot of things that are considered to be secular or neutral are not. For example: Christmas.

Jessica added she’d like the removal of the phrase Judeo-Christian. It means nothing. If you mean Abrahamic religions, say that, and make sure you’re including Islam. 

Gerri advised asking questions so that you don’t unintentionally hurt people.

Becky talked about a panel this year about Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and The Good Place. Someone had said that Judaism was not used in the main character on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. Becky had raised her hand to say that no, her Judaism was important. The panelist apologized and admitted they were out of their lane. It was a good exchange. If something is said wrong in good faith - it’s not an issue for it to be brought up.

Jessica added that one of the core values of Judaism is asking questions. 

That said, Becky said it was time for audience questions but set some guidelines first. No talking about Israel, as that’s a derail. No oppression olympics. The panelists are allowed to stop or to just not answer if they wish. And there will be no denying any of the panelists experiences. 

The first audience question was about how to better understand Jewish experiences. 

Gerri didn’t have a specific rec because each book or perspective is just one out of many.

Jessica talked about the difficulty in rec-ing a list of Jewish authors without creating a Nazi hit list. But she added that a lot of our pop culture is Jewish - comic books, comedy, musical theater, etc. 

Gerri rec’d an old movie - Gentleman’s Agreement with Gregory Peck. 

Paul said that a useful exercise is when watching media and a Jewish character is on screen - how are we being treated? Often, it’s not good. 

An audience member rec’d the wikipedia article on antisemitism. 

Becky said - what if we stopped having space Jews who are greedy, such as the Ferengi. 

Jessica said the only good Jews in space is Mel Brook’s Jews in Space.

Someone in the audience discussed the conspiracy theories about cabals and Jewish people having secret privilege. This undercuts the actual oppression of Jewish people. Antisemitism is getting bolder again, so we have to be more loud about confronting it. There is a culture of assimilation due to the fear of “being on the list” and the trauma around that. The audience member acknowledged they were layering questions within questions, but Jessica said “no, this is very Jewish, keep going!” 

Gerri said that when she was growing up, Jews were loud. Her mom would tell her to be more quiet or they’ll think you’re Jewish. She was like, well I am Jewish! But there can be a real fear that being loud might cause you to die. 

Paul recommends punching Nazi’s every day. 

Jessica advised allies to ask how to best support. She gave the example of the triple parenthesis issue on twitter, which was something supremacists were using to designate people they thought were Jewish. Some people started using the triple parenthesis on purpose in protest, but this was very upsetting to a lot of Jewish people due, again, to the issue of the list, being publicly Jewish, the generational trauma there, etc. Jessica said to speak for Jewish people when necessary, but never over them.

Becky asked the panelists for last words or rec’s.

Gerri said Isaac Asimov

Paul said there are lots of resources at Jews for Racial and Economic Justice.

Becky said Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, also the author Katherine Locke - specifically The Girl with the Red Balloon, a time travel book with Jewish characters. 

Jessica said there are too few YA speculative fiction books with Jewish characters. She does recommend early comics by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, etc. Superman, Spider-Man, and others are all based on Jewish themes. She also recommended the first Independence Day movie and Rose Lerner’s romance novels. 

And that’s all I got! Also my last write-up for this year. The other panels I attended, I just didn’t get enough decent notes down to make a write-up worthwhile. Might make a round-up post and add some comments on the panels I was on, but not sure. 

[sophygurl]

WisCon 43 panel Mental Illness in SFF

Speculative fiction is fruitful grounds for stereotypes and tropes related to mental illness. We have mad scientists on the one hand and mad gods on the other. We have robots representing one kind of neurodivergency in the science realm and the fae or fae-touched doing similar in fantasy worlds. We have creatures that feed on sanity and medications that cure mental illnesses, and the drugs or plants that cause them. What's going on with mental illness in SFF genres? When are these depictions and metaphors helpful and which ones are just plain harmful?

Moderator: Jason Finn. Panelists:  Ira Alexandre, Kristy Eagar, Clara Cecilia Abnet Holden, Kiersty Lemon-Rogers. [also Autumn was added to the panel - I didn’t catch if she wanted to be known beyond her first name however] [additionally, a member of the audience named Cassie eventually joined the panel as well, but I wasn’t able to catch anything beyond her first name]

Disclaimers: These are only the notes I was personally able to jot down on paper during the panel. I absolutely did not get everything, and may even have some things wrong. Corrections by panelists or other audience members always welcome. I name the mod and panelists because they are publicly listed, but will remove/change names if asked. I do not name audience members unless specifically asked by them to be named. If I mix up a pronouns or name spelling or anything else, please tell me and I’ll fix it!

Notes:

Kristy introduced herself by saying “I like to say I’m seven kinds of crazy” - she has a wide array of mental illnesses/neurodivergency.

Ira said they are “also seven kinds of crazy”, specifically mentioned Bipolar II, autism, and ADHD.

Kiersty said she’s liking the term “mentally weird” for herself, that not everything is officially diagnosed “for reasons”, and that she likes to see people like herself in fiction.

Clara said she also likes the “seven kinds of crazy” and mentioned OCD, GAD, autism, and severe depression. She gets excited to see characters even close to being like her.

Autumn said she finished her master’s degree in counseling and also holds multiple diagnoses. She writes “queer mental illness trash romance”, and has created the games Player 2 and Self Interview.

Autumn also said she wanted to hold space for people who don’t like the word crazy, for whom it’s not something they’re reclaiming.

Jason said he has a family history of mental illness. He started the panelists off asking about representation that they have feelings about.

Ira said they wrote about the Vorkosigan Saga with a focus on Miles, who is more known for his physical differences but who is also neurodivergent. Miles is also a vet with PTSD - which is not handled very well in the story. There is another character who has PTSD who gets the help that he needs, however.

Ira also likes Murderbot (I’m guessing by a quick search this means The Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells), as well as Chidi from The Good Place. The fork in the garbage disposal line really speaks to them.

Kristy also loves and relates to Chidi. She noted that there is no therapeutic help available in the afterlife. She also talked about the show Monk - the detective with OCD. Monk often described his OCD as being both a blessing and a curse. Monk made her feel seen, however she felt depressed at the end of each episode. She noted that his OCD gave him a sort of superpower where hers did not. Instead of framing it in terms of blessing and curse, and feeling like she only has the curse, she likes to think of it as neither - it just is.

Clara talked about characters like Monk where the superpower is just that the see the world differently.

Kristy also talked about how most of us don’t have a personal assistance to come around and help us interface with the world.

Clara added that other shows do this, as well - Sherlock, House, The Good Doctor. There is an exceptional cis white male with an ability that is valued enough that his inability to interface with the world on his own is seen as okay.

Autumn said she is sensitive to characters being read as autistic but the story doesn’t tell us that they are. Example was a Canadian show, Strange Empire.

Autumn also talked about Jacqueline Koyanagi’s Ascension - the main character is both physically and mentally disabled. Strong rec. [I agree!!]

Kiersty mentioned Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson series as being decent rep for someone with ADHD as a sort of superpower. Also An Unkindness of Ghosts by Rivers Solomon reads as neurodivergent.

Kiersty added an example that was not well done, which I didn’t catch the name of. She loves the work but the representation was bad. Another work I didn’t catch the name of [ugh my handwriting] has tokenization. The queer mentally ill character has psychopathy and is treated unkindly within the story. This was the focus of Kiersty’s graduate work - it can be hard for her to analyze critically because she loves and respects the author overall, but there are serious issues here.

Ira went back to the idea of the helper character (like for Monk, Sherlock, etc.) - there are labor issues here as well. These helpers are paid for their work to make the character more palatable to the world. Sometimes the exceptional genius character gets taught how to treat others kindly along the way.

Kristy said this is a classic trope in the detective genre - the neurodivergent genuis detective and the person who explains what they mean to the rest of the world. Nero Wolf is another example of this - being a massive genius somehow entitles these men to treat others poorly.

Kristy talked about The Good Doctor as a combination of good and bad representation. Often, another doctor or nurse or even patient will explain things to or for the main character, which can lead to the idea that he is unable to learn these things on his own. One episode had the example of “I can’t be racist, I’m disabled!” which is a very bad take.

Kristy noted that the interfacer is also the one who is seen as having the “burden” of being in relationship with the person with the mental illness.

Ira talked about Murderbot - the first book at least was a positive example - that it’s okay to interact with people differently instead of trying to correct how you naturally relate to people. It’s a more adaptive relationship,

Kiersty talked about Data in Star Trek and the whole “I just want to be human” trope. When that type of character is coded as neuroatypical, it can be problematic. Kiersty will fight anyone who questions Data’s personhood. She relates to him very strongly.

Kiersty also talked about Deanna and how she would tell Data that he does have emotions - he just expresses them differently. He didn’t need to have an emotion chip or whatever. He already had connections and relationships with others, even if they looked different.

Autumn talked about Kingpin in Daredevil as a possibly divisive example because he’s a villain. But his villainy was not related to his autism. They both just existed. This is also an example where the translator character is a man and also paid for his services, so it is not unpaid labor. And Kingpin’s romantic interest, Vanessa, accepts him as he is.

Clara added “Kingpin is definitely not a good person, but I love him.” She also agreed his character was handled well and is over the common trope of mental illness being the reason for the villainy.  

Clara talked about how so many villains are characters with anti-social personality disorders - the all villains are psychopaths trope. Then there is Sherlock who said in the first episode that he was a sociopath but no, he wasn’t, and portraying him that way is a problem. Rec’s the book and film I Am Not a Serial Killer - good depiction of someone with anti-social PD who is not a villain and not violent and who gets a diagnosis and therapy.

Ira said, in regards to villains, mental illness as a driving force for the plot becomes the reason for their villainy. There is a fascination in pop culture for the display of a villain’s psyche’s in a way that there isn’t for other types of characters.

Kristy talked about the debates between psychopathy and sociopathy. With the Sherlock thing that Clara mentioned - Kristy thought it was plausible because of the spectrum of disconnect in emotions involved. There is a problem in portraying all psychopaths as serial killers - many are CEO’s, accountants, soccer mom’s, etc. There are positives - the emotional disconnect can make someone with psychopathy good at hiring and firing people, for example.

Clara said that she likes depictions where anti-social characters can be helpful and useful.

Autumn spent the past year working with people with anti-social PD - people who require full time care. Incarcerated people tend to have it as a diagnosis but it’s not always a good diagnosis because part of the diagnostic criteria includes “criminal behavior.” The context of criminal behavior is not always taken into consideration.

Autumn said that the people she worked with had empathy but their feelings of guilt were so overwhelming that they melted down when they tried to tune into them. The problem is that this disconnect becomes habituated - it becomes a refusal to take responsibility for their actions at all because they can’t let the feelings in.

Jason asked the panelists to talk about depictions of therapy. This was Deanna’s whole job. He is unhappy with Barclay’s treatment in the series a lot of the time.

Ira commented that there are too few space therapists. In fantasy - therapists usually have another role in addition to the therapy.

Autumn talked more about Deanna as a professional empath. In seasons 6 and 7, the show started portraying therapy more realistically - the way therapy actually happened during the time the series originally aired. Autumn also added that Dax was unqualified for the role as councilor on DS9.

Kristy talked about therapy in speculative fiction sometimes being specifically therapy. Then there is Guinan in The Next Generation who did a lot of unpaid labor as a therapist for everybody, exemplifying the magical black woman trope as well. There are a couple of episodes focused on her character and her feelings, but not a lot.

Kristy is also interested in the idea of the holodeck being used as therapy. Also, in fantasy novels, the priest often plays the role of therapist. It’s worth asking who is doing the labor and who is getting paid for the labor and who is benefiting from the labor, especially through lenses of race and gender.

Ira talked some about the movement of getting therapy from your own demographic (for example, black and queer therapists treating their own people), and how that could be an interesting concept to explore in spec. fic.

An audience member talked about the white cis male frame that mental illness is often looked at through in fiction. As a counter example, brought up Nnedi Okorafor’s Binti and Akata Witch, as well as Andrea Hairston’s Will Do Magic for Small Change - which delve into black and brown ideas of not being allowed to feel and the harm that therapy can do. Horror, as a genre, looks at this sometimes, too.

Autumn said the issue is complex - the thing about therapy with someone who shares your demographic can work because the most important thing in success of therapy is a shared rapport, and often that can be found with people you share things with.

Autumn also shared that in real life, schizophrenia cuts equally across the population, but diagnostically that doesn’t show. Black and brown people have more distrust of authority for obvious reasons, and that can be viewed as mental illness. Similarly, Russia used anti-psychotics on people who didn’t trust the state - but they had good reason not to have that trust.

Kristy noted that the panel is all white and that this is a problem. An audience member began asking the panelists questions in regards to race, and was asked if she wanted to join the panel to speak on that and she did (everyone applauded - this felt very needed, although the panelists were doing their best to address the issues).

The audience member introduced herself as Cassie, and this was her first WisCon - she said this kind of thing happens to her a lot because being at cons sparks her hypomania.

Cassie talked about the TV show Insecure where one of the black main characters is seen in therapy with a black therapist and how amazing that is.

She also talked about the issue of black people being scared of being shot at by police and that getting a diagnosis of delusion slapped on them, but this is a very realistic fear. Also - black expression of depression is often anger.

As far as people with anti-social PD, the white ones tend to end up as CEO’s, the black ones end up in prison.

Cassie rec’d Binti as well and talked about the depiction of PTSD, isolation from one’s own community. The character does see a therapist, but there is so much misunderstanding due to cultural differences. There are access issues around therapy - both in real life and in SFF.

Clara talked about strict and narrow depictions of “otherness” in fiction and how we can only have one margliazation in a character. As if it’s unrealistic for someone to be both black and mentally ill.

An audience member commented - “I guess cishet white men have no trouble empathizing with others.”

Kristy talked about Shonda Rhimes shows, specifically How To Get Away With Murder has a bisexual black woman with mental illness as a main character.

Kristy also mentioned Hannibal - “I love relationships where the therapist ends up eating their patient, or vice versa.”

“If you love cannibalism and mental illness....”

Jason - and we’re out of time and have to end it there. [lol]

[So. This was a really good and really interesting panel for a lot of reasons, but I’m left feeling a little frustrated about the focus of it, only because well - I wrote this one up too and was thinking about it specifically touching on ways that SF and fantasy use the tropes of their genres to portray mental illness and when those are used well or poorly. The panel did a little bit of that, but it feels like it veered off a lot into other genres, discussing mental illnesses in general, and even when focused on SFF - it was more listing off works and what they did vs. exploring the idea of SFF tropes specifically in regards to mental illness. But perhaps I need to narrow the focus of the panel description more if that’s the panel I want to see? IDK. It really was interesting and I liked how they just invited the audience member to the panel mid-way through to gain her perspective. Also some cool recs!]

[sophygurl]

WisCon 43 panel New Pop Culture and Old Farts

Back in the day, we could read every new science fiction book and short story, and watch every movie. Now, new SF/F arrives in a flood, which can be overwhelming. How do older fen find the new books and media that excite us? What newer fandoms do you love and want to recommend to your peers?

Moderator:  Victor J. Raymond. Panelists:  Eleanor A. Arnason, Sigrid Ellis, Cassandra Phoenix

Disclaimers: These are only the notes I was personally able to jot down on paper during the panel. I absolutely did not get everything, and may even have some things wrong. Corrections by panelists or other audience members always welcome. I name the mod and panelists because they are publicly listed, but will remove/change names if asked. I do not name audience members unless specifically asked by them to be named. If I mix up a pronoun or name spelling or anything else, please tell me and I’ll fix it!

Also, this panel was at 8:30 am and I went to it on 3 hours of sleep, so my notes were slower and less complete than usual. I also left around half-way to two-thirds of the way through due to pain issues that I had to treat. But here’s what I got!

Notes:

During the introductions, Sigird said that she enjoys the explosion of fandom, Cassandra talked about the tensions involved in being inundated with pop culture, Eleanor warned the audience “I should mention that I am old” and also spoke about losing touch with the SFF field as she’s aged and how she still wants a connection to it. 

Victor also talked about the explosion of all of the different forms of media expression. We have so much access to SFF - both new and old - it’s almost a white out experience.

Eleanor talked about how when she was younger, you could be aware of everything that was happening in the field. When a friend of hers found herself losing touch, she began to read everything that was up for a major award - that gave her structure to staying in touch. 

Eleanor also advised people to not sit on panels about contemporary topics if you are out of touch. Sigrid added that you should go to those panels, however, to learn.

Cassandra warned not to look down on what kids are engaging with. As example - tumblr culture can be a peek into what going’s on. A lot of the stuff that her son likes is weird, in her opinion, but she finds a way to engage with it anyway.

Sigird said that one of her favorite things to do at cons is to attend panels about things she doesn’t know anything about. Then she’ll google it later to find out more. She advised that checking the internet and asking other people are the best ways to curate your experience. Also agreed with the tactic of checking out awards lists. 

Another thing Sigird talked about was short fiction as a medium for creators to experiment and play with new things. So checking out short fiction is a good way to see what new stuff might be coming out in the genre. 

Sigrid talked about how she began stress-reading romance - a genre she had not read before - because it felt safe. SFF was leaving her feeling stressed because you never know how it’s going to end, but romance has a set formula. Since she was new to romance, and everything looked the same to her, she asked women she knew who loved the genre for recs. She got recs but was also told to check review sites such as Smart Bitches Trashy Books or goodreads, although goodreads is dense and you might need a lot of time to wade through it all.

Victor said that each fandom or genre has it’s own way of talking about things and you have to learn that language as you get into it. [There was some good examples of this shared among the panel but I didn’t get them down.]

Sigrid talked about ways of finding content you like. For example, she learned she liked Courtney Milan as a romance author and would google things like “if you like Courtney Milan...” to find similar content.

Cassandra talked about how it’s harder to find community now because of how spread out fandom is. LiveJournal made it easier.

Sigird said discord is one way people are connecting now. 

Sigird also has teenagers and they have social media tools that she doesn’t find personally valuable, but she respects and recognizes that it’s useful for them.

Cassandra talked about the level of engagement between younger fans and their creators, especially on sites like youtube. It’s different than what we had growing up. 

The panelists listed various sites that people are engaging with fandom on: AO3, youtube, dreamwidth, deviantart, slack, discord, instagram, snapchat, reddit, curiouscat...

Eleanor said she struggles to realize she won’t be able to stay up to date on everything. “I’m on facebook ... which I know is old.” She does love the MCU and finds that to be an area of pop culture that allows her to connect with people of all ages and around the world. Sometimes picking one thing that is very popular to keep current on can help.

Sigrid said it is super important to give up on the stuff that isn’t making you happy, but to still be happy for the younger people who are enjoying those things. Don’t be resentful of the things you aren’t staying involved with. 

Cassandra also said there is too much out there to be able to keep track of. As we get older, we find that time is more precious. Stick with the things you love.

Sirigid brought up libraries and librarians as resources. They usually have rec lists both online and in person for whatever you’re looking for.

Eleanor added that so do good independent bookstores. And re: bookstores - there used to be stronger boundaries between SFF and other literary genres, but those are breaking down more. 

Cassandra advised that libraries allow you to ask them to bring in books and authors they don’t already have. That is a way to support those authors and get more people exposed to their work. [I love doing this, especially for self-published authors or authors working with smaller publishers.]

Victor said that in addition to the explosion of different fandoms, there is also an explosion of conventions. There is probably a con for anything you’re into - it may not necessarily be a good one - but it’s out there. This is another way to find community and connection.

Eleanor talked about going to an anime con - she didn’t know enough about anime to really have an entry point, so while she enjoys anime, she realized anime is not her fandom. You just can’t do everything, so pick  what you like the most to engage with.

Sigird spoke about finding community vs. finding content. Sometimes you want to engage with the fandom and sometimes you don’t. She’ll sometimes check AO3 in a particular fandom to see what the most active and vocal fans are discussing and focusing on. If it’s not what she’s interested in, she knows that fandom isn’t likely to be something she wants to actively participate in, even if she enjoys the content of the fandom itself. Sometimes you look at a fandom and think “I’m glad you’re happy, but please be happy ... over there!” 

From here my notes got a bit sporadic and unreadable, but there was some talk about fandoms that become toxic, such as the video game world where there is a battleground between people who want it to be more diverse and the gamergate folk. That battle is important, but if you’re attempting to get into video game fandom, it’s a tricky place right now to find entry. [I don’t know if anyone on the panel mentioned this because I dealing with above mentioned pain issue and packing up to go, but I Need Diverse Games is a great resource for finding community and connection in video game fandoms.]

That’s all I managed to get! 

[sophygurl]

WisCon 43 panel Polyamory And Alternative Relationships In Fiction And In Real Life 

Science fiction is rife with examples of how to love outside the box. From Le Guin to Jemisin to Steven Universe, speculative fiction allows us to create and experience relationships often shunned by mainstream society. What fiction do we resonate with, or wish was reality? What offers food for thought, or has helped us with our own complicated relationship styles? Who gets it "right"? This panel will explore titles showcasing polyamory, asexual relationships, relationship anarchy, & more.

Moderator: Rebecca Mongeon. Panelists: Emily Luebke aka Julian Greystoke, Rose Hill, Samantha Manaktola, Nisi Shawl

Disclaimers: These are only the notes I was personally able to jot down on paper during the panel. I absolutely did not get everything, and may even have some things wrong. Corrections by panelists or other audience members always welcome. I name the mod and panelists because they are publicly listed, but will remove/change names if asked. I do not name audience members unless specifically asked by them to be named. If I mix up a pronoun or name spelling or anything else, please tell me and I’ll fix it!

Notes:

Samantha introduced herself as queer and non-monoagmous with found family and networks of people in her life.

Emily introduced herself as an author, actor, and asexual married to a pansexual man. 

Rose introduced herself as demi-pan and married to a straight man and dating an ace bi woman [I think I got that right but have a “?” in my notes so maybe I mixed something up]. She said she writes poly in her fiction.

Nisi said she was exposed to poly since when she was a hippie and then she later read a comic about it where it was named and realized “oh, that’s what I’m doing!” It features in her fiction and she is interested in non-romantic/non-sexual relationships as being the core of a story.

Rebecca started the discussion about found family.

Rose talked about intentional family and cited the Circle of Magic series by Tamora Pierce, which features a family of non-bio and non-romantic connections. They live together and begin to refer to one another as family over time. Those bonds last as they age. [I am currently reading this series and am enjoying this aspect of it.] Rose connects to created families.

Nisi said this is based on her lived experience in the black community. She views the entire black community as a found family and grew up calling neighbors aunts and uncles, etc. She talked about this being a silver lining of the results of the slave trade breaking families up. When people call one another brother and sister - it’s because they are. You don’t know if they are or aren’t, so you claim them. We decide that we are family. Nisi added that there is also the African idea of claiming your ancestors whether you know for sure if you’re related to them, for similar reasons.

Emily talked about being a theater kid and how the theater became her family.

Samantha talked about the shows Steven Universe and Leverage and how the message is that being the person you are makes the bonds with your people tighter, and the tighter those bonds are, the better you get at being yourself. 

An audience member brought up the issue of combined bio and found families. People tend to respect the closeness of non-romantic ties if you are siblings, but friends are “just friends.” 

Nisi told about how her mom adopted Eileen Gunn because she and Nisi became sisters, so her mom figured - that makes her my daughter, too.

Samantha talked about her mom and how she did not necessarily understand about ethical non-monogamy, but she tried. She tried to map it onto experiences of non-ethical non-monogamy, and ended up thinking she would still eventually choose one person. Her mom did understand the importance of her friendships, and said that her friends were therefore important to her, as well.

Emily talked about a friend that her dad decided was part of the family - whether her liked it or not.

An audience member asked the panelists to clarify their definitions of chosen vs. found family. 

Samantha said it’s mostly interchangeable but there is some nuance. Chosen can be intentional, found family maybe you just fell into. 

Rose agreed that it’s interchangeable. 

Rebecca brought up the issue of ace representation.

Nisi said she wants people to talk to her about this [I believe the context was for her to better understand for writing inclusion purposes?].

Samantha said the answer to this is not very satisfying. It’s a lot harder to find ace representation that any other kind of non-traditional relationship style. She mentioned that Seanan McGuire has done it, and that Anne Leckie’s Ancillary Justice has some in it but it’s questionable because it’s not a human character.

Emily said it’s mostly aliens and robots that she found, especially when younger. She includes at least one ace character in all of her works now. One example of rep is Let’s Talk About Love which is an ace love story. McGuire’s Wayward Children had rep but she didn’t love it. Radio Silence has a demi-sexual character.

Rose added that explicit ace rep is rare. Often it’s just not said and she’s left wondering if she is just headcanoning it. The Perfect Assassin has an ace romance sub-plot. She is wondering if there is any ace poly rep?

Nisi brought up The Bicycle Repairman by Bruce Sterling - not really ace rep because the character removes all sexual feeling.

Rose said that her ace groups tend to talk about poly a lot as something that makes sense, but her poly groups don’t tend to do the same - and in some cases seem to think it is antithetical. 

An audience member asked how an author can explicitly show that a character is ace without it being about their asexuality.

Rose said that romantic subplots are super common, so you could have one character flirting with another and the other character just says “oh sorry I’m not attracted to people in that way” and there you go - explicit ace rep.

Emily added that if you’re writing from the pov of an ace character, it can be very obvious that they’re just not interested.

Nisi talked about a character in three of her short stories and a novel [I think it was Brit Williams?] who likes the idea of having kids but is grossed out by what you have to do to make one. Also mentioned how in historical fiction it might be hard to talk about explicitly because there wouldn’t have been language for it - but a character can still be shown to be ace even if they aren’t using those words.

Emily added that when you’re ace, you just don’t think about that stuff much. The character might be surprised to find out how much other people are thinking about sex, for example.

An audience member asked if poly was on the same axis as queerness as an identity.

Rebecca said she wasn’t sure this was the right place for that discussion. [Fair. It’s a complex issue and not necessarily the scope of this particular panel imo.]

Another audience member asked about world building when things are assumed that are different from our world - such as everyone in that world is poly. 

Samantha answered that there are different ways to do poly as a social construct. Anne Leckie, for example, built a world without gender norms and everyone was “she.” [Didn’t catch the title] Another piece I didn’t catch was referenced in which two societies are put into contrast with one another where one has poly as the assumed family structure and one doesn’t. Basically, there are a lot of different ways to build this into a world.

Rose added that world building with poly and queerness tends to be static whereas in real life it can be very fluid or change over time. Societies built as commentary tend to be fixed systems.

Nisi had some recs along those lines - a short story, Otherwise; Candace Jane Dorsey’s Black Wine; The Devil in America. 

An audience member rec’d Shadows of Aggar by Chris Anne Wolfe, which has poly world building.

Another audience member suggests Nalo Hopkin’s work, which is often about liberating sex, love, and desire, especially from perspectives of people with disabilities and from marginalized races.

Samantha spoke about living with chronic pain and how it helps to have a strong network of people to help care for her. Additionally, overcoming trauma around sex has been helped by polyamorous relationships. It’s been empowering and healing. 

Samantha rec’d Ruthanna Emrys’ work - Winter Tide, Deep Roots, etc. about a group of researchers. One of them is Deaf and they all communicate in sign language. When they might have to disband, it’s difficult because they have become family but also they’re losing this capability of communication with one another and source of strength they’ve found with each other. 

Nisi mentioned Five Books About Loving Everybody, I believe this post she wrote about books with poly: on tor.com - out of those, the only one she thought was liberating was N. K. Jemisin’s The Obelisk Gate. But Octavia Butler’s Fledgling was about nurturing. 

An audience member suggested The Gilda Stories by Jewelle Gomez

Nisi commented “I keep naming all of these black authors... hmmm.... I wonder why.”

Rebecca asked the panelists about poly utopias.

Nisi said Samuel Delany’s Tales of Neveryon is a reverse anthropology - not utopian, but it seemed as if the society was polygamous with one male and multiple females who were closely bonded. It might have been a man owning several women, but it ended up being a bunch of strong women who bring in one man.

Samantha said the most true-to-life stories are not utopias. There are less stories about opening up a relationship that’s already there than stories about people finding one another in the third act.

An audience member suggested Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen by Lois McMaster Bujold - it resonated with them, but they know others who react to it very differently.

Another audience member talked about what makes the characters feel more real to them, what draws them in more is not the world building but the character building.

Last audience rec that I got down was Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time. 

[This was a fascinating panel with moments that meant a lot to me emotionally and cool stuff I learned more about and lots of recs to check out - thanks panelists!]

[sophygurl]

WisCon 43 panel Favorite Queer Depictions In Fiction write-up:

Whether it's a coming-of-age coming out story, a love story about queer characters, a drama or comedy centering the lives of a queer found family, or any old story that just includes a queer character or three without making a big thing about it—we all have out favorite queer stories. Whether it's books, TV shows, movies, video games, or something else, this is the panel to share the ones we love, and why we love them!

Moderator: Kate JohnsTon. Panelists:  Cat Meier, Charles Payseur, Sarah Waites, Alberto Yáñez

Disclaimers: These are only the notes I was personally able to jot down on paper during the panel. I absolutely did not get everything, and may even have some things wrong. Corrections by panelists or other audience members always welcome. I name the mod and panelists because they are publicly listed, but will remove names if asked. I do not name audience members unless specifically asked by them to be named. If I mix up a pronoun or name spelling or anything else, please tell me and I’ll fix it!

Notes:

I missed some of the panelist intro info, but Alberto identified himself as “queer AF” and Cat added “yes, I am also very queer.”

Kate asked the panelists to discuss what brought them to queer fiction, citing Mercedes Lackey as her intro point. She added “we existed and didn’t die in the first book.”

Sarah brought up Privilege of the Sword by Ellen Kushner. When she read it, she wasn’t consciously queer yet. Once she realized that she was, she began to read a lot more.

Alberto also mentioned Lackey, specifically Magic’s Pawn. He had gotten it as a library book and found someone had written in the front of it “this book is about f**gs” and he thought “well, alright then!” He also talked about the short story Things With Beards, a re-telling of The Thing through the lens of HIV/AIDS. 

Cat mentioned Henry Fitzroy as her first queer character love. [ I didn’t catch the specific work/author but it involved the bastard son of Henry the 8th as a bisexual vampire - a quick search shows me this is probably Tanya Huff’s Blood and Smoke novels?]

Kate brought up that queer characters often don’t get a family and asked the panelists about queer characters that either have found families or that remained in their families of origin. 

Cat talked about the novella Sing for the Coming of the Longest Night by Katherine Fabian and Iona Datt Sharma.

Alberto said that, as a Latino writer, he writes a lot about family “because some stereotypes are true.” 

Sarah mentioned that Becky Chambers writes about found family quite a bit. Another example was a world where homophobia doesn’t exist in a Beauty and the Beast re-telling - In the Vanisher’s Palace. 

Charles mentioned the found family in Jacqueline Koyanagi’s Ascension [also a fave of mine!], as well as Geometries of Belonging by Rose Lemberg. He also talked about Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed as a story that imagines different ways of thinking about family and queerness, as well as Pan-Humanism: Hope and Pragmatics by Jess Barber and Sara Saab about decoupling possessiveness in relationships. 

Charles also said that he has written both kinds of stories - found family and family of origin, specifically mentioning a found family in his short story Undercurrents.

Kate talked about how the 60′s SF genre was a lot of men going into space without any women, but it was still supposed to be read as cishet. Now we’re at a point where we actually can send women without men into space and it tends to be read as queer. 

She also asked about stories where it’s not just the same nuclear family and/or gender binary but just with same-sex couples slotted in.

Alberto mentioned Nicola Griffith’s Ammonite, which is about a whole world that is female in many different expressions without having to label them all. 

Cat talked about being both queer and poly and feeling very seen by Sing for the Coming of the Longest Night more than any other book. Having an example of a poly community where all relationships are equally as important as one another. 

Sarah brought up The Stars Are Legion by Kameron Hurley where the male/female nuclear family structure is just not possible. 

Charles again brought up Ascension as an example of family structures on space ships. Also Hurricane Heels by Isabel Yap, which has a magical girls trope - heavy on friendship but the importance of friendship is highlighted and some, but not all, in the friend group are queer. 

Kate talked about James Tiptree’s Houston Houston Do You Read and some of Melissa Scott’s work.

Cat added that Melissa Scott has a wide variety of books with queer relationships in them showing a range of queer experiences. The newest - Finders - has queer poly. 

Sarah talked about some of Scott’s fantasy series and the structure of the culture being that male/female relationships were for procreation but the expectation is that love is between same genders. [I didn’t catch the title of these books/the series]

Kate brought up bisexuality in fiction. She first noticed the lack of bisexual representation when she started dating a bi woman. 

Charles said “all I write is bisexual - even if it’s not explicit.” Since it’s generally assumed for people to be either gay or straight if it’s not mentioned, he likes to write worlds where it’s assumed for the characters to be bi. 

Charles also talked about bi rep in Rose Lemberg’s work - Birdverse, Splendid Goat Adventure, and A Portrait of the Desert in Personages of Power. 

Alberto said he wants more queer characters where the drama isn’t about their queerness. In real life, acceptance can take awhile but he’s been there for a long time now and for reading and writing - he’d like for the drama to be focused elsewhere. 

Cat talked about not knowing that bisexuality existed at 13 when she discovered Henry Fitzroy.

Kate talked about the importance of bi representation in creating understanding for others. “I’m a skier. I ski in the winter. It’s summer. I’m still a skier.” 

Kate brought up Sarah Gailey’s River of Teeth. Also Tanya Huff’s work [missed the title] about omnisexual aliens who would screw a hole in a donut and everyone’s happy about it! Also for YA/teen reading - Foz Meadows. 

Alberto mentioned Six of Crows and it’s sequel by Leigh Bardugo as having bisexuality and found family in it. [Gosh I need to get on to reading this series]

Cat brought up Peter Darling - a trans re-telling of Peter Pan with a Pan/Hook romance. [!!] Also The Gentleman’s Guide to Vice and Virtue as well as The Lady's Guide to Petticoats and Piracy by Mackenzi Lee. The former has an ace character.

Sarah also rec’d the Guide to Petticoats and Piracy book. She is ace and the character in the book is ace and aro - society wants her to be one thing and she isn’t. Also the character gets called out on the “not like other girls” thing. 

Sarah also mentioned Chameleon Moon, which has a F/F/F triad, as well as an ace man with anxiety. Sarah wants more ace characters who are not sociopaths or robots.

Kate brought up the TV show Lucifer which is “really really really bisexual” [lol]. Kate also likes that the show doesn’t explain how Lucifer, who is white, has a black brother and an Asian sister.

Someone [I only wrote “C”, so either Cat or Charles? unless that meant continued and was Kate?] talked about Tanya Huff’s work having so many queer families with a variety of experiences.

Charles said there are a lot of examples that are just sad and messy.

Kate talked about lots of queer and black fiction is depressing because - “have you looked at our lives?” She added that we need more positive examples of queer characters. 

Alberto brought up Lara Elena Donnelly’s three books - Amberlough, Armistice, and Amnesty - which are about surviving fascism and rebellion. There’s crime, adventures, spies, etc. This is a strong recommendation.

Sarah added on to that by saying that this example of a dystopia is not about the queerness. Also talked about the Machineries of Empire series by Yoon Ha Lee [oh look! one of next year’s GoH’s!], which has no homophobia and almost all of the characters are queer. It also subverts the sociopathic ace trope - other characters think he is and he encourages that belief, but isn’t.

Charles mentioned a short story in Glittership Year Two [missed what it was], as well as The Root by Na'amen Gobert Tilahun which he said has a good depiction of queer families.

Kate posed the question of what there should be more queer characters in. She said video games and TV shows and that both should also be less male gaze-y.

Charles agreed with video games and said whether it’s a relationship game or not. He wants more background characters to be queer. He doesn’t want to have to headcanon it.

Sarah said “besides everything?” Big SFF movies, like the MCU - and that they should stop making such a big deal about adding super small scenes with queer characters. 

Alberto said more TV - especially for stuff aimed at kids and their parents. A good example of this is She-Ra.

Kate said it should be written in the stories - not retconned like Rowling does or killing them off right away. More 3D queer characters. She added that, especially having been out for most of her life, the struggling with queerness/coming out stories are getting old for her.

Cat mentioned movies that are adaptations that have queer characters in the source material, such as the MCU - there are lots of queer characters in the comics but they don’t make it to the TV shows or movies. 

Kate added that Deadpool keeps his pansexuality in the movies. Kate also wants more queer poc characters who are okay with who they are not evil aliens. This is a problem for white cishet Hollywood. 

Charles talked about the issues still affecting us from the Hays Code era legacy. Queer characters are always sad and end up dead - this was once enforced but has now just trickled down. 

Charles also said he enjoys cozy mysteries but the queer characters always die. There was one that he liked that was turned into a TV series and they finally had a queer character - the actor was leaving and the series could have given them a happily ever after but killed them off instead.

Sarah talked about the importance of diversity behind the scenes. It’s easier to get representation in a book because there is less gatekeeping, fewer hands in the pot. When everyone in the writer’s room of a show or movie are straight, it makes it harder.

Cat [I think? just wrote “C” again] mentioned The Wicked and the Divine - gods are reborn into people every 12 years - they’re all queer. [This was rec’d often this con - deffo need to read]

The audience got to throw out recs next. The ones I got down are: [I can’t find this in a search but it was something like Kaitlyn Sterling - Luminent... something? if anyone knows please chime in], Lifelode by Jo Walton, Ethan of Athos by Lois McMaster Bujold about a planet of men, A Door into Ocean by Joan Slonczewski about a world of women, A Big Ship at the End of the Universe by Alex White, The Light Brigade by Kameron Hurley, “everything by Seanan McGuire” [agreed!!], and then apparently Magic: The Gathering has recently been doing some exploring of genderless species and also a trans warrior woman character. 

The audience were still tossing out recs when I left, so I did not get them all, nor any possible closing remarks by the panelists.  

[sophygurl]

Okay, time for me to try and remember all the stuff I wanted to make sure and say about my lovely time at WisCon 43 this past weekend. 

Generally, I was just so pleased to once again get to extrovert all over the place in a space filled with amazing people. I got to hang out in my adjoining room full of my pals where we got to touch base with one another between running off to do other things and download our days to one another each evening. I got to enjoy several nice meals with friends I rarely get to see and acquaintances that I admire and respect. I got to have fascinating conversations with combinations of friends, acquaintances, and strangers in the lobby and at parties and in the hot tub. I got to sit on panels with intelligent and creative people with all different perspectives. I got to show off fun outfits and feast my eyes on everyone else’s cool shit and do the smile-and-wave at people I only see once a year even if we never got the chance to actually sit down and talk. I got to meet lots of new people and have adding frenzies on twitter and just generally delight to my heart’s content in awesome smart nerdy people who are also feminists with intersectional leanings - many of whom were also disabled and/or queer in a variety of ways. This is all what I just adore about WisCon so much. And it did not disappoint. 

Being my 10th WisCon, I have stopped being utterly shocked that people might know/remember me. But I’m still a little bit amazed and delighted by it - especially when it comes from folks who I admire a lot and also have not spoken to more than once or twice. I know some people are just better at remembering and recognizing people than I am? But it still never fails to impress me!

I was a little less schedule-y with myself this year than usual. Which is not to say that I didn’t have full written schedules of all the things I wanted to do (planning is my favorite of my OCD symptoms so...). But I was a lot more flexible about doing things like walking in late to a panel because I got excited to sit outside and talk to someone I ran into in the halls beforehand or leaving a panel early if I felt like I wanted to take my time getting to the next thing. I may have still written down all of the things I wanted to be doing in any given time slot and prioritized them in order - BUT I played it by ear at each time and often did a totally different thing. lol

I still did lots of panels! In fact, I find I get to so many panels that I don’t spend as much time just doing hang-out activities as much as I’d like because there is only so much time in a day. I once again never made it to the trans/genderqueer/non-binary space and only went to the disability space the one time for the organized dinner. Ah, maybe next year!

I also still took notes during the panels I went to, but not as copiously as usual, and my handwriting is getting worse all the time so we’ll see how/if my panel write-ups go this year. 

Getting my new walker the day before the con made a huge difference! It’s been two years since my previous walker broke down and I for sure noticed the difference in how much easier it was for me to get around to have one again. 

On the other end of things, I have really gotten used to my hospital bed and having to sort out how to sleep in a regular bed again was an adventure in positioning various cushions and pillows and blankets around and requiring more lidocaine for nerves that got bungled up. But it worked(ish). 

I also broke the toilet in our room. As in, neither plunging nor snaking did the trick and the maintenance guy had to take our toilet apart and cart it off and put a different one in it’s place. The replacement toilet was not currently in use for reasons that soon became obvious - lots of gurgling noises and self-flushing going on. But at least it flushed! 

A few more specific things:

I found a pair of hot pink denim capri’s at the clothing swap that I’m excited to try out! 

I discovered that my habit of suggesting lots of panel descriptions is more of a thing than I realized. Like, I knew I wrote a lot - I just didn’t realize how much more than the other average con-goer that was. I can’t decide if I should be more embarrassed or pleased/proud of this? But either way, it’s not going to stop me and I already have a huge list of ideas to write up for next year, so. 

Only made it to one party, but glad I got to that one. I find I don’t have the physical energy for dance parties anymore and have never been a huge fan of the sit around and make small talk parties, but the Secret Superhero party that Alexandra Erin and co. throw every year is a good one because 1) they give people Stuff To Do which helps cover for all manner of social awkwardness and 2) there’s already built-in a few people I know and can reliably socialize with a little bit so I have less of that tendency to walk in - peek around - see no one I know (or only see ppl I know already talking to other people) - get intimidated - and leave. 

Had planned to go to a lunch meeting for people to yell about The Magicians (of which I have a feeling my opinions would have largely been contradictory), but accidentally wandered off to lunch with other people without realizing I’d done so! Hopefully the 3 people I wandered off with did not feel as though I’d tagged along uninvited, but I certainly enjoyed the chance to get to know them all a little better. 

Once again did not make it to the Vid Party, but DID make it to the Vid Deep Dive panel, which was great. And have watched a bunch of the vids on the list now and am super excited about vids in general again and am hopeful that this will lead me to actually using my YouTube and AO3 accounts to specifically watch and fangirl over vids more. Vids are like magic to me and vidders like wizards - I am so in awe of their talent I cannot. 

Had some really interesting conversations about religion and fandom throughout the con - starting with my panel on the use of religion in SFF TV shows, dovetailing into a fascinating conversation down at the pool, and ending with some thinky thoughts coming out of the Antisemitism at WisCon panel. Possibly more on that later. Also possibly some more panels on the subject for next year?

Lots of panel topics and conversations this year ended up being about the combination of two subjects very close to my heart: 1) hope and/or redemption, and 2) community. Again, possibly more later and certainly some intriguing panel ideas for the coming year. 

I did buy two books this year! Budget does not always allow for book buying, but I did good on the food budget, so I allowed myself two during the sign-out. They were both from people I like to presume to call friends, which is always a nice plus - to buy directly from someone you want to support financially as well as personally. I got First Dates, Last Calls by Alexandra Erin which I’m excited to read and The Apocalypse coloring and activity book by Theo Nicole Lorenz which I’m excited to color!

I had wanted to get Laurie Mark’s final book in the Elemental Logic series Air Logic, along with the 3rd book (since a friend is planning to gift me the first 2 in the series), because Air Logic has just come out and the author and/or publisher were going to be at-con but by the time I got the Dealer’s room they were not there and by the time I left the sign-out they had not gotten there so it was not meant to be. But I still plan to get those books because I ADORE the series so far and am excited about the 4th. (I actually asked my library to purchase the book and am on the first on the holds list to get it once it’s in, so at least I’ll be able to read it soon if not actually own a copy)

As evidenced by my post the other day, I was thinking a lot about conversations being held about making sure more diverse voices are being heard during panels. I don’t have a lot of advice re: making sure more folks from more marginalized groups show up. But I find I did have a lot to say about making sure the panels folks are on end up being inclusive of many voices whether or not those ppl show up to be on the programming itself. And - I suspect - doing the latter well enough will help to foster more of the former as people will feel safer to come and share their perspectives as well as not feel like they have to always BE The Diversity Voice on every panel they choose to attend/be on. But I am a cis white chick, and I feel like it was mostly trans and poc folks these conversations were about, so I am eager to hear what other people have to say about all of this as and if they’re willing to share. 

I tend not to make it to GoH speeches or the Tiptree Auction because I have trouble with sitting still in a large room crowded with people type events. But as expected, even reading the text of Charlie Jane Anders’ speech made me weep with hope and joy and I hope G. Willow Wilson shares hers at some point so that I might also weep at hers. Those GoH speeches are always so inspiring and thrilling. I love this community. I am so grateful I became a part of it. I hope we can just always always keep growing and doing better to and for one another. 

Panels that I may or may not end up writing up a little about in the days to come: 

(the tail end of) Capitalism is Fueled by Anxiety

Favorite Queer Depictions in Fiction

Polyamory and Alternative Relationships

(the first half-ish of) New Pop Culture for Old Farts

Learning to Hear the Dog Whistle

Mental Illness in SFF

Vid Discussion Deep Dive

Antisemitism at WisCon

(parts of) The 116th Congress

Plus the five panels I was on, which will be less notes and more impressions: Killing Eve, Use of Religion in SFF TV, How to Write a Panel, Found Family, and Speculative Fiction on TV [also the spontaneous The Umbrella Academy panel which was small and informal but still really cool!]

[sophygurl]

WisCon43 - re: programming

I’ve been thinking about conversations (both online and off) held this year about WisCon’s programming - lack of certain kinds of diversity, reasons why that might be, and what to do about it. As someone who writes up a lot of panels, goes to a lot of panels, sits on a lot of panels, and although I didn’t mod this year - has moderated her fair share of panels, I’ve been thinking about it from all of those perspectives.

My perspective is also of someone who has a balance of ways in which I am and am not marginalized. I won’t list every single thing as that would be tedious and non-productive, but to share some of the biggies: I’m disabled, queer, and genderqueer; I am also white, cis, and neither an immigrant or the child of immigrants. If I get stuff wrong in any of the areas I’m privileged in, I very much welcome correction and feedback. Also, none of us these communities are monoliths - so conversation from all angles is always helpful. 

To those who may have missed some of these conversations, my impression is that it flowed from a few starting points: 1) people new/new-ish to WisCon who therefore weren’t as aware of how programming works differently at this 100% volunteer-run con, 2) people unaware that certain demographics of the con (specifically mentioned were poc - particularly blpoc, and trans/non-binary folk) have grown tired of being The Diversity People on panels, 3) some incidents at last year’s con - while handled by safety and anti-abuse teams well - did contribute to folks from certain marginalizations either not wanting to come or at least not wanting to actively participate in programming this year.

I don’t have a lot of thoughts on those points. I have never been on the concom, don’t know a lot of about the behind the scenes stuff that goes on, and while there are certainly things we can do (”we” meaning both the folks officially doing stuff bts and all of us as a community who care about the con) to make the con feel and be safer for everyone and to encourage more people to participate - we certainly can’t make people continue to do frustrating 101-level work educating people about their own identities year after year.

What I DO have thoughts on are the other starting points some of these conversations flowed from, which I perceived to be: 1) this panel description touches on specific marginalizations but the issues affecting those marginalizations were not brought up by panelists, 2) when someone from the audience asked questions relating to those marginalizations, the panelists didn’t know what to say, 3) when there were people with and without certain privileges on a panel - sometimes the people with privilege talked over the people without them.

These are all very fixable issues, and indeed I have seen these issues dealt with in very positive and productive ways in the past, so I wanted to share a little bit about my experiences when I’ve thought it has gone well.

Panel Writing.

The first stage of programming at WisCon is submitting panel ideas to the programming department. I write a lot of panels up (ask the programming department lol), and I write up panels on a broad variety of topics from Important Issue panels to fun squee panels. Here are a few tips to keep in mind when writing up panels with a nod to intersectional feminism and diversity inclusion:

When writing a panel about a Serious Issue, make sure there is some language about the ways in which other intersections are impacted by the Issue. For example, if I’m writing up a panel about queerness, I might slip in a phrase also asking the panelists to think about ways in which race or class affect the Queer Issue at hand. That way it’s baked in. Hopefully (and you can’t control this if you’re not on the panel yourself - but hopefully), the moderator and panelists will take those intersectional issues into consideration in their discussion. 

When writing up a more fun fannish panel, STILL make sure to include a statement or two asking the panelists to consider ways in which Fan Thing touches on issues of race, gender, what have you. For example, “yaddayadda fun thing! Also, how do we feel about the show’s treatment of race?” Again, the idea is to bake it right in there so that the panelists are already (hopefully) thinking about those things and won’t be caught off guard when the audience is wanting or expecting them to discuss it a little bit.

When suggesting a panel, you can suggest potential panelists. You can either do this specifically as in “Person A would be a great addition to this panel!” or more generally with a note asking “please make sure at least one panelist is X identity”. None of these things are guarantees, of course, but it helps programming see what you’re going for. Another idea for when it’s essential that a panel is comprised of specific folk is to hand-staff the panel. That means it’s not open for volunteers and only the people who have been pre-selected can sit on the panel. (I believe this is how panels at many other cons are naturally run?? It’s just not the default for WisCon where we like lots of volunteers and self-selection.)

Another thing to keep in mind is thinking about who your potential audience is going to be. You can delineate in the panel description whether this is meant to be a 101 or higher level discussion. You can bake in the idea that this panel is jumping off from a panel held in a previous year and the panelists won’t be doing much in the way of backgrounding that. You can say “this is NOT a panel about ...” to make it clear this panel is about Issue Y and only about Issue Y. There are lots of ways to make it clear what the panel should and shouldn’t be about, which again, is not a guarantee, but certainly helps move the panel in the right direction.

Panel formation.

When asking to be on a panel, you can make a note about why you want to be on it, or why you want to moderate it. This is a handy place to speak about your identity pieces (IF you want - nobody is forced to do this). For example, on a panel about disability, I might type in a little note talking about my specific disabilities and possibly how my queerness informs my disability. That way, if there are ten people with similar disabilities as mine asking to be on the panel - programming can decide that maybe I don’t need to be there. Or if no one else has mentioned queerness as part of their identity, they might put me on to make sure that’s a voice being included. 

When you get assigned to a panel, you see the names and emails of the other folks on the panel with you. If you’ve been coming to the con for awhile, you might be able to see right then where a problem area might be - like, holy cow this panel about TV show with black main character is skewing very white! Or perhaps that panel about the intersection of X and Y has mostly folks with experience X and not Y! What do? Well, there’s a few things that I’ve seen done/have done.

One thing is to reach out and see if people from the underrepresented group want to join you on the panel! You can do this quietly by asking folks you know personally, put out calls on social media, ask programming to help you locate some folks, or even put up notes in the green room once at the con asking for folks with identity Y to volunteer. 

I’ve also been on panels where none of the above happened, but I’ve looked out into the audience and seen friends with Identity Y who I know are usually up for talking at a moment’s notice and asked if they’d join us. (This can backfire if your friend with Identity Y is just sick to death of talking about their identity, but if you ask it in a nice enough way, hopefully they’ll feel comfortable saying nah, I’m here to listen this time) 

This can also happen as the email conversations begin and everyone starts sort of awkwardly saying things like “well, I think we should talk about asexuality but I’m not ace...” and suddenly you realize you’ve left out an important part of the conversation. As in the above scenario, sometimes you can reach out and include that perspective. But sometimes you can’t. What do then?

One thing I’ve seen done/have done is to have the moderator acknowledge the issue at the start of the panel. “We all understand that an ace perspective, or perspective X, is an important one for this topic, but none of us are ace, so we’re just gonna do our best on that part and if we mess it up, we hope someone with that perspective will correct us!” This accomplished a few things: 1) it lets the audience know that you know there is a flaw there so they’re not sitting there wondering why tf you’re not talking about Thing X as much as they’d expected, 2) allows folks in the audience with perspective X the opportunity to speak up if they’re feeling like they want their perspective shared (example: “you mentioned that none of you are ace, I’m asexual and wanted to share that...”). It might be important for the mod to even seek out “comment not a question” in those specific instances. 

Sometimes, as happened my very first time moderating, it turns out that someone in the audience has a very unique and important perspective and the rest of the panelists just kinda do chinhands listening to them for a bit and THAT IS OKAY. 

You might even get all the way to the panel and not realize until someone in the audience speaks up that you are lacking an important perspective. What do??

This weekend, I witnessed a panel where this happened and the panelists all just asked the audience member if they’d come up and be on the panel with them! Now, like the example above of asking a friend in the audience at the start of the panel, this won’t Always work. Perhaps the audience member does not Want to share their perspective - they only want to make sure that perspective is being covered. That is 100% fair! No one should feel forced or pressured to insta-join a panel! But giving someone the option can be a great way around accidental gaps in inclusion. 

Doing the panel. 

Now, it’s not always possible to flesh your panel out with diverse perspectives. Despite trying all of the other things, perhaps no one with Identity X wants to sit on your panel. Or perhaps there are too many intersections for a panel of 6 to even cover all of them. Or maybe no one even realized how important Issue Y was to Panel Z until Panel Z got underway. But STILL there are things you, the panelists and moderator, can do!

The most important thing you can do is to make sure you’re prepared for the stuff baked into the panel. Even if you believe the make-up of the panel is sufficient to cover a specific issue, what if the 2 poc panelists end up unable to make it to the con or the 1 Deaf panelist got sick or the person you thought you remembered was Jewish - ooops turns out you had mistaken them for someone else? Listen, this stuff happens. So Be Prepared. 

No, as a white person, I absolutely cannot and should not speak on the experiences of people of color. That would be wildly inappropriate. But what I can do, and try to do, is educate myself ahead of time on how the topic at hand affects or is affected by issues of race. If there are poc on the panel willing and able to touch on those things - perfect! Worst thing that happens is that I got a little more educated, which is the opposite of a problem anyway. But if it turns out that it’s only me and another white panelist and the audience is asking questions about race, I can at least say something like “from what I’ve read in this article/heard my poc friends saying/saw online from poc fans.... it seems like XYZ might be true but also could be a problem because of ABC”. Heavy disclaimers should abound, but, yes, it is possible to at least address an issue even if that issue doesn’t directly affect you. In fact, Tired Queer in the Corner might be really happy that you Straight Ally on the Panel did your homework. 

If you can’t prepare - if an issue sneaks up on you - just be honest about that and still try to do your best! “Oh, wow, I just realized we never discussed in our pre-panel discussion how the issue of religion impacts this topic, but now that this audience member has brought it up - can any of us speak on that?” If it turns out that, no, none of us can speak on that - toss it to the audience. “Can anyone else address this?” Again, this is a potential backfire situation, but worse case scenario no one wants to address it, you can apologize, pledge to do better next time, and move on. The toss-it-to-the-audience approach also only generally works in smaller panels where audience participation is easily done. If you’re on a dais with a large crowd and no wireless mics - you might have to forgo that particular work-around.

Other options include post-panel discussions. Moderator: “We only have ten minutes left and we never did hit topic X. If anyone - panelists and audience alike - would like to discuss this, we can move into the overflow room to dig in deeper.” That’s one approach. Another is to take it to twitter, or other online discussion. “Sorry we didn’t get to any audience questions about Y - but please add your comments to the # and we’ll do our best to reply in the coming days!” Last year I moderated a panel with a lot of very intelligent and wordy panelists and we literally ran out of time right before I would have gone to audience questions. But that hashtag was busy and lots of us went to it after the panel and had some lovely conversations with some of our audience members that way. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s another way to try and get to the stuff that might otherwise be missed.

Also - be aware of your privileges and make sure you are privileging the voices of those you have privilege over. This weekend, I caught myself interrupting a fellow panelist of color and stopped mid-interruption, doing the sort of “no, continue” motion and set the mic down to make sure I didn’t do it again until they were finished. It happens to all of us, and most of us at WisCon are in positions where we have some and don’t have other privileges. As a panelist - try and remember where yours are and be mindful of when to stop talking. 

As a moderator - you have to do this and Also keep in mind your fellow panelists intersections and possibly step in when you notice the white lady keeps monopolizing the conversation or the cishet dude to keeps talking over the queer woman. It’s part of the mod’s job to make sure everyone is heard, so if you don’t believe you’re capable of doing that part you need to either 1) ask someone to help you or 2) not moderate in the first place. [And BTW, asking for help is okay! We don’t all have the same skill sets, so asking one of your panelist buds to help you in an area you lack is not a bad thing to do!]  

So those are some of my ideas on how to make sure more voices and types of voices are being heard in panels. I’d love if people added their own! Thanks to everyone who made it a priority for us to keep having these conversations. 

[sophygurl]

For my fellow WisCon attending tumblr-er’s - there’s gonna be a spontaneous The Umbrella Academy panel on Sunday at 9pm in Unversity C - pass it on!