PeterDavid.net

I guess being Canadian I've learned not to expect much of the Post, a newspaper that advertises itself by having rich white people ramble about being Canadian and how gosh darn proud they are. And how rich.

I'll try and believe that the writer isn't normally that bad, but that the pregnancy hormones did unusual things to her mind. Yeah.

It's a shallow world out there folks. I just learned recently that the TV series Sex And The City wasn't actually intended as a thinly-veiled satire of extremely shallow and intellectually bankrupt people. Maybe whatsherface would like to guest star, 'eh?

I know what I'm about to say isn't going to be very popular, but that is precisely the reaction I have had at the conventions I have attended.

SF and fantasy fans are by far the most insular, self-gratifying group of people I have ever encountered -- even moreso than Renaissance Festival afficianados.

I don't get the whole "I'm a geek" thing anyway. Why in the world would you want to embrace and magnify the very behavior that sets you apart -- only to complain that no one understands you?

I remember one particular convention when a guy was walking around talking like Doctor Who. Every time I saw him, he was trying to negotiate every conversation with Who-speak. If you didn't know what he was talking about (and most people didn't) he'd put on a superior air and gloat.

I don't get it. What exactly was accomplished here? This person aliented just about everyone.

I love SF, fantasy and comics, but sometimes it's difficult being around the more fanatical fans.

I remember getting advanced tickets to see Star Trek IV from a friend of mine that knew I was fan of the show (I watched it). We had to get there about an hour early and were surrounded by the hardcore fanbase upon entering the lobby. Boy, did they weird me and my wife out just a bit! I enjoy the humorous mocking of ANY fannish culture that inadvertantly alienates (no pun intended) those not equal to their enthusiasm. Having said that; this article served absolutely no purpose whatsover, other than to play a childish game of "tease-the-geek".

Coverage of the awards (a very prestigious event) with a bit of humor involved in the author's ignorance of SF fandom would have been fine by me. The piece we got was simply the author telling us how superior she felt to those attending the convention and the Hugos ceremony. This was journalism that didn't even rise to the level of a high school newspaper; they would've at least stayed for the awards and reported the winners.

Well, I can certainly empathise with a general reaction that, as I grow older, some of the extremes of fandom are a bit too extreme for me. I don't enjoy conventions like I did when I was 19 - as my social skills have matured considerably, it's more obvious and frustrating dealing with those who haven't.

On the other hand, I _totally_ understand the point of "geek pride". Most of us have interests that, if we share our enthusiam for them with the general public, can lead to ostracism and ridicule from the general public. Conventions are an oasis where we can sit around, talk with a stranger about which comic book writers we enjoy, what episodes of Buffy were the best in Season 3, whether OS X is cool or crippled Unix - all the stuff that's socially dangerous to really show passion for in the outside world. And despite a subset of fandom that doesn't understand proper bathing, or doesn't understand polite social interactions, it still can be very rewarding, particularly when running into old friends you see once a year at best.

And, apart from the good and bad about fandom, I actually read the article in question. It's not like the author made an attempt to actually report on anything except to say that Spider Robinson looks like Tom Green (he doesn't.) It was one hand held over the nose whining about these people that she had the indignity of encountering. It was her telling us that these geeks were - not even strange - worthless creatures that are so out of touch with reality, and we should be grateful for it, lest we normal folk should encounter them. I'm sorry that she encountered some rude folk - indeed, I've found people working security at cons can indeed be horrible, particularly if they're volunteers - but there's no attempt to get beyond a surface revulsion.

In fact, that's exactly _why_ some people like going to conventions. To get away from people like that. I'm sure I'd be just as uncomfortable around her circle of friends - but at least I have the decency to not condemn them for not sharing my outlook on life.

Just to alter the focus a bit but I have a question.

I'm not a hardcore literary/sci-fi/fantasy type but somebody please explain:

I thought the Hugo's were a big deal. At least, were a fairly prestigous award.

As I said, I'm not into the scene but simply via my comic/star trek casual fandom, I have heard of Hugos.

So why would they send a writer to cover them if she had a clear and open hostility to anybody not in her snooty clique?

And, more importantly, why would the Hugo people, if it is indeed an important award, allow their award ceremnony to turn into a laughingstock freak-fest? I mean, when LOTR wins the Oscar this year, I doubt you'll see a crowd of robed hobbits in the audience. So why does this award ceremony allow such behavior?

Best--Chris

I do believe the Hugos are indeed a prestigous award. I've always heard about how great it is to recieve one.

I don't understand sending a reporter there just so she can tear down people who are trying to have a good time. Maybe she would feel the same if someone attended a wine tasting and did the same?

As for rude fans, I've been to one truly "SCI-FI" convention(as opposed to the countless comic conventions) and in fact more than just a sci-fi convention it was specifically a StarTrek convention. And you know what? Not one person was rude, or snobby. They all were nice and cordial.Even the Klingon who slapped me on the back buddy-like and told me I was a good guy in Klingonese. Of course, since I'm considerably shorter, the amount of spittle that rained on me was a bit icky.

So I have no idea what this so-called reporter was talking about.

I want to add I have friends like her though, who won't hesitate to take a moment and ridicule someone for dressing up for a con or reading comics.

Michael Norton

So, let me get this straight. The woman is assigned to cover the Hugos. She goes, but has to sneak into the ceremony, then doesn't stay for the whole presentation, then writes an article in which she not only doesn't even mention any of the awards which were given, but does insult the entire attendance of the Worldcon. And her editor 1. Let her keep her job, and 2. Printed the article anyway? How many of us could say that we would get the same treatment if we did the opposite job from what we were assigned by our bosses? Nice work if you can get it. Canadian journalism: the new job of choice for the non-conformist.

I wish I could say this was an isolated incident, but it reminds me of my group's first convention in Ottawa [MAPLECON I in '78] where one of our club members was a part-time journalist with one of the two local newspapers. Of course he volunteered to come and cover the event. So what did his editor do? Choose the guy who WANTED to be here, knew his way around, had an in with the organizers? Of course not. He was turned down in favour of some clown who didn't have a clue and misquoted people dismally.

Note to newspaper editors: going out of your way to piss off people who do a lot of reading is not generally considered a good idea if you're in the publishing business.

Did anyone consider that the journalist was maybe, just maybe, being sarcastic? I don't read the Post. It does have a reputation of being a muckraker, regardless of what Dave Sim says.

And we SF/Comix geeks are very insular, to the point of embarassment, similar to my ex-wife believing I'm interested in the insurance industry and insisting on telling me about it.

You have to realize that this is Rebecca Eckler. Pregnancy really has nothing to do with her being this shallow. She's like that most of the time.

Eckler's column's normally consist of life in the big city (Toronto), sneaking into shows, bizarre social trends with the rich and shallow and interviewing the occasional celebrity.

The thing is, she's not a bad writer when she sets her mind to it. But the Post encourages this of their columnists. To be very talky, rambly and personable. And sometimes it works. Christie Blatchford, who just left the Post for the Globe and Mail, is one of the country's best columnists (IMHO). She could get away with it. Eckler, who I'm sure is a fairly nice person in real life (she actually did a column a couple of weeks ago about how strange it is being recognized all the time, just because her picture is in the paper that was oddly touching and funny), just look unbelievably shallow. Which is fine if she were spoofing herself. But she's not.

I recall reading a copy of the Post last year where she hired a personal financial consultant and was horrified, horrified, to realize that her slary as a columnist wouldn't allow her to keep her $300 a week personal trainer, dining out 6 days a week, dry cleaning for nearly all her clothes and her staggering shoe habit.

Ignore it. It was a shallow, cheapshot piece of writing. For comparison, the Globe and Mail did a nice article Neil Gaiman, although they did get a couple of facts wrong.

Cheers...

_craig

Okay, so shoot me; I thought it was amusing.

Haven't you ever felt that way when you attended something you weren't a part of?

The only reason I go to a con is to people watch (same reason I go to a sports game). Really weird people (a relative term) are fun to watch.

And on the plus side (or is it a negative side?) that's the first article about the Hugo's I've read all the way through.

I love SF, fantasy and comics, but sometimes it's difficult being around the more fanatical fans.

Yes, it is. And it is also difficult being around the more fanatical fans at, say, a baseball game. The fans who come painted with the team's colors on their face, who perpetually have a beer in their hand, who cheer every strike call and boo every call that goes against the team. Who scream and shout and boo at the top of their lungs and get into loud arguments over arcane statistics because, dammit, *that's* what a fan is *supposed* to be.

And this type of person represents a fairly small percentage of the typical attendee of a baseball game.

Likewise, the extreme goes-in-costume drives-you-nuts SF fan is a fairly small percentage of the typical SF con.

But much news coverage would have you believe differently. TV oftentimes, as their cameras focus exclusively on the handful of people at a Trek conventio dressed in Vulcan garb. And now this column, as the columnist goes in pre-determined to encounter a gathering of pathetic geeks and touts her infinite superiority to an assemblage of people, any random sampling of which probably have an IQ twenty to thirty points above hers.

The most telling
COMMENT: 75% of them wear glasses. You know why we wear glasses, lady? BECAUSE WE READ BOOKS.

PAD

Wow. All I could think of while I was reading this article was "What a bitch!" She states, early in the article, that she wasn't at all happy about having to cover the convention on a Saturday during her long weekend. It was nice to see that she was going into it with an open mind. The only way that I can think of that she kept her job after turning in an article like that is because this is what the editor wanted. It's sad really.

I didn’t find the article that condescending. I think Eckler was simply responding to what she saw, and how she was treated.

Chris: So why would they send a writer to cover them if she had a clear and open hostility to anybody not in her snooty clique?

Michael Norton: I don't understand sending a reporter there just so she can tear down people who are trying to have a good time.

Luigi Novi: I didn’t get any of this from reading the article. As I read it, she was simply sent to cover the event, and reported what she experienced. She experienced rudeness, immaturity, and the self-important behavior of some people with a certain esoteric hobby. Some of what she describes sounds like stuff I’ve encountered a bit of that myself, both on the Net and at some of the comic book conventions I’ve been to. I recall how at the one Star Trek convention at the Meadowlands Convention Center in Secaucus, NJ I went to because it was down the block from the theater I worked at, I sat down to hear people like Brent Spiner, Marina Sirtis and Andrew Robinson relate their anecdotes and answer questions, and had the misfortune of sitting near someone whose last bathing must have been during the Nixon administration. I remember attending a convention panel with Chris Claremont and Rob Liefeld around the time of the launch of X-Force and the new Claremont/Jim Lee X-Men, and the person next to me laughed out loud (and I emphasize “loud”) when one of the panelists made a casual remark that was only modestly funny. I remember someone coming out of Star Trek Generations when I was behind the concession stand and arguing with me that no, Kirk wasn’t dead, because he was still inside the Nexus and could come out of there, blah, blah blah. And I’m sure many here have seen the Trek Nazis on the web who react to anyone who doesn’t love every single episode or movie with the worst vitriol.

Azlynn: I'll try and believe that the writer isn't normally that bad, but that the pregnancy hormones did unusual things to her mind. Yeah.

Luigi Novi: I’ll assume you were joking, but I would imagine that things like that may be one reason why people like Eckert respond the way they do when they see the stuff they do at conventions.

Mike Sawin: I don't get the whole "I'm a geek" thing anyway. Why in the world would you want to embrace and magnify the very behavior that sets you apart -- only to complain that no one understands you?

Luigi Novi: Self-deprecation is a time-honored genre of humor. I myself admit to being a geek. I can name just about any episode of Trek with only a threadbare description, I’m probably pretty good at trivia, I read comics, etc. I simply don’t limit my life to those things, so there’s no reason for me to be ashamed of being a geek. I read lots of other things like science, pseudoscience, history, current events, criminology, etc. I can hold a conversation with people who don’t share my interests without condescending to them, and I try to learn from them and their interests that I don’t share.

I don’t think this article is a big deal. Let it go. Move on.

I will say to Ms. Eckler only that yes, if you fell asleep five minutes into Fellowship of the Ring, there is something wrong with you.

It may not be a lack of taste, although that seems to be her implication, but simply that you would spend money to see a film when you're obviously already tired.

It's no less insulting than Kevin Smith's recent Tonight Show "coverage" of the San Diego ComicCon. He interviewed a few... more colorful attendees and made a few penis jokes. Oddly enough, he looked down the pants of a big inflatable Hulk and made a lame joke about why he is angry all the time.

Ahh, what a sad story. The part about her breeding, that is. Hopefully her child will rebel in the usual fashion by becoming her opposite; educated and intelligent.

dAN

Explain this to me: why is it okay for lit fans to speak with great contempt about media fans, and media fans can dis gamers up one end and down the other, and gamers can exude disdain over comic book fans all day...

...but when someone on the outside does the exact same thing to fandom in general--most times using the very same terms as the above categories use--fans react with shock, horror and fury?

To say nothing of surprise...

JSM

** Explain this to me: why is it okay for lit fans to speak with great contempt about media fans, and media fans can dis gamers up one end and down the other, and gamers can exude disdain over comic book fans all day...

...but when someone on the outside does the exact same thing to fandom in general--most times using the very same terms as the above categories use--fans react with shock, horror and fury?

To say nothing of surprise... **

Because they are outside of the tribe! You know, the "my family fights all the time, but if someone messes with one of us, we all turn against them" thing.

One of us. One of us.

Well, I do agree with her on one point. I like going because usually I am the best dressed person there. Heck, I even look better than 99% of the people at the con in Tulsa. It's a huge ego boost.

Most of em I can deal with (especially the one this year in the Alicia Silverstone Batgirl costume)

(and hey, I met wil wheaton. Nice guy.)

but there are a few.... well, they sent me running screaming into beyond.

This chick just doesn't seem to get it. Fans are just that... fans... which is short for fanatical. And fanatics don't think straight a lot of the time.

eh, I could go on. and I should, but I need to work.

Travis

I was at the Hugo award ceremony this year for the first time in a long time. If Ninny the columnist thought she was the best dressed person there, then she obviously should make her own appointment with the laser eye surgeon. John Hertz (who wore the beanie on stage) came in full formal dress before removing his gloves to don the beanie at the presenter's request. (It turned out he was about to get the Big Heart award and didn't know it.)

I was in a tuxedo too, since I was there on the small chance that my friend, Steven Silver, would win the Best Fan Writer award and that I would have to accept it for him.

And there were plenty of other well-dressed fans there, as well.

So she's wrong on the facts of her article and can be safely disregarded as the fool that she is.

Explain this to me: why is it okay for lit fans to speak with great contempt about media fans, and media fans can dis gamers up one end and down the other, and gamers can exude disdain over comic book fans all day...

I can't speak for others, but personally I don't think it's okay.

At last year's Shore Leave, many Trek fans had a knee-jerk hostile reaction to the flood of Buffy fans who showed up because James Marsters was the GOH. It didn't matter that the Slayerettes were for the most part well-dressed, well-behaved, and attentive to all the programming. Their mere presence was enough to annoy people.

Didn't bother me none. My attitude was, Fans is fans. Interestingly, this year, a number of Buffy fans returned despite the lack of any Buffy-related guests. Why? They'd become interested in other aspects of fandom.

I despise the attitude that's averse to new blood or different interests.

PAD

Lots of interesting thoughts here.

1) I skipped reading the article. The National Post is just not worth my time.

2) Journalists of all stripes are guilty of going into stories with pre-concieved notions that they will not change. I've seen it too often in my own job in museum public relations. If people perceive us as being stodgy, or insensitive, or what have you, that comes with them, no matter what is true. Objective journalism is rare, and moreso when the topic is the least bit esoteric.

3) Most cons I've been to have a minimum of people in "silly costumes," and many of those costumes show a good deal of imagination. It's true that a lot of fen have no clue about how to dress neatly, but neither do most college students.

4) I wear glasses because I have bad eyesight, and not because I read a lot (though I do). I think this true of all nearsighted people with glasses. I guess that in this writer's world, though, people wear contact lenses and hide their tragic flaw. Personally, I still find a woman who wears glasses instead of contact lenses a bit more interesting at first sight, as it says she's not vain. Fen are many things. Vain is not one of them.

5) About the Hugos, while I wouldn't mind winning one, and hope to vote on them next year, I think that they are not the ultimate prize. A very small number of people maybe 3,000 votes at most - choose the winners. OK, the Oscars are probably selected the same way, but this is the only prestigious prize I know of that if chosen by a small number of fans and not pros. My guess is that the Nebula and the World Fantasy Award are given a slightly higher regard. Then again, I've never asked any winner or nominee about it. All I know is that Neil Gaiman seems to care a lot about this and that JK Rowling (AFAIK) has never said anything about her prizes.

One more thought:

I'm into filk. It's why I go to cons much of the time. And I hate it when we are treated like third class citizens. At the same time, I needed to become god friends with gamers before I stopped looking at them funny.

And I have a friend who abhors the "fan vs. mundane" labeling that goes on.

We are all guilty of labeling. It takes a good deal of introspection to see it for what it is.

Now if you want to see something really scary (I know, I know, I should be working) go to a collectibles convention. Sometimes they have guests show up. Sometimes they don't.

I went searching for pulps. That's what I collected at a point in time (still have a first printing of the Tower of the Elephant. Other People have kids to crow about, I have Conan)... Ended up picking up the full Archie Goodwin/Walt Simonson Manhunter run in Detective.

I thought SciFi fans were scary. No. These people are the worst. They dressed regularly. They varied in ages. But it was like going to Wal-Mart at a 50% off everything sale. Mobbed. Mobbed. Mobbed.

I don't like people that much to ever return (except for the videotapes of old 40s-60s television shows)...

Which goes to show you. You don't have to dress like a Klingon to be weird.

Travis

So why would they send a writer to cover them if she had a clear and open hostility to anybody not in her snooty clique?

Because sci-fi fandom is regarded, by many, as an upopular subculture peopled by sexless maniacs. All this woman did was cater to the already cemented perception of the masses.

To publish a favorable review of the event, or at least a review that wasn't as UNfavorable as this one, would've catered only to those of us who enjoy the sci-fi world (or at least, I'm guessing this is what would go on in the mind of the writer's editor at The Post). The only reason most people outside of sci-fi fandom would even want to read an article on this subject is for some giggles.

It would be nice to see some kind of unbiased documentary or book about sci-fi fandom one of these days. Personally, I haven't found it yet. Trekkies was the only thing I've seen that came close, and even that was disturbing for the exact opposite reasons this Post article was annoying. The filmmakers seemed to gloss over a lot of really, really disturbing things about some of the more extreme fans they interviewed.

Gosh, where to start? I suppose with the most obvious point: this columnist wasn't sent to cover the Hugos; otherwise A) she wouldn't have had to talk her way in to the ceremony, B) wouldn't have left halfway through the awards, and C) failed to mention all but one or two winners. It seems pretty obvious that her brief was to go along to the con and write about some of the losers she runs into. And that's just what she did. How else can you justify the fact that right from the outset, she tells her readers she didn't even want to go?

Frankly, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone who's ever seen a condescending news report about a sci-fi convention, or anything SF-related, like the opening of a new Star Wars movie (accompanied by the obligatory shot of fans camped outside the theater). For example, just about every TV news piece encompasses one of the following:

1. The reporter who gets made up as an alien extra, and appears in the distant background of a shot for about half a second.

2. The correspondent who shows up at a convention and shows that he is indeed one of the fans by wearing a 15-foot scarf, a classic Trek tunic or some other SF prop (some combine items from different shows, thus displaying their lack of knowledge and/or disdain for the subject matter. That same correspondent will invariably ignore the normal-looking, well spoken con-goers in favor of the largest, most socially maladroit fan they can possibly find. This person, we are then told, pretty much represents everyone at the gathering.

3. And of course, the old standard: the reporter who 'beams into/out of the location/studio, accompanied by whatever cheesy transporter effect the newsroom engineer can put together, and an equally futuristic sound effect. In the UK, this can be replaced by the Doctor Who variant, whereby the same reporter can be seen stepping out of a hastily-constructed police box, along with the traditional TARDIS sound effect. Any of these can be mixed and matched, by the way, so Star Trek beam-out can be accompanied by TARDIS sound effect, etc.

I'm sure there are a few I've forgotten, but those are the ones that usually get on my nerves.

I've been to cons. Yes, there are people who are weird, fanatics who haven't discovered soap yet alone that people come in too genders, but they are a small segment. Is that any different from the face painters at sporting events or people who lie awake at night wondering if J-Lo and Ben are going to "make it" as a couple?

Fanatics exist in all forms of popular entertainment. The idea that genre fans are "insular" based on what happens at cons is ridiculous. Cons are designed to bring people together of common interests and discuss them. They are by their very nature, insular events, whether it's trekkies or dentists, anyone who is outside of that group will feel lost and excluded.

Finally, when it comes to the mainstream media, who do they send to do commentary on sports? Sports fans.

Who do they send to do movie reviews? Movie fans.

Who do they send to do commentary on political events? Political junkies.

So, why does the mainstream media, time and again, send someone to cover science fiction or comics, someone whose first sentence in the article is always, "I hate science fiction, but . . ." and who then immeidately goes to guy in the homemade Wolverine costume who hasn't touched a woman since his mother stopped breast feeding him?

The only other instance where a group gets the same kind of treatment from the mainstream media are the gay pride rallies, where the cameras always bypass all the people in business attire and zoom right in on the cross dressers and leather fetishers.

I'm a polyfan. I'm a fan of many different things that cross many barriers. I sometimes find the level of disdain fans of one area have for fans of another amusing, sometimes I find it disheartening.

Try being a sports fan around a SF convention. You're considered beneath their notice. How could you possibly be interested in something as mundane as baseball?

Somehow I ended up on a panel at a local SF convention and ended up getting in a rather heated argument concerning the entire rest of the panel's use of the term "Mundane" or "Mundie" for people 'not of fandom.' I argued this sort of disdain just added to the insular nature of fandom. If you decide to cut the 'normal' people out of it, don't be surprised when the 'normal' people don't even try to understand you.

None of this is a defense to the article. She's obviously a columnist who found something she could make fun of, and did. I tend to find Dave Barry's humor more to my taste, but he often does the same sort of send up as this column.

D. Eric Carpenter (a gamer, White Sox fan, Packer fan, comic reader, SF reader, medieval and civil war recreationist, etc. etc.)

I fell asleep during the first paragraph and didn't wake up until the copyright line rolled. Does that mean there's something wrong with me?

As a Canadian. I'm constantly embarrassed by the Nation Post. But I guess it is our version of the fair and balanced Fox News.

I think its funny that people get riled up with comic or sci-fi fans like this reporter did. Has she ever been to a hockey game? Or maybe seen one on TV? People screaming and hooting and hollering with their face paint and cardboard signs and being overly obsessed with the team they love. I never understood how that's different from a Trekkie wearing Spock ears going to a con. I guess the trekkie doesn't drive around town honking and screaming and waving flags.

Not all journalist speak of us Sci-fi fans so harshly. I once read a msnbc article about dating today and the female writer suggested to her (female) readers that one of the best places to meet a man is at a Sci-fi convention. She described the typical fan as sweet, intelligent, and loyal. she went on to say that the sci-fi fan will likely be shy or socially awkward, but once opened up, a lot of fun ...

I belive the same is true of female sci-fi fans -- they are just so much rarer. AAARRRRGH!

SF fans don't tend to be as destructive as sports fans, either--you never hear about fans tearing up their town after a really good Buffy episode, let alone Blake's 7 hooliganism. I'm often amazed at what's tolerated around sports because they're socially sanctioned...

I'm sorry, I didn't see anything condescending at all about her report. The gist of it seemed to be that fandom has a language and habits all its own, incomprehensible (on purpose) to those who aren't in the know. If you want to talk about "condescending," explain to me why hardcore sf "fen" refer to non-"fen" as "mundanes."

"Not all journalist speak of us Sci-fi fans so harshly. I once read a msnbc article about dating today and the female writer suggested to her (female) readers that one of the best places to meet a man is at a Sci-fi convention."

Joe ... do you have a copy of this article, or a link to it? I would like to forward it to every female I know.

Jason

Elayne, you don't find references to fans as "these people" (with an implication they're not human) as condescending?

Well, I was the House Manager of this year's Hugos. Let's just say that the most amusing of *many* factual errors in this hachet piece is that I was the one who explained how to get out of the hall (for odd access and safety reasons, the door people entered through was *not* the one they'd be exiting from), not Spider. And Spider and I don't look particularly similar, nor were we dressed alike.

There are some comments above that Eckler was treated rudely. Um, no. A limited amount of seating was reserved specifically for nominees and presenters, both to honor them and to allow for extra wide spacing so winners could easily get out of the middle of an aisle and up to the stage. My usher (and, btw, the ushers in that area very specifically were chosen by me both for general competence and for being elegantly dressed, so Eckler is also lying about being anywhere near the best dressed person there, much less that she encountered) did exactly the right thing is politely asking someone in that section who didn't belong there to move.

As for the lack of humor when asked if Buffy would be there? Well, in the past we've had Christopher Reeve, Sean Astin and Sala Baker, the writer and director of GalaxyQuest, etc. accept Hugos. A Buffy episode was nominated. If Geller had been in the Toronto area, we might actually have gotten her. As it was, episode writer Jane Espenson accepted for Buffy (I knew in advance she was there, but the ushers didn't). The usher did *exactly* the right thing in her quoted reply.

I've also gotten email from the Press Office head, who's *very* mad as this piece, as he'd gone out of his way to arrange for passes for this clown which she never picked up, not to mention misquoting him in such a way to make him look foolish (free hint; he did not say "Oh my God" when told of her companion's name).

Based on what Eckler claims was said to her (there are enough pure factual errors in the story that I don't trust her quotes), she was treated very politely, much more politely than she probably deserved, again given her own quotes and apparent attitude. I'm writing a letter to her editor specifying all the factual errors, asking if this is the quality of reporter the Post wishes to be associated with.

D. Eric Carpenter,

Interesting - I had the experience as a White Sox fan attending Dragon*Con this year (my third, by the way), that there were a decent amount of sports fans there (mostly congegrated in the Hyatt bar during the day to check out the baseball and college football scores). In fact, there was a small contingent of Wisconsin Badgers fans at the big screen watching the 1st game of the season, having a high old time with some Klingons (Klingons in character watching football is a wonderful time, by the way).

Good to see a fellow Sox fan here (and remember, folks, Sox refers to White Sox - not the later guys in Boston).

Well for all of those who were offended by the article, instead of complaining about it here, email her. Here's her email address, which I got off the article in question: reckler@nationalpost.com

Oh, and if you do email her, share the letter with us here, ok?

Well, here's what I wrote to Ms. Eckler:

Dear Ms. Eckler,

I read with interest your column of September second.

Might I suggest to your editor that, the next time your paper covers the Hugos, they send someone with an actual working knowledge of (or at least mild interest in) the subject they're covering?

If writing about what the ceremony actually concerned (i.e. the novels, novellas, and short stories being nominated) is beyond you, perhaps a change in occupation might be in order. You might find something less taxing, along the lines of assistant french-fry cook at your local McDonald's, a tad more rewarding.

By the bye, it's 'laser', not 'lazer'...Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. It's an acronym. Next time, ask a geek for help using your spellchecker.

The people who attended the ceremony can't help their weak eyes. Your bad manners and condescention, however, are well within your power to change.

One thing I will agree with you on...your time would have been better spent doing something else altogether...anything else.

With extreme sincerity,

Mark Patterson

PAD: "...It is also difficult being around the more fanatical fans at, say, a baseball game. The fans who come painted with the team's colors on their face, who perpetually have a beer in their hand, who cheer every strike call and boo every call that goes against the team. Who scream and shout and boo at the top of their lungs and get into loud arguments over arcane statistics because, dammit, *that's* what a fan is *supposed* to be."

That's exactly my sentiment!

I have often used the sports fan analogy, when pointing out that there are "geeks" of all kinds, in any area.

I've seen Harley-Davidson geeks, football geeks, baseball geeks, hockey and basketball geeks! I've seen porcelain bunnies geeks, and more!

This woman that wrote the Post article brags about sneaking into the hotel party of rock stars. I guess, then, she might even be a rock star geek, herself.

These "geeks" wear t-shirts that feature the object of their interests, or adorn their walls with posters or framed pictures of the same. They may buy the magazines that feature articles about their interest, as well as attend gatherings to discuss their interests with like-minded individuals.

What is a concert, but a gathering of fans to share an experience over a common interest and see a person that is the focus of that interest?

What is the difference between Sci-Fi and comics fans from those sports, rock, and even porcelain bunnies fans?

Numbers. There are more of them. That's about it, really.

The only other difference is that reading is more introverted. So, yes, we see more shy and awkward people in Sci-Fi and comics. Is that a crime?

Really, after seeing some of the more extroverted fans of sports, etc., I think I'll stick with the Sci-Fi and comics crowd.

Matt Hawes

Comics Unlimited

Evansville, IN.

And the Oscors are so much better - WHY?

This lady obviously didn't like her assignment, and didn't have a problem with expressing that sentiment on the page.

Apparently this woman would have loved the Oscors - but what if she was in the minority in that opinion. Would she be so quick to judge others as being stupid if that was the case.

Journalists, in almost all forms of society, are really loosing their integrity. From that Fake Newsreporter who wasn't fired becuase he was black - to newspapers who don't want to even print the name "Indians" in communicating the name of a Baseball team.

She's probably right - most people probably wouldn't like the Hugos - or understand it. But does she NEED to make people who like that kind of stuff (And there certinly are a lot) feel inferior?

I normally will not touch any link associated with the National Post, but since Torcon3 was the first Worldcon I have ever attended, and I have been volunteering for Torcon3 almost since the day it was announced that Toronto would be hosting the con this year I thought I would check it out just to see how many facts the National Post got wrong this time. Reading the column, I begin to wonder if she and I even attended the same convention.

From what I have read from her column and the responses on this boards, I think that Eckler could have saved herself alot of grief had she simply gone to the press office to pick up her passes like she was supposed to. We had media from all around North America at the con running around with green media badges and they had absolutely no trouble getting access to any part of the con.There was no assigned media seating that I know of, but media covering the Hugos were more then welcome to enter (and exit) the convention hall at the same time as the rest of the attendees. Line ups for Hugo seating began over an hour before seating started and many media staff were first in line, patiently waiting their chance to get in just like the rest of us. Even though the hall filled up quickly, decent single, or double seats with a good view of either the stage or the two large screen were available right up until showtime. I couldn't have found a bad seat in the house even if I had tried. Reserved seating was clearly marked off and I thought the Hugo staff did a wonderful job directing attendees. The ushers I spoke to were nothing but polite and helpful. But like any other person, they treat you as you treat them.

It's articles like that that make me wish I could buld a good 'ol time machine, go back in time a few weeks and offer to cover the Hugos for the National Post as a freelancer. I'd report the news that matters, such as the fact that local author Robert J. Sawyer finally won a Hugo after seven nominations, and leave my EGO outside the convention centre.

As for Eckler's many comments about the dress code for the evening, I for one was dressed in my best blouse and skirt for the event, as were many other attendees. Could it be perhaps that she simply was not comfortable in the relaxed, come-as-you-are atmosphere that is traditional of fen cons? Did she feel lost when she realized that she would need more than a sleek outfit to turn heads?

What really strikes me as strange is that Eckler feels comfortably calling sf fans geeks because we apparently use that same term to refer to ourselves. Her source on this is a quote from Robert J. Sawyer's acceptance speech where he refers to himself as a "fat, bald geek who knows wa too much Star Trek trivia." The first problem with the quote is the way she truncated it to fit into her paragraph. The complete quote was given as a salute by Rob to his wife,Carolyn Clink. It was reposted by Rob Sawyer himself on his message board. It was intended as a humourous way of expessing his gratitude to his wife. The complete quote is as follows:

"Without her, I'd be just a fat, bald, geek who knows way too much Star Trek trivia. Okay -- even with her, I'm just a fat, bald, geek who knows way too much Star Trek trivia, but it's a lot more fun having her along for the ride. Carolyn, I love you totally and completely."

The second, and largest problem I have with this article is that this very quote was given at the very end of the ceremony as Rob accepted his Hugo for best novel. So if Eckler left the ceremony halfway through, how is it possible for her to have heard the quote?

Fact-checking errors like that can destroy not only the credability of the columnist, but that of the paper that allows it to go to press.

Re: Sabrina's message. There was reserved seating for press. Three separate areas in fact; two rows directly behind the nominees for non-photographing press, near the front rows (behind a row for the visually and hearing impaired) on one side for photography press, and two seats specially reserved for Mark Askwith from the Space channel and his camerawoman (which they got because Mark was at Neil's signing, as was I. We had a very nice discussion about what Space would be doing at the Hugos, his former work in comics, the lovely tin ceiling in the Chum City building that includes Space's offices, etc. He described his camerawoman, and when I encountered her back at the convention centre later on, we went into the hall and figured out where she'd want to be positioned. I then reserved two seats for them in that location.)

And thanks for the compliments about the ushers. This was my second year as Worldcon Events House Manager, and both years I was favored with an excellent house crew of ushers who had to deal with many difficult and/or unexpected situations due to oddities of the venues. With the possible exception of Eckler, I've heard (and been told by others that this also applies to what they've heard in crowds and the like) nothing but compliments about them. They did a wonderful job.

On the lighter side of things, this all reminds me of the Geek Hierarchy:

http://www.brunching.com/geekhierarchy.html

On the serious side, I favour a "live and let live" attitude. I've encountered the "sci-fi fans are all a bunch of losers who need to get lives" attitude a few times, which I dislike. On the other hand, I also despise the term "mundane", when used to refer to anyone outside a given activity. Of course, it's not just SF where this division comes in - I've seen bikers who refer to car drivers as "cagers".

Personally, I have friends who are SF fans, and friends who aren't, and I have no wish to insult any of them.

Thinking of conventions in particular, I'd certainly agree that you get a wide spectrum of people there. Equally, you get a wide variety of opinions on who is "better" than others. For instance, I was at the Wrap Party (B5 convention where PAD was a guest) a few years ago. There was one panel where someone referred to a particular B5 episode by its title (I don't recall which one). Someone in the audience then put up his hand and asked which episode that was, and the moderator audibly groaned and rolled her eyes - an attitude of "who let that fool in?" Speaking for myself, I've seen every episode, and I'd describe myself as a fan of the series, but I wouldn't recognise many of the episode names (including that one). At the other end of the scale, a bunch of us were chatting by the swimming pool one evening, and someone referred to "the subgroup of fandom that's the 30 year old male virgin" (paraphrasing slightly). I'd say that it's probably an accurate observation, but I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with that.

So, the point of all this - generalising isn't very accurate. This has been today's "statement of the obvious"...

I read her article -- twice, in case my first reaction was based on a misunderstanding -- and I had several thoughts and a punishment for Ms. Rebecca Eckler.

First, this article was clearly written (and probably assigned) not to review the Hugos but to mock the fans. It reminds me of DORK TOWER # 23, where an editor is assigning a piece on Gaming ("I read somewhere that 10% of juvenile delinquents have played DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS at some point in their lives." "Haven't 10% of all juveniles played DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS at some point in their lives?" "Shut up, Robbie!") While one would hope they had an article on the actual awards plus this -- like a review of the Oscar winners as well as a fashion commentary -- I wouldn't bet money on it. This piece was like someone going to a baseball game, talking about the goofy fans the whole time, and failing to say anything about the actual game.

Second, it's a very poor reflection (and idiotic of her to mention it) on Ms. Eckler to mention that she fell asleep during LOTR. I do movie reviews, and I've seen movies both long, steadily paced, and mind-numbingly boring -- and I've never fallen asleep during them (even when my companions did). I guess Ms. Eckler wants to show that she's not a geek; she showed me that she doesn't have the consciousness, or patience, to be a critic.

Third, it's clear she failed to mention any relatively normal fans. (I'd say "failed to see" but conventions are not nonstop costumes and geeks.) So all we get is someone so overawed by the targets for her ridicule that she can't see that there are normal sci-fi fans as well.

As for her punishment, I say we sick Harlan Ellison on her. Lock them in a room where he can explain the wonderful diversity of fandom, the merits of the writers she didn't care to stick around for, and the abysmal mental facilities of a critic who can't stay asleep during a movie or review the reason for a gathering.

I'd dearly, dearly love to hear that conversation.

P.S. If you're going to write to the National Post, be sure to send your info to queries@nationalpost.com . Ms. Eckler might shrug off negative comments from a bunch of geeks, but I doubt her bosses there would take it so lightly.

This actually is doubly worse now that I know that Tom Galloway was in charge. While I've encountered a lot of rude and poorly run events at conventions (I'm unlikely to return to an Anime Expo), I've known Tom for a number of years in Real Life (and a bit longer online.) He's clearly someone who understands and respects doing a job professionally, and has above average people skills. He should be considered an extremely credible source, and pretty much deflates the argument that she had a bad experience and reacted to that.

Fortunately, I spend a _lot_ more time around the Galloways of the world than the Ecklers.

I remember some years ago going to a Doctor Who convention in the UK. At some point during the weekend, the con chairman asked me if I would speak to a newspaper reporter over the phone- apparently they wanted an American perspective about Doctor Who fandom. Before speaking to the reporter, I got my then-girlfriend (now wife) on the phone, and she told me in no uncertain terms that the newspaper in question was one of the sleazier tabloids, and was no doubt looking for a few quotes that could be twisted in a negative fashion. Well, a short time later, I was put in touch with the reporter. For about ten minutes, I was subjected to a not-so-subtle stream of leading questions and attempts to put words into my mouth. Having been warned in advance, I was able to fend off the questions. The reporter got more and more annoyed, and finally cut the interview short. When the piece came out a day or two later, they simply made up the quotes and attributed them to me.

Over the past couple of decades, I've probably been to hundreds of conventions, in several different countries. I could tell you stories that would curl your hair, or make you glad to be a fan of SF. On the negative side, I've met loud fans, and fans that stick to you like glue. Some of them gossip about other fans, some look down onn other fandoms as second-class life forms. I've met fans dressed as Klingons or Psi Cops or The Master, all of whom refuse to break character, making conversation all but impossible.

But there have been a lot of positives. I met a fan who worked in gemstones, and made the most exquisite gifts for some of the convention guests. I've talked to people with the most terrifying infirmities and handicaps, who come to conventions at great physical and financial costs, just so they could spend a couple of days chatting with people who had similar interests. I went to a convention in Newcastle, where the local fans (bearing in mind that this was a financially depressed area) literally emptied their pockets to raise enough money to pay for another guide dog to help out their assigned charity. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

I guess what I'm trying to say in a very long-winded and rambling fashion, is that fans are what they are. You take the good with the bad, and for the most part, the good pretty much outweighs the bad by a wide margin. That's why we continue to go to these little conclaves.

And if there's a lesson to be learned, it's this: if you see a pregnant Canadian pseudo-journalist with a chip on her shoulder, steer clear. Or better yet, shoot to kill.

Might suggest to the editor that he take a look at the MidAmerica Fan Photo Archive. The pictures speak loudly to the writer's claim of having been the best-dressed person there. A tux or two, lots of suits and ties, some elegant dresses and long gowns.

I've met good and bad fans. At a funeral for a friend, the minister made reference to the love for Star Trek the deceased had - and poked some minor fun at it. One family was offended (their Trek personas were Klingon). They made some mention afterwards that "the minister should know better than to insult Klingon warriors!" - and they were serious! I don't think I was ever more embarassed to be a Star Trek fan. It's one of the few times I've actually wanted to tell someone to "Get a Life!"

OTOH, my wife has worked security at conventions. I've played host for guests at cons (including PAD once many, many moons ago). Mostly, the con-goers are nice, relaxed and having a good time. I certainly feel safer at cons than I do at the college football games we go to (well, most of the time). People are wacky, but almost never out-of-control.

Bottom line, there's wierdos everywhere: in cons, sports and political parties. Most people just don't take it QUITE so seriously.

As someone who works in Toronto media circles, I can tell you that Rebecca Eckler is rarely taken seriously regardless of what she writes. She's a talentless hack and not even worthy of the National Paste.

Someone fished up a story about Eckler herself. Let's just say it confirms my impression of her from the Hugos article; a narsissic (sp?) snob with no substance, who doesn't care about her work or subjects.

http://www.ryerson.ca/rrj/content/print/2000/spring/2000_spr_eckler.html

For some truly scary fan and convention stories, check out the Harlan Ellison account "Xenogenesis." It's a collection of fan horror stories by numerous sf authors. (It also sorta inspired the PAD essay "Hotel Hell.")

I think fans should have a sense of humor about themselves -- I love the Shatner "Get A Life" sketch and the Arrogant Worms song "Great To Be A Nerd."

re: Joe Gorforth's comments on that article telling chicks to go pick up a geek at a sf convention.

what you talking bout? there are a number of sf geek chicks out there, you just have to find them. they just happen to hide behind nicks like batmansero :P

And in late news, it seems we've tracked down just how Ms. "I can crash any event I want" (yeah, yeah, talk to me once you've done something on the scale of getting 60 or so MIT students into the Harvard-Yale game via disguising them as the Yale band. Amateur. :-)) got in. It appears she managed to attach herself to the nominees as they moved from the reception to the event. However, "security" (not sure if that was an escort, ranger, or usher) spotted her all along. Only because they were hesitant to hassle a pregnant woman in spandex (i.e. it was apparently obvious) did she even make it through the door. Ms. Eckler then neglected to mention that she was then asked by said security twice either about finding the Torcon press office head or seating her in the Press section without a pass, both of which she refused both times.

Simon says: "My guess is that the Nebula and the World Fantasy Award are given a slightly higher regard [than the Hugos]."

You guess incorrectly. Publishers have paid close attention to this stuff, and putting "Hugo winner" on a book will provide a bump in sales. Putting "Nebula winner" or "World Fantasy Award winner" makes no difference that matters.

Also, speaking as a SFWA member, I can assure you that the Hugo comes a lot closer to going to winners based on actual merit than the Nebulas ever will.

---KRAD

Response to Joe Goforth about female SF fans being rare...

You should try the various fanficcer communities (comics, Buffy, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc) - they're usually 70% female. And a lot of them are single, and wishing they could find someone who appreciates their hobbies.

what Rossi said. in the past i was with guys that would put up with my great like of star trek (TOS mostly which i'm told is odd considering i'm a youngin).

now though my guy is not only into trek but also all things PAD, batman (and beyond/of the future), and bruce campbell - i really struck gold here. actually he didn't believe me when i said i was a batman fan - he was like 'a girl that likes batman?!' hehe. downside is i found him in another country and he's still there and i'm back here. thank god for the internet and sometimes cheap airfares :P

My question to PAD is this:

You've expressed a great deal of appreciation for The Daily Show. (I like the show too.) But how do you think this article is *any* different than the way they would have covered the Hugos?

I mean the specifics might change, they wouldn't be able to sneak anybody in with the need for a camera crew to tag along, but the tone would have been the same. Worse, actually, as they would be showing people in costume.

I don't know this person, don't know their column, but the fact is that a reporter and a columnist are not really bound by the same rules. It's the the same line that separates the reporter from the sports reporter. When I was a reporter, I couldn't write a story condemning the mayor under my byline. But if I was the sports guy and I didn't write a column ripping some coach of some sport for some team, I wouldn't be doing my job.

My point is that if this woman is supposed to write a "funny" light column and she brought back a respectful, factual piece on these awards, she wouldn't be doing her job. Her readers would be disappointed that they didn't get their condescending snigger and science fiction fans don't read her column because she has long since established it's not for them.

I'm not really defending this attitude. As I said, I'm a fan of The Daily Show but more than a few times I've been disturbed by the savage way they'll tear into someone often for the simple reason that the person is off-beat and almost always because they're not hip enough to be in on the joke. But the reality is that a columnist often has an obligation to give the people what they expect.

Case in point, that may actually be members-of-this-board-friendly: I bought a book of reviews by Mike Nelson of MST3K fame and I was really looking forward to it because I'm a fan of the show. But as someone who's known for sitting in a theater and mocking movies, Nelson's book mostly, well, mocked movies. Some really deserved it but a lot of them, in my opinion, didn't. After a while, the unrelenting negativism really made reading the book a chore. But what could I expect from the MST3K?

(And BTW, he reviewed the Batman films and, whether you liked or hated the Batman films, it was hard not to disturbed by the review which basically said, "I hate comic book movies so I hated this.")

"But how do you think this article is *any* different than the way they would have covered the Hugos?"

Well, The Daily Show is a comedy program, dedicated to humor (except for the occasional serious guest), while the National Post is (supposedly) a news publication. Covering an awards show for comedy is standard for a comedy show; covering an awards show for comedy is a disservice by a news publication.

BTW, The Daily Show did a funny piece, following a bunch of fans who went to a Renaissance Fair in full STAR TREK garb. Very funny! (My favorite line: "The pretend Klingon battled the mock dragon to a draw, gaining some faux dignity.")

Thank you to James Lynch, for directing people to Harlan Ellison's Xenogenesis, one of the most bone-chilling pieces ever written about the dark side of fandom. When it was reprinted in the first volume of Edgeworks back in '96 I think, I remember reading passages of it aloud to my wife (a veteran of numerous conventions) who sat there in disbelief. For those who haven't read it, the essay is based on letters that Ellison sent to his contemporaries, asking them to relate some of their unfortunate experiences with fan behavior. The result was a torrent of letters from authors, all of whom hastened to point out that 95% of fans were nice, decent people, but go on to say, 'However, there was this one fan who...' My personal favorite was from Terry Carr, who was at a convention in 1963, not long after his first book came out. The wife of a well-known fan came sauntering up and said, 'I've just read your novel; I wanted to introduce myself.' Carr smiled, thinking maybe he'd get a few nice words, and she said, 'What did you write that miserable piece of shit for?' Carr's response: 'I wrote it for seven hundred and fifty dollars,' and walked away.

I would also recommend that fans track down Crusise of the Gods, a delightfully lethal bit of satire, which aired on the BBC several months back. It's about a washed-up actor (played by Rob Brydon) who starred in a 70s SF show called Children of Castor. Now working as a hotel porter, he gets invited on a fan cruise. It's beautifully written and savagely well observed, from the organizer who gets into your personal space, to the fan who writes up dozens of spec scripts for the show and asks the actor to sign them. And then there's the guest who had two lines in the TV show's opening credits, who now milks them for everything they're worth. I'm not doing it justice, but by all means, try and track it down. I think it was just released on DVD in the UK, so it should be coming out here in the States before too long.

Nerds don´t come easy

And if there's a lesson to be learned, it's this: if you see a pregnant Canadian pseudo-journalist with a chip on her shoulder, steer clear. Or better yet, shoot to kill.

While I can understand the sentiment in the first section of this quote, the last bit is simply in poor taste.

This seemed both relevant and amusing... it's a little flowchart called "The Geek Hierarchy" that might explain some of this discussion...

http://www.brunching.com/images/geekchartbig.gif

Doug

**"But how do you think this article is *any* different than the way they would have covered the Hugos?"

Well, The Daily Show is a comedy program, dedicated to humor (except for the occasional serious guest), while the National Post is (supposedly) a news publication. Covering an awards show for comedy is standard for a comedy show; covering an awards show for comedy is a disservice by a news publication.**

Hmmmmmmm....

I don't want to argue - I thought the article was a cheap shot too- but I think think this argument comes dangerously close to the argument used against Jesus Castillo that had everyone here fuming a few weeks ago. It was in a newspaper which is being defined by a pretty narrow parameter so it's being held to a different standard? Sure it's a newspaper which has a news stories and stock quotes... but don't newspapers also print "Doonesbury" and Dave Barry?

BTW, when I was a reporter, I did a story about a couple who were confined to wheelchairs which didn't turn out to be the cheerful, Polyanna-like story where the handicapped teach "us" warm and witty stories about life that the the editor wanted. I refused to change it, so she re-wrote it... and she got even madder when I insisted my name be taken off of it. So unless you're in that news room, be careful where you (Not "you"=Mr. Lynch, you=everybody) toss blame... Although the behavior this woman exhibited according to the people who were there makes that awfully tempting.

The comments about falling asleep during LOTR brought to mind my own experience. It's become a tradition in my family to go and see a movie on the IMAX screen in the West Edmonton Mall every Christmas, and last year, we went to see The Two Towers. I fell asleep during the battle (of Helm's Deep) scene, and it was at least 5, 10 minutes before one of my brothers nudged me awake. Since it was a small portion of the whole thing, I didn't miss much, but it'll be at least until Return of the King comes out before the rest of my family will let me forget it. That said, the article struck me as someone trying to be humorous, but without any real degree of understanding, coming off kind of rude.

Re: Ellison's "Xenogenesis", there wasn't the unanimity of responses that Joe Nazzaro (possibly citing Ellison) suggests. A few years ago, I heard Donald Kingsbury describing his response to Ellison's request. He'd sent back a polite letter apologizing for his inability to contribute, because he had had no bad experiences with fans. On the contrary, they'd always been very kind to him. He cited one case where he'd agreed to be interviewed by a small group of fans. But when they came to his home to do the interview, they found him tired and fretting about a looming deadline on a manuscript that he was behind on. So they told him to get on with his writing, while they cleaned up his house and made sure that he got a couple of good meals.

Sure, fandom has its share of people who are hopelessly asocial. But we've also got many, many people who go out of their way to be pleasant and helpful. I've had many much more unpleasant dealings with people outside fandom than inside. Yeah, Ellison was able to solicit an essay's worth of horror stories about fans from authors. So what? If he'd collected horror stories about non-fans, he'd have been able to fill a bloody D\V\ book.

Joel, in the interest of fairness, I did point out (as did Ellison in his essay) that most of the authors in question predicated their responses by saying that 95% of the fans were nice, decent people. In a previous post, I also mentioned some of the nicer stories that I had experienced myself at conventions. And as I said earlier, the good outweigh the bad, by a wide margin. Just trying to keep the record straight and all that.

Having said that, I did pull Ellison's essay back off the shelf to double-check that my memory was indeed correct. From the number of authors who were asked to share their experiences with fans, about half a dozen (I'll leave their names off) said they had nothing but pleasant relations with their fans and simply had nothing to pass along. Since then, four of the six subsequently admitted to Ellison that they had in fact suffered 'a number of wretched experiences- which they recounted with detail and anger- and they simplydidn't want to cause any trouble.' In case anybody believes I'm quoting out of context, I suggest they dig up the article themselves. As Ellison himself said in the introduction to Edgeworks #1, it may be the most controversial essay he's ever written that deals with the relationship of the reader to the writer.

I'm sorry, I didn't see anything condescending at all about her report. The gist of it seemed to be that fandom has a language and habits all its own, incomprehensible (on purpose) to those who aren't in the know. If you want to talk about "condescending," explain to me why hardcore sf "fen" refer to non-"fen" as "mundanes."

That's not really the question, Elayne. The question is why someone with an obvious already existing contempt for SF would be assigned to cover the Hugos. Furthermore, a print reporter should be held to a different standard than the average fan spouting off.

Let me put it to you this way: If a report was a White Supremacist, was assigned to cover a meeting of the NAACP, and his entire article consisted of nothing but slams against the membership, I tend to think the membership would have grounds for--at the very least--a belief that someone else should have been assigned to the gig.

Or to put it another way: The moment someone can produce coverage of the Oscars written by an SF fan who dismisses the whole thing as a soporific exercise of mundanity, then there might be some basis for comparison.

PAD

"But how do you think this article is *any* different than the way they would have covered the Hugos?"

Because the Daily Show approaches their items in two ways:

You laugh at the correspondents because their questions are so ludicrous, but delivered with mock seriousness that sends up bad news reporting.

You laugh at the interviewees because they're desperately trying to respond seriously to the questions, oblivious to both the absurdity of the reporter and--oftentimes--the absurdity of themselves.

Plus the entire show is dedicated to comedy...as opposed to a newspaper in which contributors should at least be making a semblance of evenhandedness.

The Daily Show doesn't just go around saying, "This is stupid, this is dumb, these people are morons." They don't act in a superior manner; indeed, they're at their funniest when they seem as clueless in their own way as their subjects on in theirs.

In short: The Daily Show has style. This was just a hatchet job.

PAD

I'm not sure it was really a hatchet job (now that I've finally had a chance to catch up over here and read it). Being a hatchet job implies malice on her part.

Frankly, I didn't get the impression that she was bright enough to write that article maliciously. I think she's just a bad writer.

The sense I have is that this was meant to be a winking, tongue-in-cheek article -- given how much self-deprecating humor a lot of fandom uses, maybe she got the impression that's how to communicate with anyone.

So I don't think it was especially malicious (though I haven't followed Tom's link to the article about the reporter). Incompetently done, yes. Having a nightmarish grasp of the facts, yes (especially her glitches in terms of confusing Tom with Spider R.). Worthy of correction, yes. Malicious, no.

Here's hoping that once her kid is born she stays comfortably out of circulation until she picks up a bit more of a clue.

On a different note, I tend to agree somewhat with the people who're uncomfortable with "mundanes" as a fannish term. I think it depends on how it's used (i.e. lightheartedly or with contempt), but it's a term that can cause trouble a little too easily.

I don't know that this is any better, but on those rare occasions I'd use any term at all like that I use "normals." It's usually part of a self-descriptor, i.e. "Lisa and I are both geeks, but we're geeks who can pass safely among normals" [as opposed to the "haven't bathed since the Nixon administration and make Dork Tower's Igor look thoughtful and well socialized" group]. Why is "normals" any better? Because "mundane" carries with it a stigma of "not interesting" -- "normal" doesn't generally provoke that reaction.

And agreed with PAD that there's not a lot of use in activities which shut out future fans. Not only is it somewhat opposed to the sort of forward-thinking stuff we're all allegedly embracing, but for someone in his line of work it's just appallingly bad business sense.

TWL

Why is "normals" any better? Because "mundane" carries with it a stigma of "not interesting" -- "normal" doesn't generally provoke that reaction.

True, but then you're left with the implication that SF fans are "abnormal," since they would presumably be the opposite of the non-SF fans.

PAD

The article makes a good contrast to an article that appeared in the far more sober GLOBE AND MAIL, which criticized the congoers for being too conservative, noting that most of them were well-dressed middle-aged folks, and that there were damn few folks in costume. That article called the con downright sedate, and was, if anything, more disturbing in what it had to say about the changing demographics of fandom.

I've seen both fair and unfair coverage, over the years; at least now, SF gets fair coverage sometimes. But I fondly remember the local paper that, covering a con in Long Island, ignored the presence of Ellison, Simmons, Stan Lee, and many other luminaries, to perform a complete hatchet job on a newbie horror writer with, at that point, one published story*. Sometimes these folks go, already knowing what they intend to write.

The article is complete and insulting garbage, but I somehow don't think letters of protest would make us look any better...ATC

As a journalist I tend to see the good, the bad and the buggly at Conventions.

It's true, you CAN see the obnoxious fan, the stereotypical geek, the proud-to-be-an-outcast and the guy who not only dresses as Tom Baker but actually believes he IS him. Or maybe Michael Sheard if this is a UK event.

Stereotypes don't appear from nowhere and there will always be examples of such fans if you care to look. The reason that TV crews/news reporters fixate on them is that they make good images/copy and because they stand out.....well....HELLO...if they stand out, it's often because most people AREN'T that extreme.

But when I cover a convention for a magazine, I do research. If I'm going to interview someone I (at very least) start with the IMDB or their back-catalogue. I get to know the organisers and if it's a general report on an event, I tend to judge whether it was a success for the ATTENDEES rather than all mankind.

I may be a journalist, but I'm at least 50% fan too. I rolled my eyes when I recently saw a resiliant (but rapidly withering) Borders employee cornered by a guy who wanted to continuously tell her why Commander Riker would never be as good a Captain as Jean-Luc Picard...but I despaired when no-one would take me seriously when I mentioned to a fellow journo that Buffy the Vampire's *The Body* is one of the best televisual examples of grief I could ever remember seeing.

Sci-Fi is a genre. Just as I never got fixated on Melrose Place or Coronation Street, I don't expect or worry that someone doesn't *get* sci-fi.

I'll go to conventions to conduct interviews, meet new people (to interview or just hang out with) and I'll celebrate that whether it be the time-paradoxes of space travel or what the next year of Seventh Heaven will bring.... that it's a wonderful thing when a group of people from diverse backgrounds, outlooks, opinions, countries and ages can get together, have fun and not kill each other

Because that's so much more life-affirming that watching Fox News.

On behalf of real journalists everywhere, let me just say: the Canadian article is an example of bad reviewing, bad sentence structure, bad choice for assigning a reviewer and - the ultimate sin - a *triumph* of someone making an article more about them than their subject.

John

Me:

Why is "normals" any better? Because "mundane" carries with it a stigma of "not interesting" -- "normal" doesn't generally provoke that reaction.

PAD:

True, but then you're left with the implication that SF fans are "abnormal," since they would presumably be the opposite of the non-SF fans.

Perfectly agreed. That's not considered a negative in the groups of people where I'd use the phrase. :-) Basically, it's a gentle reminder that "yep, we know that to some eyes we're weird -- but the reverse applies just as well, so how 'bout we all just live with it?"

For the last two years, I've had my physics students write letters of advice to the next year's students. One of my favorite responses was someone who wrote that I was "willing to talk about anything provided it's a little less than sane." I'd never have used the phrase myself, but I think it summed things up pretty well.

TWL

Tim, you'll probably be amused by this. The first time I ever heard Harlan Ellison speak was at MIT in the early 80s. One line that's stuck in my head all these years was his description of MIT students;

"You people veer dangerously close to sanity...but fortunately, you never quite make it all the way there."

Long time listener, first time caller... ^.^

It should be noted that there are events that take place regularly, at which a number of its fandom puts on strange clothing and wigs, or little clothing and lots of face/bodypaint. They carry signs and use a language even *they* barely understand. Outside of these events, they still eat, sleep, and breathe their hobby, obsessing about it with friends and co-workers (who aren't always so understanding), and with others online (who tend to be a little more so).

But since their obsession is *football*, and not sci-fi (or comic books or anime), this behaviour is deemed normal and socially acceptable, even by most of those who don't bother to understand.

But then, what would society be without double-standards and hypocrisy? ^.^;

Thanks, Tom. I think I've heard the quote before (didn't you have it in your .sig several years back?), but Harlan, as usual, cuts to the heart of the matter.

And amusingly enough, the student who wrote that particular note is now beginning her sophomore year ... yep, you guessed it, AT MIT.

Clearly a good match. :-)

TWL

Normally I let stuff like this roll off my back, but this is my e-mail reply to her:

Ms. Eckler:

(did you know spell check alternatives for your name brought up "Heckler"?)

Read your VERY condescending report on your attendance of the Hugo awards. Nice to see someone out there still thinks it's great fun to make fun of "geeks." Yep, we call each other that. I, without shame, refer to myself as still a "12 year old geek at heart" (I'm 42). But you know what? You really shouldn't refer to us as such because you can only do it with sarcasm, not irony, and thus you don't have the right.

Seriously, we've had to put up with your kind flippant I'm-too-hip-for-this attitude since we first knew we were geeks. And don't mistake this reply for hurt feelings or anger. Not even righteous indignation really, but maybe just a chance to shoot back for once, and I have some free time at the moment -- no doubt, in between viewings of all 7 seasons of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" you're probably thinking.

(No wait, you're too cool and hip to know there was more than one Star Trek show. Sorry.)

Seriously, did you really sleep through "Lord of the Rings"? Or did that just sound too good to pass up writing down? Listen, I could give a flying wojo if you don't like SF or fantasy or any genre of the kind. If a movie about self-absorbed whiners like "The Hours" floats your canoe, fine and dandy. Pat yourself on the back and sleep like a baby over your good taste. But to go along with that impeccable taste, try learning some manners, such as not making fun of people or things you don't understand, or are beyond your comprehension. Imagination is more than a clever put down or smarmy remark.

Good luck with the kid. Hope he or she has a broader mind then you do at your age.

Regards,

Robert Jenson

RE: "Not all journalist speak of us Sci-fi fans so harshly. I once read a msnbc article about dating today and the female writer suggested to her (female) readers that one of the best places to meet a man is at a Sci-fi convention."

Joe ... do you have a copy of this article, or a link to it? I would like to forward it to every female I know.

Jason

Posted by Ocean Doot @ 09/05/2003 02:25 PM ET

--- Sorry, it was just one of those articles that is on the page where you sign into hotmail -- and it was quite a while back ...

[Please forgive. I want to read all of the comments before posting this and make it more relevant to the discussion, but I have to get back to practicing my Japanese penmanship for class. Hey. Does studying Japanese make me a geek? Will she write about the geeks studying East Asian languages next? I'm sure she knows just as much about that.]

. . . . .

I didn't want to tell her that I've snuck into parties at famous rock stars hotel suites and didn't think that sneaking into a sci-fi convention on a Saturday night at the convention centre would be a problem.

Yeah, you’re cool. You’re hip. We should worship the ground you walk on, you stalking groupie.

A lazer eye surgeon should set up shop at one of these events -- they'd make a killing: 75% of those in attendance were wearing glasses

Oh, right. I forgot. It’s an absolute sin amongst the Cool to wear glasses. Unless you’re trying to look like you know how to read, then you have your picture taken for the cover of Premiere wearing a pair of titanium frames with plain glass/plastic lenses to prove you're ready for the Oscar-winning roles. Yeah, that’s cool. Not dorky in the least. Wearing glasses is geeky, not cool, and the donning of glasses has nothing to do with myopia or astigmatism or other eye problems I have trouble spelling but with which I am plagued.

This woman can be considered an adult worthy of publication? This read more like the ramblings of a girl trying to get in with the popular crowd in high school by making fun of the school nerds. I think perhaps she still is trying to get into that "cool" cheerleader/football player crowd. I can’t imagine someone writing like this otherwise.

Please note she felt compelled to mention she wore all black and said she was the most fashionable. Excuse me, chica, but no one wears leggings in public anymore. That is exceedingly 1993. I can pull fashionista with the best of them, and, whoops! she fails the cool-person's fashion test.

Poor woman. Someday she’ll have cool friends who think she’s cool, too.

It should be noted that there are events that take place regularly, at which a number of its fandom puts on strange clothing and wigs, or little clothing and lots of face/bodypaint. They carry signs and use a language even *they* barely understand. Outside of these events, they still eat, sleep, and breathe their hobby, obsessing about it with friends and co-workers (who aren't always so understanding), and with others online (who tend to be a little more so). But since their obsession is *football*, and not sci-fi (or comic books or anime), this behaviour is deemed normal and socially acceptable, even by most of those who don't bother to understand. But then, what would society be without double-standards and hypocrisy?

Man, I still remember when a Philadelphia hotel double booked in Philcon with the Shriners Convention. Putting aside that the hotel endeavored to screw us out of our rooms and programming space at every opportunity, I'll never forget these guys, most of them in their sixties and over, commenting on the "weirdly dressed freaks." This from men wearing red jackets and fezzes.

PAD

A lazer eye surgeon should set up shop at one of these events -- they'd make a killing: 75% of those in attendance were wearing glasses

Yeah, and I'd wager 100% of them could have spelled the word "laser."

PAD

To add a slightly different spin on this, I actually had a couple of good experiences with the press this past week for our local Phoenix convention, CopperCon 23. Reference this article (although I never did mention the geek of fanboy words ...) for the local newspaper coverage: http://www.azcentral.com/ent/calendar/articles/0904coppercon04.html

Then we had the local NBC station do the weather during their two-hour Saturday morning newscast, doing a nice interview with our Artist GoH, David Mattingly (deftly avoiding showing the one piece of art with a naked woman in it). We did arrange for a stormtrooper to talk with too. Unfortunately, there wasn't time to fit Connie Willis in, but she was more than willing to talk with them. I will admit that we did have the weatherman wear an elvish robe during one segment....

Lee Whiteside

CopperCon 23 Chair

Someone said: "Journalists of all stripes are guilty of going into stories with pre-concieved notions that they will not change. I've seen it too often in my own job in museum public relations. If people perceive us as being stodgy, or insensitive, or what have you, that comes with them, no matter what is true. Objective journalism is rare, and moreso when the topic is the least bit esoteric."

There have been plenty of people to speak up in defense of fandom and sf conventions. But I feel compelled to speak up in defense of journalists.

I'm a newspaper reporter. I've been to cons. I've covered cons. I've written humor columns on cons and straight news stories on cons.

I've also covered classic car shows, Persian cat shows, model-train conventions, ceramics shows, the psychic fair, stamp-art seminars, miniature fairs, the bottle-and-jar show, the beer can collectors (not kidding), gun shows... Do I need to go on?

If I ever wrote anything that hostile to my subject, my editor would formally kick my ass.

I can write, "At the psychic fair, they know you're coming." I can't write, "The psychics just make this shit up as they go along - here, have a crystal."

They send me to the local con because I understand what's going on. This year, I'm going as an attendee, so someone else will cover the convention. They won't understand fandom, couldn't spell Sauron (but they could spell "laser." Jesu Christe.) But they will go to the con and ask intelligent questions to find out about the subject matter, because that's what we're trained to do.

Do I know anything about breeding Persian cats? No. Do I care? Not particularly. But if I've got my notebook in hand, it doesn't matter what I think.

That's the attitude of most journalists I know. There are exceptions, like the Canadian journalist. Hell, at last year's convention my photographer complained that he couldn't find anything to shoot.

I looked over his shoulder at the man in full demon makeup and the woman in medieval garb and the guy demonstrating a full-size kitana.

The photographer has yet to live that down in the newsroom.

Having been a SF fan for many, many years, I have found this reporter's attitude to be more prevalent than not. Even among my own family. However, when I see those same family members dressing in their blue and orange colors and wearing Gator jewelry and driving Gator cars and having Gator statuary in their yards. And painting their naked chests blue and orange for game day. I just laugh.

(Gators = U. of Florida sports programs)

A lazer eye surgeon should set up shop at one of these events -- they'd make a killing: 75% of those in attendance were wearing glasses

Yeah, and I'd wager 100% of them could have spelled the word "laser."

PAD

Of course, this could also be an example of deliberate misspelling for effect i.e. 'Bi-Rite Pharmacy', using 'lite' for 'light', 'kewl' for 'cool', ect. It may be possible that in the social circles this reporter normally travels in 'lazer' is the current (for lack of a better word) faddish spelling for 'laser'. This is just a guess on my part, since I am not part of the 'young' (I'm in my mid-thirties), hip, cosmopolatian, rich (I'm none of these, at least by how those terms are normally used) white Canadian (never been to Canada in my life :( )social circles she seems to belong to. Just a thought.

By the way, has anyone read any follow-ups to this article in the National Post? Like, did they ever print a Letter to the Editor about the factual errors the original article contained, or did the reporter ever do a follow-up column about the reader response to that column? Just curious.

Chris

MY first reaction was to think about writing a letter to the editor and or writer of said article but then dismissed that as a waste of time.

Even if she ever saw it, which is doubtful in my mind she wouldn't get it anyway. Doesn't sound like the type who would.

I do think that certain things were said in her article to purposely bait and piss certain kinds of people off...other comments were made out of pure ignorance.

If she went there with THAT attitude, then it's no wonder she was ignored and treated as she was.

it would in my mind be the same if say one of "us" went to an event she held in regard and acted as she did.

to get respect you have to show some.

also, maybe I took this a little too personal but to me I think certain crowds of people using normally derogatory words to describe themselves is ok for them.

maybe it's blowing this out of proportion but people describing themselves as geeks is one thing but when someone who has little or no respect and considers themsefl and outsider uses it, it's not an endearment.

I mean black people can use the n word a lot easier than white people and with less offense.

same goes with most derogatory, inflammatory and insulting words.

being called a geek by anyone else but oneself is not an endearing term to me...it's more than that it's condescending.

but it is what it is and this was overall a hostile fluff piece and nothing more.

All things considered, I wonder why she went at all; she could have written exactly the same article while staying comfortably at home & saving everyone, herself included, all kinds of trouble.

I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $18121. Isn't that crazy!

What do you think of these new cars? Do you think its a good one?