There’s been some debate, online, about the format of both this and next years’ programming, and about the hierarchical nature of the con, and so on. (Here are two thoughtful posts at the opposite ends of that particular spectrum.)

As a Readercon n00b, I don’t have much to add except to say that I’m a youngish* woman without a PhD and yet I very much enjoyed almost all of the panels and talks I saw. I like to see experts jiggle their brains at each other and I also like intimate group conversations. WEIRD, I know, but true.

I did want to provide a capsule description of my own experience with the programming committee, as it seems to have been outside the expected norm.

In which people are nice

When I saw that Hope Mirrlees was going to be Readercon 20’s memorial guest of honor, I wrote to the e-mail address listed on the site for those interested in volunteering (aka inviting themselves) to be on panels. I explained that I was a graduate student with a strong academic interest in Mirrlees, and that I wanted to volunteer for Mirrlees-related programming if the con hadn’t already invited someone to speak from that perspective.**

A few days later, Eric Van sent me a warm, welcoming e-mail and invited me to send in ideas on what I might speak about on panels. I wrote up some stuff, and one huge questionnaire later, I was on the Mirrlees panel and also an “Invention of Fantasy” panel*** that Eric tells me was inspired at least in part by my e-mails about Jane Ellen Harrison and the Folk Revival.

In short, my experience with Eric (and through Eric, the programming committee) was both friendly and encouraging. Given that my academic credentials are all but non-existent, I imagine I’d have had much the same reception if I’d written in as a passionate fan who happened to have done a year of research on Mirrlees and her work, though that is, of course, speculation.

Accessibility / humanity fail

I wish I could end on that positive note, but yesterday I saw another post that makes it perfectly clear that, whatever your position on con programming styles, some Very Bad Shit went down viz at least one person with a disability at the con.

This seems to be less a question of insufficient attention from con leadership than of vile behavior on the part of some attendees. It’s now clear that the con has the potential to be a miserable place for people with disabilities, so I hope those affiliated with the con (as leaders or longtime congoers) will step up and make a point of welcoming and accommodating people with disabilities and chronic illnesses.

* Not quite as young as people tend to think, though — my hair is apparently confusing.

** It may be useful to note that the invitation to volunteer was buried quite deeply within the site—though I make no assumptions about intention vs. accident on that account, and that without the encouragement of Veronica Schanoes, whose seminars have been a highlight of my experience at QC, I might not have written in at all.

*** If you scroll down a bit in this post, you can see a photo of this panel, apparently taken at the very moment I did some kind of meerkat (Thriller?) dance move at Sonya Taaffe.

[Edited to add: This post shouldn’t be taken as a defense of anyone’s behavior during the post-con online kerfluffle. I just want to add another data point.]