Panel Discussions

A few convention panel reports I wanted to respond to…

First, of all the mentions of the blogging panel I was part of at the New York convention, I think Peter Sanderson does the best job of capturing some of the key points (even if he brings them up mostly just to say “this is why what I do isn’t blogging”). Scroll down to the Friday 2:30 PM label to see it. I’d be curious to hear further discussion of the ideas covered, if anyone’s interested.

David Brothers covered the NY Black Panel. I’m glad he explained more about what Blokhedz was — I was only able to see part of the panel, and I was intrigued by their animation sample, but the creators never mentioned who was publishing the book or at which booth to find them, so I never saw them on the show floor and I didn’t know where to look for them. (I’m still not sure about any of this — their website links to a wrong or stolen URL for selling their work, and I didn’t find mention of the publisher name there.)

Katherine Keller asked the GirlWonder question at Wonder Con: when is Spoiler getting a memorial Robin case, like the dead boy Robins have? Unsurprisingly, Dan DiDio provided unconvincing reasons they won’t be remedying this discrepancy.

Similar Posts: Convention News § More on Black Panel Sexism § Congrats, Sequential Tart! § Ed Went to the Otakon Manhwa Panel § Hey! I’m on a Heroes Panel!


4 Responses to “Panel Discussions”

  1. david brothers Says:

    I’m going to have a more full review of Blokhedz the book up tomorrow. I’ll be sure and drop the link here for you.

    It’s essentially a classic story, be it fairy tale or otherwise, viewed through a new(ish) filter.

  2. Allan Says:

    I thought Sanderson made some good points, though there is a faint element in there of being “too posh to blog.” I take his point about Comics in Context being akin to a column, but, really, it’s on the WEB, it’s a regularly updated LOG of his thoughts — Pete: it’s a blog…

    The stuff about the importance of contextualising if you want to attract a larger, more diverse audience was interesting, and something I’d not really considered. I tend to write for people who I assume are like me; who love those wacky old comics. Would a greater element of historical fact make more people fall in love with comics about cowboys fighting giant gorillas? I dunno, but it’s certainly worth considering.

  3. Johanna Says:

    Thanks, David. I think it ties into the point about context — you can’t assume that everyone at a panel you’re on knows about you and your work already. I was surprised they didn’t mention the basics, but I know that kind of thing is easy to overlook when you’re debuting something cool.

    Allan: what context makes sense for you depends on your audience. For example: I just read a piece of TV writing about Heroes that kept referencing one of the characters as HRG. No explanation was given, so it seemed clear to me that they were talking only to existing fans who shared a common shorthand; I was excluded because I didn’t already watch the show and read other fan commentary. If that wasn’t their intent, a quick sentence or even a parenthetical explaining the reference would have been more inclusive.

  4. Peter Sanderson Says:

    I was not bringing up the “key points” “mostly just to say ‘this is why what I do isn’t blogging.’” My goal was first and foremost to report on the panel. Secondarily,
    since my column is, as Allan says, a record of my thoughts, it wanted to explore whether, as I wrote, “much of what the panelists said about comics blogs could also apply to my online column.” I concluded that our philosophies about writing online are very much alike.
    Nor do I think I’m “too posh” to blog. I admire people who do intelligent, entertaining blogging every day and wish I had the time to do so as well.
    As for whether or not my column is a blog, if you think it is, that’s fine with me. Google thinks so, too. Other people (like Heidi MacDonald) have told me that it’s not a blog, because of its weekly frequency and the length of each installment. And I do think that my column, a weekly critical essay, is distinctly different in from (but not better or worse than) what the four panelists do in their daily blogs.
    I am sorry to anyone who thinks I dislike blogs, but you are reading something into what I wrote that I did not intend. If I’m a blogger, I’m pleased to be considered one.

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to comment feed.




Categories:

Pages:



Meta:

Most Recent Posts: