Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:15:47 -0400
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: 2007 Worldcon
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

> kfl at KeithLynch.net 8/22/04 4:39:58 PM >>>
>Ted has a point.  For the past 24 years, every Worldcon
>outside the US
>has been smaller than every Worldcon inside the US.  (Yes,
>even last
>year's Torcon was smaller than *any* US Worldcon during
>that period.)
>
>When we met in Australia, there were more Americans than
>Australians
>present, even though there were fewer than half the usual
>number of
>Americans who attend Worldcons.

Reported to me, a conversation heard in the ladies toilets:

"I've never seen so many people in one place except at a footie game."

>
>On the other hand, the NASFiC argument is unpersuasive.
>Europe has
>an annual convention which is always combined with the
>Worldcon when
>the Worldcon is in Europe.  Similarly with Australia.  So what's
>so
>special about North America having an annual convention
>which is
>combined with the Worldcon when the Worldcon is in North
>America?

Nothing.  Just that it's administered by the World SF Society.  Which
makes it really hard for WSFS to claim to be a "World" organization,
NASFiC being the only NatCon it administers.

>
>I can sympathize with the desire to put "world" in Worldcon.
>And the
>Worldcon has been, not just in Canada and the UK, as Jim
>Kling points
>out, but also in Australia (three times), Germany, and the
>Netherlands.
>
>However, I see little point in voting for a location I probably
>won't
>attend.

& that is a perfectly valid reason to determine who to vote for.

>  Between my financial situation, the exchange rates,
>the
>continuing war on terrorism causing airline travel to be
>unpleasant
>and chancy, my 27-year-ago felony false conviction nominally
>banning
>me from many countries, and the fact that overseas
>Worldcons are
>generally not as well put together as US and Canadian ones,

Well, generally they're not "blessed" with having to put the thing on
that often so the local skills for large conventions of 1500+ people is
rather lacking. It is a rather huge undertaking.

 I
>don't
>plan to vote for or attend any more overseas Worldcons for
>the
>foreseeable future.  I will probably be selling my membership in
>next year's Worldcon.
>
>Also, those same exchange rates which make the UK and
>Japan
>unattractive vacation destinations for non-wealthy Americans,
>make the
>US *more* accessible to foreigners.  At least those who are
>willing
>and able to run the gauntlet of US Immigration.  (Hugo
>nominee Charles
>Stross said he's only attending this year's Worldcon because
>it's
>before certain changes will take effect in how US Immigration
>treats
>British visitors.  After those changes take effect, he plans
>never
>again to darken our door until those changes are rescinded.)
>
>I've decided not to vote in the site selection this year, for the
>first time in 17 years.  Yes, it will make it more expensive for
>me to
>get a membership in the '07 Worldcon if I do decide to attend
>(which
>I'm unlikely to if Japan wins, as it probably will).  But I should
>have more money later.  If I am *still* unemployed in the
>summer of
>'07, I will proabably be homeless, and completely unable to
>attend
>anything I can't walk to and enter for free.

Once upon a time, when Worldcon memberships were, er, much less than
they are now, WSFA use to purchase a few memberships to resell to
financially strapped WSFAns at a later date.  Perhaps something for the
club to think about?

mjw
>