From: <samlubell at verizon.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Whither Capclave? was Re: PhilCon et al?
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:35:33 -0600
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

> From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at press.jhu.edu>
> Date: 2004/11/17 Wed AM 09:17:43 CST
> To: <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
> "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> Gaming and filking are both part of the larger sf
>>> community, and since we do want to have more than one
>>> track, I think those are the logical areas in which to
>>> expand.
>
>> More to the point, *why* do "we want to have more than
>>one track"? What
>> purpose does it serve -- besides attracting
>>gamers/filkers/whomever?

I think there are many fans whose interests encompass multiple areas of fandom.  Most of us who read science fiction also like to watch sf tv and movies.  A number of people who go to cons primarily to socialize find games a good excuse to sit with a group of friends and talk.  And others like to sit in a filksinging circle late at night when all the other parts of the convention are closed.

>To take their money & put them in some distant function space?

Frankly, gaming and filking combined probably take up less space and less effort -- and bring in more members -- than the art show.

>>How
>> does it aid in the development of a LitCon?

>Well, the idea of taking money from filkers & gamers to support a
>lit con has certain degree of amusement in it (also desperation).

Readercon does manage to do without anything other than literary tracks.  But it's in New England where they can get away with that sort of thing.

>The first cons I went to in the late 60s filkers were fans, like >Joe Haldeman, who brought their guitars and sang. Sometimes in a >room party, sometimes in stairwells (ah, those acoustics). It was >dreadfully unorganized, as compared to today.

Except at worldcons (and sometimes even then) filking generally is unorganized.  Indeed, the most common configeration is even called chaos.
>> So to answer the question; we want to amuse people who
>>are interested in SF and games, SF and singing, SF and
>>films; SF and art. We need more people.

>Yes, we need more folks to attend Capclave. If for no other reason >it cost money to get function space at a hotel.

>The Big Question, to my mind, is: Are there enough folks "out
>there" who are interested in the written aspects of SF to support
>Capclave?

I don't think we're talking about a literary ONLY con (like Readercon) but a convention that is primarily literary with some side stuff going on (gaming in the back, art show to the side, movies and filking at night) like the first couple of Capclaves.

>But, if we should stay at the Tysons Marriot, there is currently
>not enough affordable space to expand the con. (I'd like to be
>proved wrong when Lee wraps up her Capclave and we see the
>financial report.) Multitracks are wonderful, but only if you can
>afford the space.

If we only ran films at night, we could use the room that was the film room for a second track of programming.