Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:28:23 -0400
From: Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Ravencon ?
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

samlubell at verizon.net wrote:

>  I had a wonderful time at Ravencon.  It was very well-organized, even
>  for an experienced con, for a first time convention the organization
>  was a marvel (okay, the program books were a little late, but we're
>  in no position to comment on that).
>
>  There were three tracks of programming, going late on Friday night,
>  starting at 9 am on Saturday and Sunday (except for Saturday evening
>  where there was one track plus the masquerade).  And the three
>  program rooms were all right next to each other (and across the hall
>  from the dealer's room and the game room).  And the programming was
>  of very high quality with some good ideas worth borrowing (I'll write
>  more on that when I'm home). There were lots of new writers and small
>  press writers who I've not seen before on panels (which is actually a
>  good thing since new people mean new ideas).  Terry Brooks, the GoH,
>  was by far the biggest name.  Aside from Brooks, the biggest name
>  there probably was John Ringo (who was scarily intense when he talked
>  about male-female differences).  Other names people might recognize
>  were Tee Morris, John Wright, Bud Webster, Michael Burstein, CJ
>  Henderson, and Tony Ruggiero.
>
>  In a small hotel and with a first time crew, they put together a con
>  with three tracks of programming (so there's no reason why we
>  shouldn't be able to do the same), a masquerade, a video room, a
>  dealer's room (albeit a small one with only a few book dealers), tiny
>  con suite, game room, and a full size program booklet with a color
>  cover (although stapled).

Why would we *want* more than one track of programming at a convention
no bigger than Capclave?  It's insulting to program participants to set
them up opposite other program participants (whom they might want also
to see).  What's with this bigger = better?  I thought Capclave was
going for *quality*.

--Ted White