convention pannel help

[the_faery_queen]

I've signed myself up to do a pannel at a bristol convention end of september and im wondering if anyone has any tips or can tell me what it would be like?
and second, if anyone has any points i can make on the subject, it's differences between fantasy and sci fi literature

and i don't really know much about sci fi at all (i agreed to it cos they were desperate for pannelists and it's good for promotion for me) i have read a few sci fi books, but not that many, so just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the matter that i could use, on places i could go to research and so on

 

[Saeltari]

You have the sci-fi basics in the popular view if you have watched Star Trek or Star Wars. Otherwise take a look at Gregory Benford and perhaps take a read on wiki about sci-fi, that would probably give you the best starting place. Also if you have an interest or are knowledgable in physics, computers or other science then you can also talk about that and discuss where the future might take us. That is pretty much what a lot of sci fi does. Not all but most extrapolate from now and our science knowledge of now to project stories of futures. I would also take a look at cosmology. You might take a gander at Michio Kaku's books as he is a good science writer.
-> Welcome to Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku .

-> Science fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as conventions go, the only advice I can give you is if there are going to be children there, watch your ankles.

Oh, and I am not really a sci fi person either, I lean more towards fantasy myself but hope this gives you some ideas.

 

[j d worthington]

Um, it's a lot more complex than that, Saeltari... which is why there is still, after more than half-a-century, debate on what is sf and what is fantasy. In part this is because the two often converge or are interchangeable, depending on the period or writers you're talking about. And, as sf largely emerged from within the broader realm of fantasy (or, if you can't get past the heroic/epic/sword-and-sorcery image of fantasy, fantastic fiction), for a very long time it was considered simply as a subset of that.

But there are different types of sf, as well, including cyberpunk, steampunk, the New Wave, Campbellian and pre-Campbellian sf, science fantasy of different stripes, space opera, soft and hard sf.... Not meaning to make your task more difficult, F-Q, but I'd suggest doing some research into the different types of sf and look at how they differ from their analogs (or opposites, as the case may be) in fantasy.

Perhaps the closest one can come to a relatively brief definition of the difference is that science fiction in the main tends toward more rationalistic and naturalistic views of the world and the universe, while fantasy tends (again, in the main) toward more mystical, nonrational, and magical views of the same. Beyond that (and, as noted, even this isn't set in stone, I think) all bets are off, and you can find an enormous number of things which one person -- even a knowledgeable critic of the sff field(s) -- would define as fantasy where another would define it as sf.....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

If you're actually preparing yourself for the panel you'll be ahead of most of the authors I've done panels with in the US. I don't know how it is in the UK.

Here's what I do:

If the subject requires research on my part I do that. I make notes of the points I particularly would like to cover, along with writing down any specific remarks that occur to me.

Then, when the day of the panel actually arrives and the panel begins, I listen to what the other panelists have to say and respond to their remarks, but if the conversation gives me a chance to make some of the points I've outlined I take it. Often, panelists are invited to (briefly) state some of their thoughts on the subject when they introduce themselves, so that's one place to do it. And if, as there frequently is, a lull in the conversation (perhaps several, if the other panelists have been dragooned into doing the panel and haven't done any preparation), I'll throw out one of my ideas for the others to comment on.

Usually, however the conversation goes and whoever is leading it, sooner or later somebody provides a natural opening or two for one of my prepared remarks -- which I naturally leap on. This allows me to say with a completely unstudied air something I've actually been thinking about for days or weeks.

Sometimes I get lucky and all of the other panelists say wonderfully interesting things and I'm too busy responding to those to say any of the things I thought I would say. Those are invariably great panels, and I don't at all regret throwing out my notes. But it's good to have them in case I need them.

 

[Ian Whates]

Teresa's offering good advice.

The thing to remember is that there are three or four other people on the panel with you, and the conversation will be directed/overseen by the moderator, so you're unlikely to have to say much unless you genuinely have something to contribute.

Most conventions operate a 'green room' policy, where panellist's are asked to arrive ten minutes early in order to meet their fellow panellists and get an idea of what the moderator is likely to be asking. Even if not, you'll probably bump into one or more of them around the convention and have a chance to chat to them.

Other than that, as Teresa suggests, do a little research in advance on the subject. No need to do a lot, just enough to ensure you have something to say on the day. Panels are really nothing to worry about and, believe it or not, can be a lot of fun!

Good luck, and enjoy yourself.

 

[Interference]

Have several good anecdotes about famous SF writers and, when in difficulty, steer every question to them as your answers. If you write SF you can blag the rest, anyway.

 

[chrispenycate]

It is not that easy to make a clear boundary between the two. As an essential SF type, technical education, much better understanding of machines and physical laws than of human beings, most of what I've posted in critiques has been fantasy; because I get more comments on it. But fantasy written by an SF mind.

There have been lots of crossover concepts; most of the archetypal myths have been retold in SF format, and a lot of aliens are fairly obviously elves, or kobolds, or several other pre-technological races. At the same time astrophysics is adopted by Eddings, time travel and parallel dimensions (don't be silly. A dimension is, by definition orthogonal; if it were parallel you could define it by reference to one or more of the recognised directions. Parallel planes separated in a supplementary dimension, perhaps?), wormholes, technology destroying the environment and ignorant peasants with flaming torches and pitchforks saving the world.

We are not helped by the fact that a couple of things that try and pass themselves off as science fiction are, in fact, fantasy with robots. The Star Wars multiplicaticity is probably the highest profile example, but there are others.

And, to a large extent SF has disposed of the characters who are so shallow you can read a newspaper through them (or the novel, for that matter) and the star drive has more personality than the hero. And, accept it, fantasy has had some pretty thin characters, too, so you can't use the argument that 'fantasy concentrates on characterisation, SF on technology' Nor 'fantasy is historical, and essentially aristocratic (the heroic peasant usually turns out to be at least a bye-blow of a noble of some stripe) while SF concentrates on a more democratic or meritocratic selection of personnel'


So, a discussion on the differences between the two comes down to competing opinions, always a good recipe for a panel.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Keep in mind, however, that moderators differ on how they approach the job. Some will actually guide the conversation, some step in only as necessary, and others don't have any idea why they were appointed as moderators and have little to say after they ask everyone to introduce themselves. A good moderator will make sure everyone gets a chance to speak, and feed the panel enough good questions to fill up the time. They'll give tongue-tied inexperienced panelists a boost as necessary. (So let the moderator know if you're new to all this.) A bad one may dominate the conversation to the exclusion of everyone else. It's frustrating when that happens, but under those circumstances all you have to do is sit there and try to look pleasant. And fortunately, those kinds of moderators are very rare (probably because they don't get picked to moderate after the first time).

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There are two things I forgot to add.

1) You've got a good topic and if you look you'll find many threads here (and on any other SFF forums you're on) that address just that question. They'll provide you with plenty of ideas.

2) Is this a big convention or a small one, and do you know if the other panelists are writers, long-time fans, or just random friends of the people organizing the convention?

 

[Ice fyre]

Hello there

Just wanted to give you a wee thought, if your looking for a bluring between the lines of Fantasy and Sci-Fi I reccomend DUNE. While having all the trappings of a sci-fi book it has many elements of a fantasy story.

Makes me think of something Arthur C Clarke said along the lines of once technology gets so far ahead it will seem like magic. i dont remmber the quote but I'm sure someone will remmber it!

 

[Pyan]

Yes, that's Clarke's Third Law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Another example of blurring the boundaries is the Pern series by Anne McCaffrey - it has some of the trappings of fantasy (dragons, a faux mediæval setting), but is really SF (genetics, lost scientific knowledge)

 

[dask]

A good place to begin would be reading what Clute/Nicholls say about sf and fantasy in their Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and see if anything clicks into place about what you've read or heard about. Simplistic I know but it's just a suggestion.

 

[Hypnos164]

I have a recollection of a description of SF as essentially being about transformation ... so that a thing (new technology, alien contact, big dumb object etc.) occurs and the world changes as a result.

This was used to distinguish between SF and techno-thrillers, where a similar thing may occur but at the end the status quo is resumed and the world remains "as is".

Clearly this doesn't apply to all genres of modern SF - most space opera doesn't really have a significant transformative element (the Culture doesn't, Reynolds stuff does...)

Might be something to think about as a starting point?