Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Announcements of Future Mythcons

Expand Messages
  • lynnmaudlin
    ... that size in the ... is the way ... at least ... Wendell, you react as if it s our idea to have small Mythcons - no, we re trying to be realistic with
    Message 1 of 46 , Jun 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, WendellWag@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > In a message dated 5/31/2007 6:14:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      > lynnmaudlin@... writes:
      >
      > Lately Mythcons run around 100 members
      > (85-120, by and large, with an exceptional Mythcon nearly 200 persons,
      > so we're small).
      >
      >
      >
      > This is something else that I think is a poor idea. Mythcons should
      > regularly be 200 to 250 people. (And, yes, some of them have been
      that size in the
      > past.) If you want the Mythopoeic Society to die when we do, this
      is the way
      > to do it. We should not have a conference where the average age is
      at least
      > 50. We need to recruit newer and younger members. The conference
      > committees should be spending more time and money for publicity.
      >
      > Wendell Wagner


      Wendell, you react as if it's our "idea" to have small Mythcons - no,
      we're trying to be realistic with con committees about the kind of
      numbers that we've been having lately; otherwise we set them up to
      expect higher numbers and rely on a high "break-even" attendance and
      then wind up losing money (no, no, don't do that!). Therefore a
      realistic figure is a better way to go. IF they know they've got a
      certain sized audience which is going to join up, they can increase
      their target figures - but that should be done by each con committee,
      looking realistically at the area, the fannish activity level, the
      scholastic participation, etc.

      It's easy to say "should" to other people's concomms and easy to tell
      them what to do with their money (and then we complain bitterly
      because the conference registration was so expensive--)...

      Yes, it's a good idea - but it doesn't always pan out. The MythSoc is
      not an easy sell: people are often intimidated by the very word
      "mythopoeic" and dismiss it as hyper-intellectual and/or stuffy. I've
      know concomms that did *a lot* of advertising to students, etc., and
      got virtually no action in return.

      Our larger Mythcons have had quite large guests (remember Christopher
      Tolkien? Now *that* was a draw!)...

      How did you do in Washington? Did you succeed in getting many young
      folks? How did you market Mythcon 25 to them?

      And, of course, today such marketing might be done online - invade the
      blogosphere and MySpace...

      -- Lynn --
    • Cole C Matson
      My thanks to everyone for their welcoming replies. I m consolidating my responses into one post so as not to clog up your mailboxes. Wendell: I m not sure my
      Message 46 of 46 , Jun 11, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        My thanks to everyone for their welcoming replies. I'm consolidating my responses into one post so as not to clog up your mailboxes. Wendell: I'm not sure my class paper would be of high enough quality to stand alongside other Mythcon presenters, but I'll take a look at it and see if I can get it up to snuff for submission. Thank you very much for the Knossos schedule. Emerdavid: Of course pun intended. Re: the MySpace page: The reason I didn't volunteer to create one was because of exactly the reasons David Bratman mentioned. I've only been a member a few months; if a page were to be created, it should be created by someone in an official capacity. And I wholeheartedly agree with David when he said, "We don't have to reinvent the Society to some low media denominator." If that happened for the sake of attracting members, much of the value of the Society would be lost. The trick is not to change it so that more people want to join, but to let more people know about it so that those people (like me) who would say, "Wow, such a thing EXISTS!?" will find what they've already been searching for. (Btw, I found out about the Soc. through Google - I was searching either for Lord of the Rings sites, or for sites about the Inklings, if I remember correctly.) Ellen: I am also on LiveJournal. I know there are several Tolkien/Lewis communities, some of which actually have good discussion. (On the "tolkien" community, someone just tried to post their "fanpics" of male LOTR characters engaging in romantic relationships with each other, and links to their club for the encouragement of the same. Several other members of the community gently but firmly suggested that, while that person had the right to post whatever he/she wanted, those drawings might not be quite appropriate for a community of people who were serious about discussing, among other topics, the moral and spiritual themes of the Middle-Earth Legendarium - oh, and they also weren't very respectful of the author's own beliefs. [Kind of like the LOTR tarot deck I saw sold at the Renn Faire where I work. The owner didn't care. It made me sad.] I was surprised to find on LJ something more than just rabid movie fans.) Lynn: Thank you for the tip about the "Starving Scholars" fund! Don't worry, I will be sticking around, and will try to make it to the next Mythcon (or Knossos meeting) I can. Cole


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.