Some thoughts about panels
Apr. 13th, 2012 09:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alias_sqbrThere was a panel about possible directions for the programming at Swancon 2013. It was great, but being at 9pm on a Sunday did not encourage my brain to function at full speed, so here's some further thoughts that took a while to percolate.
Something people brought up was that it can be really boring when all the panelists on a panel agree. And I concur, especially when a panel becomes a total squeefest with no space for criticism (as you all may have noticed, I always have something critical to say, even about the things that make me squee)
But I REALLY dislike the idea of actively encouraging debates or loud devil's advocates arguing for arguing's sake. I hate (non humourous) debating, and the whole concept of any issue interesting enough to discuss seriously having only two sides. Conflict causes me massive anxiety and if I was on a panel with someone actively and aggressively trying to prove me wrong I would probably just stop speaking. If people want to have loud aggressive shouty debates then that's fine, different strokes and all that, but I won't be attending or contributing.
Which is not to say that I'm against people playing devil's advocate. I love playing devil's advocate! But I really didn't like the way that this was explicitly equated with being an aggressive arsehole. Having panelists with a variety of opinions is good, but I like people expressing disagreement calmly, rationally, and with an open mind.
I think the default should be that if all the panelists have similar opinions they should try to explore and invite differing points of view from the audience, or their own knowledge of the issue. And not just for disagreement, it annoys me how fans are so happy to present their own limited point of view as All There Is To Know On This Topic. Not sure how you'd encourage this though, or if I've even been very good at doing this myself.
Also! I really, really liked having an actual expert on the "Why does all Animation look the same" panel, and from all accounts the various lecturers brought in as special panelists were great, which makes sense. While I am all for the academic stream, I think having academics with decent communication skills taking part in more layman oriented panels is good too. Specially, consider getting Lindsey Fleay back again, he was great.
Something I suggested to Stephen, and which he was apparently already considering, is some sort of checklist or guide being sent to panelists along with their panel times. Some things that came to mind (not very well explained):
Or am I assuming everyone should run panels like me, and missing some different, equally valid approaches?
(*)Both of these also have a lot to do with which panelists are chosen, of course. Fandom seems pretty comfortable having all white panels on race, all straight panels on sexuality etc. I have high hopes for 2013, but there's a vicious circle involving which voices get prominence which can be hard to combat.
Something people brought up was that it can be really boring when all the panelists on a panel agree. And I concur, especially when a panel becomes a total squeefest with no space for criticism (as you all may have noticed, I always have something critical to say, even about the things that make me squee)
But I REALLY dislike the idea of actively encouraging debates or loud devil's advocates arguing for arguing's sake. I hate (non humourous) debating, and the whole concept of any issue interesting enough to discuss seriously having only two sides. Conflict causes me massive anxiety and if I was on a panel with someone actively and aggressively trying to prove me wrong I would probably just stop speaking. If people want to have loud aggressive shouty debates then that's fine, different strokes and all that, but I won't be attending or contributing.
Which is not to say that I'm against people playing devil's advocate. I love playing devil's advocate! But I really didn't like the way that this was explicitly equated with being an aggressive arsehole. Having panelists with a variety of opinions is good, but I like people expressing disagreement calmly, rationally, and with an open mind.
I think the default should be that if all the panelists have similar opinions they should try to explore and invite differing points of view from the audience, or their own knowledge of the issue. And not just for disagreement, it annoys me how fans are so happy to present their own limited point of view as All There Is To Know On This Topic. Not sure how you'd encourage this though, or if I've even been very good at doing this myself.
Also! I really, really liked having an actual expert on the "Why does all Animation look the same" panel, and from all accounts the various lecturers brought in as special panelists were great, which makes sense. While I am all for the academic stream, I think having academics with decent communication skills taking part in more layman oriented panels is good too. Specially, consider getting Lindsey Fleay back again, he was great.
Something I suggested to Stephen, and which he was apparently already considering, is some sort of checklist or guide being sent to panelists along with their panel times. Some things that came to mind (not very well explained):
- Aim to finish within 55 minutes so that there is five minutes free for panelist changeover
- If you're doing a panel on writing a group that you're not a part of (eg women, POC etc), assume that some of the people in your audience, or even your panel, are a part of that group. Don't act as if their experiences are an unknown to EVERYONE just because they are to you.(*)
- Leave some time for questions
- Consider and allow for multiple points of view, if a relevant POV is unrepresented between the panelists try and incorporate it into your discussion anyway.(*)
- If your panel uses AV, if it's at all possible arrive early and test it out.
- Be prepared! You don't have to have a full presentation written or anything, but do some basic research and at least think about some discussion points ahead of time, and establish what sort of panel you're running with your fellow panelists.
Or am I assuming everyone should run panels like me, and missing some different, equally valid approaches?
(*)Both of these also have a lot to do with which panelists are chosen, of course. Fandom seems pretty comfortable having all white panels on race, all straight panels on sexuality etc. I have high hopes for 2013, but there's a vicious circle involving which voices get prominence which can be hard to combat.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-13 06:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-13 07:48 am (UTC)But also agree that everyone on the panel being in uncritical agreement and/or squashing dissent is Not Good.
It's also rather important to get panellists who actually want to discuss the topic!
I remember being very disappointed in a particular panel at WorldCon which sounded from the description that it would be an interesting and in-depth analysis of Season 5 of Doctor Who... and it was full of people who didn't actually like that season at all that much, and a particularly dominant and loud person who was a one-eyed Rose fan, which didn't help.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-14 11:48 am (UTC)Yes!
Panels where everyone dislikes the topic at hand are rarer but more unpleasant than uncritical squeefests. I don't think I made that panel but it definitely sounds like a situation where it would be good for panelists to remember that their POV is not the only POV.