Furry Writers' Guild Forum

Starting out as a Writing Panelist

General Writing Discussion
#1

Good afternoon, everyone!

With the convention season starting, it seems a lot of folks are going out and becoming panelists or holding their own writing tracks. One of the best ways to learn something, academia seems to pound folks with, is to teach what you know from your experiences to others and help them gain the information they need if you have the skills to do so. Not only that, but holding panels is a great way to bring fellow authors and growing writers into a community that not many folks get to be a part of. Writing is solitary on its own, so why not have fun and talk about it?

That brings up the biggest question, however, which is when is the best time to start talking about writing and holding your own panels at conventions. Whether it’s several stories published, a couple of books, or much more than that, what do you folks find is the best marker for one to know when they have the experience to speak and help others at panels?

#2

In my experience, the bar of entry is “who volunteers”, not who’s “qualified”. There have been panelists who have never been published outside of posting stories online. And until the last couple of years, there were not a lot of published authors in the fandom. I don’t necessarily see putting an unpublished author on a panel as a failure of the track.

To me, the barest I would expect a panelist is:

[ul][li]Has finished several short stories, or finished a novel, of which has been critiqued by others and edited[/li]
[li]Has been to at least 10 writing panels in the past[/li]
[li]Understands the basics of writing - the importance of revision and language, the elements of a story, etc etc.[/li]
[li]Relating to the topic at hand, the person has read quite a number of stories associated with the panel’s topic, AND done some research on writing about the panel’s topic (books about writing in the topic, author blogs, etc)[/li]
[li]The person should be both willing to talk in front of a group of people (and I mean Talk, not be rather stingy with their words and opinions) and be willing to share the floor with others, rather than monopolize it. Basically they need a personality that fits the panelist role.[/li][/ul]

Basically the person should not be ignorant of the things they are to talk about, even if they have less experience in the matter. I mean, for instance, an English teacher who has never written a novel can still talk on the structure of a novel, or making characters, because they are pulling from their experience as both a reader and their education on the topic.

#3

Amen! Most small cons don’t have the luxury of “qualified” panelists, though that’s changing for the better in recent years. You takes whats you can gets.

#4

Or you don’t.

Fact is, if you can’t get anyone qualified, you don’t have to run any writing panels at all.
Same goes for any panels actually.

#5

I think I’ll agree with Voice on this one. While I’d encourage a Writer Meet to take place if there are no qualified individuals, I wouldn’t want those who don’t have much experience trying to teach incorrigible newcombers things that are incorrect.

#6

This assumes that any panelist who has experience won’t be teaching things that are correct.

#7

This was piggy-backing off Voice’s comment, that if you aren’t qualified (don’t have the experience and knowledge) then you shouldn’t be running a panel. Tis why the comment was quoted =p

#8

I know you are responding to what Voice said. And I am replying to what you said to him. .

And I’m saying experience isn’t armor against being incorrect. The assumption here Is if you’ve been published before then you’re qualified - but succeeding at selling a story doesn’t mean anything you say will be right. An author can have a completely backwards attitude about things - imagine if I understated the importance of characters.

#9

It doesn’t mean everything they say will be right*, but if their work has been published, they’re presumably writing well enough that other people (whether editors or readers) are paying them for it, so if nothing else, the odds are better that they at least know the basics of what they’re doing.

As far as the craft-type panels go, I guess some leeway on the publication issue is fine – assuming there really aren’t any published authors available – as long as there’s some clear experience on the writing side. As a writer, given a choice between listening to an English teacher who’s never written a novel and someone with a high school diploma who’s written at least one, I’d give more weight to the latter (especially if they’d also sold that novel to a publisher). Knowing how to do a thing in theory doesn’t always match the experience of actually doing it.

*(whatever “right” really means in this sort of situation anyway, given how subjective so much writing advice can be)

#10

Here’s how it happens…

In my part of the country-- the South-- furry writers are as scarce as hen’s teeth. So are furry readers, actually. Even well-known and established writers draw crowds of three and four at the region’s typically small cons. Then the upper staff people go to places like Rain Furrest and encounter a thriving, well-attended writing track. They smile and say, “We should do this at our con!”

Next, very often, they’d come to see me. Or at least they used to. After all, there’s hardly anyone else in the area who both writes and attends these small cons.

Typically I’d put together a year of programming for them, featuring the only qualified and willing-to-attend panelist I can find-- me. Three to five people would attend every panel. Then I’d go back and do it again the next year, and attendance-- as to be expected-- would fall to two to three because they’d seen my presentations the year before.

It’s at this point that that the pressure would come down to “find other panelists”. There used to be another marginally qualified guy who attended these same regional cons-- I’ve been pressured at least five times to “share” the panel-giving duties with him. He hates giving panels, however, and the second time I asked him it seriously damaged our friendship.

Since there really are few or no other qualified panelists available and the upper con leadership, unfamiliar with the situation on the ground, continues to harbor unrealistic expectations, well… For a time I developed a reputation of being “egotistical” because I ran all the panels myself. When I realized this was happening I pretty much pulled back and quit running writing tracks at all-- it’s something I’ll do these days as a favor for a friend, but all the joy has gone from the effort. As a result, for the past few years at the mostly small cons in my part of the country–I’m not talking FWA and FF here; these are exceptions-- people are routinely selected to run writing events who have few if any qualifications that I can perceive, and panelists chosen who may have a lot of followers on FurAffinity but also don’t understand basic technique or sometimes even grammar.

Interestingly, they get the same two-four attendees regardless. And one of them will quite often be me, supporting the art as best I can regardless.

At any rate, I don’t find this particularly troubling because the situation is pretty much analogous to the history of the fandom as a whole. I can recall encountering very poorly qualified writing panelists-- or no writing track at all-- at various cons throughout the early years all over the country, simply because the fandom as a whole back then-- like the South now-- lacked the resources to do better. Hopefully time will make things better and the unqualified panelists will eventually master their art.

In fact, come to think of it, I was maybe once one of those unqualified panelists myself…

#11

It sounds like the real problem in that kind of situation is the unrealistic expectations of the con leadership, more than anything else. If none of the writing panels are routinely doing better than 3-5 attendees, that’s space that should probably be given to something else. As much as I hate seeing cons with no writing track, it seems better to have none at all than waste people’s time with one poorly run or so sparsely attended (assuming, of course, that panel attendance is significantly better in the other tracks).

So… I’m kind of with Voice too. All in all, might be the lesser of two evils for the con staff to just say “we couldn’t find enough qualified writers in our area to support a full track” than be forced to go with people who don’t have a clue, just because they’re the only ones available.

#12

The Northeast seems to be pretty much the same way.

#13

I think Australia has two published furry authors, one of which doesn’t even attend any of the local cons.
At least readers are more common than this.

#14

On the very day that typical upper con leadership is first made up mostly of knowledgeable and enthusiastic readers of furry fiction, I bet that sort of wise decision-makng will begin to happen. (I’ve made precisely the same argument myself many times.) Until then, however, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Fortunately, as I said above, I don’t see it as exactly the end of the world. Rather, I consider it an inevitable developmental stage that at least in some parts of the world we’re finally and at last moving beyond. Yay!

#15

There was a situation at a local small con up here in Alberta.

The first year the con had occurred, they brought in a professional editor for a magazine to run the writing track.
She hasn’t written anything, nor has she published anything. But she HAS done editing for a magazine, which is her primary source of income.
The con staff, one of which is her friend, shoehorns her into a few writing panels.
Thankfully, in the 101 panel, she makes them write for the first hour, and then edits their work in front of them for the second half.
This is a case of a smart panelist going with their strengths rather than trying to fudge their way through a panel they have no idea how to run.
This couldn’t be said for the other writing panels they placed her on, sadly.
That is where I say they just shouldn’t have put her on a panel, or she should have just said no.

Another experience I have had was at RF one year where two experienced writers and one unpublished writer were on the same panel. The unpublished writer (from what we learned during the panel) was stuck in the novel writing loop where they never finish. Even though myself and the other published writer tried to include them, there was very little they could contribute due to lack of experience. Realistically, this person shouldn’t have been on a panel and recognized as much. This is not to say that a person who is a writer but unpublished can’t be on a panel and do well. I used Ocean as a back up when Ianus couldn’t make a panel a couple years ago at RF and he did just fine because I knew he had a large knowledge base of the topic.

I guess it comes down to, if you are asked to do a panel you don’t know a lot about, there is nothing wrong in saying no.

#16

o.o I feel like I broke so many rules being apart of the panels for 2014’s RF. At the time, the only published piece I had was in FH, a non-for-profit that was being published that year. Yet the year before, when I was still struggling to get out of my shell in my first furry convention ever, Bliz and Hunter had invited me to their room on the last day of con, and we were able to talk quite a bit. I’d like to think they got a good idea of my skills and where they lacked, which is why they were willing to have me as a third on some of the panels. I did my best to sign up for ones I felt I could contribute to and stayed as far away from anything with the word “Publishing” as possible X3 Publishing still came up in, well, about three of the four panels I was on, but I let the experts speak and contributed where I could.

If there’s one thing I learned, it’s that no matter what writing panel it is, no matter how much you know of that particular subject, chances are other things are going to come up that you’re ~not~ well-versed in, and that’s okay as long as you don’t try to bs your way through it. Even in SWS, I noticed some folks going quiet when we were talking about commissioned work, while I went quiet when the conversation swung into publishing. It felt like a balanced give-take there, but that could just have been an illusion created by sleep deprivation and booze X3 Either way, I feel like I did fairly decently in the things I was able to talk on though, and I would like to think at least a few folks learned some things from me. I just need to learn to tone down my excitement at times >.<

Anyway, I guess my point is that while qualifiers are a great thing that should be kept in mind, there should be an open mind for why this person isn’t published yet or if that person might have a totally different view on things that could make a panel more interesting and informative.

#17

I co-founded a writing podcast and was a writing panelist at three cons before my first published story hit print. As well I think I fail on almost everyone one of Rechan’s qualifications. Through a lot of this, the podcast and being on panels, I would comment to my peers how I don’t feel qualified to be spouting advice, but they reminded me that they believed in my skills and I had edited published works as well.

With most arts, there’s very little (arguably none) that can be said about things you must or never do. There’s exceptions to just about every rule and I’ve seen/discussed/debated people on these exceptions. Look at the small discussion on Cormac McCarthy in the editing thread. He doesn’t use quotation marks. Yet I’m sure most publishers are going to make you put in quotation marks so I would suggest using such punctuation to new writers. The important thing to note is there are a lot of ideas and different paths to producing the work you want. As a panelist, I feel you shouldn’t be telling people DO THIS, DON’T DO THAT. Instead you should share with them what you do, what works for you, and what you’ve seen work for others. “I interview my characters to flesh them out” “I’m not much of a outline writer but my friend who is draws out his arcing plot to make sure he’s got it in line”

The other thing I would suggest, and this is sadly a large one, is someone who can facilitate and bring about a discussion. Each panelist can just sit there and say what method they use or what process they like best and then answer questions, but this is just a baseline. When you can start up discussion among the other panelists as well as the audience, everyone feels more involved, the topics that come out are more organic and interesting, and it feels a lot less like a boring lecture. You want someone who can talk, speak well in front of people, and encourage discussions as well as know when it’s safe to go off track or when things should be brought back to the topic at hand.

#18

I really, really want to hug you for this one >.< I think that’s one of the things that bothered me the most attending some of the panels at RF, is when some writers say it ~must~ be this way or it ~must~ be that way. I’ve even seen a couple of authors get into arguments ON THE PANEL about how it ~must~ or ~must not~ be a certain way (RF 2013 anyone?). The moment you try to set something in stone is the moment you’re either going to turn people away from the panel, find an exception, or quite possibly turn them away from something they might wind up doing perfectly well and works best for them.