Print

Print


On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> "for meta reasons" == "not necessarily interested
> in the things in themselves so much as in the fact
> that other people find them interesting/important"?
>

About right.

E.g. I have zero interest myself in sports (let alone merely watching others
play sports), but I could potentially find a fan's interest interesting.


> I readily believe that you would be honestly,
> non-pruriently interested in hearing about some
> things that I'm disinclined to talk about.   It
> doesn't necessarily make me more inclined
> to talk about them, though -- at least not in
> a venue as public or potentially public as
> an anthology or mailing list.
>

Like I said, this is your choice. I'm just pointing out that those things
may also be the ones that others would find interesting, not just me. (It's
an often true thing, at least.)


> Not necessarily; but perhaps interesting to
> con-runners of various stripes?


Sure, as I said. That's just not the target audience for these books.


> even though a fair number
> of the details of running a major sf convention
> are not relevant to running a comparatively
> tiny Esperanto or conlangers' convention.


This is true. I have a friend who used to run a very major furry con, whom I
consulted before LCC1. Much of his advice was simply irrelevant to my needs.
Some was helpful, however.


> A similar article from you and/or Alex, David Peterson,
> & David Durand would be useful to future
> runners of LCC's, especially if we ever have a
> break in continuity and the organizers of future
> conventions can't talk to the most experienced
> past organizers directly for whatever reason.


There is one of these that I wrote post LCC1 (
http://conference.conlang.org/lcc1/behind2.php). I suppose it might be
useful to update and make more generalized?


> Going back to the journal entries about my
> experiences at LCC2, -- I've found other people's
> accounts of going to various conventions
> (sf, gaming, Esperanto, LCC1, etc.) interesting
> reading fairly often.
>

Sure. But it's not *literary* and it doesn't (particularly) have to do with
*conlanging* either.

I'm not saying it's uninteresting, just that it's the wrong topic for either
a book of short fiction works in conlangs or a book about conlanging /
conlangs.

- Sai