I have a schedule for Readercon:
Friday 3:30 PM.
Reading (30 min.)
Sonya Taaffe reads "Chez Vous Soon," from the March 2006 Not One of Us.
Saturday 1:00 PM.
Mythic / Jabberwocky group reading (60 min.)
Mike Allen, Sean Wallace (hosts), with readings by Allen, Theodora Goss, Vandana Singh, Sonya Taaffe, Catherynne M. Valente, plus Matt Cheney, Cassandra Phillips-Sears, JoSelle Vanderhooft, Erzebet YellowBoy
Saturday 3:00 PM. Panel
The Rhysling Award Poetry Slan.
Mike Allen (host), with readings from Allen, Theodora Goss, Andrea Hairston, Geoffrey A. Landis, Darrell Schweitzer, Sonya Taaffe, Sheree Renee Thomas, Mary Turzillo, Catherynne M. Valente, plus Drew Morse, JoSelle Vanderhooft, and the presentation of the Rhysling Awards by James Morrow
(A "poetry slan," to be confused with "poetry slam," is a poetry reading by sf folks, of course.) Climaxed by the presentation of this year's Rhysling Awards.
Sunday 1:00 PM. Panel
Why is the New Weird Weird?
Judith Berman, Michael Cisco, Nick Mamatas, Sarah Smith (+M), Sonya Taaffe
In an essay written for The Third Alternative and reprinted in Locus, China Mieville described the literary movement known as "the New Weird." The New Weird renunciates hackneyed fantasy by taking its cliches and inverting, subverting, and converting them in order to return to the truly fantastic. It is secular and political, reacting against "religiose moralism and consolatory mythicism," and hence feels real and messy. And it trusts the reader and the genre in two important ways: it avoids post-modern self-reference, and it avoids didacticism, instead letting meaning emerge naturally from metaphor. Given such a broad agenda, it naturally has heterogeneous role models. What strikes us most about this very able description is that nowhere is any weirdness prescribed. It seems that any writer who observes this agenda ends up creating a world that is somehow off-kilter and evokes cognitive estrangement. Is this a comment on the nature of reality? Or is it more a comment on the cliches of fantasy and what's left over when you avoid them all? Is reality truly weird at some deep level, or is weird the only thing left that isn't hackneyed?
. . . like I know the first thing about the New Weird. But I still hope to see most of you there!
Off to investigate other people's schedules . . .
Friday 3:30 PM.
Reading (30 min.)
Sonya Taaffe reads "Chez Vous Soon," from the March 2006 Not One of Us.
Saturday 1:00 PM.
Mythic / Jabberwocky group reading (60 min.)
Mike Allen, Sean Wallace (hosts), with readings by Allen, Theodora Goss, Vandana Singh, Sonya Taaffe, Catherynne M. Valente, plus Matt Cheney, Cassandra Phillips-Sears, JoSelle Vanderhooft, Erzebet YellowBoy
Saturday 3:00 PM. Panel
The Rhysling Award Poetry Slan.
Mike Allen (host), with readings from Allen, Theodora Goss, Andrea Hairston, Geoffrey A. Landis, Darrell Schweitzer, Sonya Taaffe, Sheree Renee Thomas, Mary Turzillo, Catherynne M. Valente, plus Drew Morse, JoSelle Vanderhooft, and the presentation of the Rhysling Awards by James Morrow
(A "poetry slan," to be confused with "poetry slam," is a poetry reading by sf folks, of course.) Climaxed by the presentation of this year's Rhysling Awards.
Sunday 1:00 PM. Panel
Why is the New Weird Weird?
Judith Berman, Michael Cisco, Nick Mamatas, Sarah Smith (+M), Sonya Taaffe
In an essay written for The Third Alternative and reprinted in Locus, China Mieville described the literary movement known as "the New Weird." The New Weird renunciates hackneyed fantasy by taking its cliches and inverting, subverting, and converting them in order to return to the truly fantastic. It is secular and political, reacting against "religiose moralism and consolatory mythicism," and hence feels real and messy. And it trusts the reader and the genre in two important ways: it avoids post-modern self-reference, and it avoids didacticism, instead letting meaning emerge naturally from metaphor. Given such a broad agenda, it naturally has heterogeneous role models. What strikes us most about this very able description is that nowhere is any weirdness prescribed. It seems that any writer who observes this agenda ends up creating a world that is somehow off-kilter and evokes cognitive estrangement. Is this a comment on the nature of reality? Or is it more a comment on the cliches of fantasy and what's left over when you avoid them all? Is reality truly weird at some deep level, or is weird the only thing left that isn't hackneyed?
. . . like I know the first thing about the New Weird. But I still hope to see most of you there!
Off to investigate other people's schedules . . .
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}