la_marquise | Fantasycon

Current Mood: busy

Fantasycon

Fantasycon was interesting. It reminded me very much of Novacon -- very much a con for a subset of people, with its own well-worn rituals and behaviours. Interesting to watch, but I felt a little loose-endish. In programme and focus, it seems to have changed very little from 1979: horror ruled the day. Good things were Jasper fforde's GoH item, which was very poorly attended. a chance to catch up with various people, two truly superb Indian restaurants within two minutes walk and good beer most of the time. Bad things -- too much horror, a slightly grimy hotel and the tendency for the beer to run out in the evenings. Odd things: many people I almost recognised, but did not know -- fan-types, perhaps. Realising on the way home that we had spent our time exclusively with writers and editors. I now know why the pros all stick together. It's not snobbery, it's that they don't know anyone else. And something exciting happened which I'm not allowed to talk about yet.
I don't know if I'll go again: it was okay, but not gripping and the programme didn't excite me. I was on two items, one on Myth, which went very well, and one on New Writers which was less successful. Both had more audience than Mr fforde, which is just plain wrong.

In other news, here's a question: why is there so much written and performed about the Tudors? Even as I type, Radio 4 is reading yet another book about Elizabeth I. It has to be the most over-mined period in British history and (IMHO) one of the dullest. What on earth is the appeal? It baffles me.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Everyone loves a feisty redhead.

No, seriously, I think the continuing sexual allure of Elizabeth I, the original ladette, is a major factor.

But she was none of those things. This sentimentality about Henry VIII and Elizabeth I baffles me.

In reality she wasn't. But popular imagination has always seen her as that. That's the Elizabeth of Blackadder, it's (with varying degrees of concession to historical reality) Cate Blanchett's and Glenda Jackson's Elizabeths, I'd argue that it's there in Flora Robson's Elizabeth, and in a way it goes back to the romanticization of Elizabeth by Spenser. Elizabeth was a mistress of her own propaganda, and her image has been pretty much set in stone since then (with, I suspect, a big boost in Victoria's reign).

I think we're incredulous at the ides of a female monarch who was more into power than sex. Or possibly , love.

The Tudors?

I suspect it's because that's when England came of age, and became a European power.

(Or maybe we prefer the Welsh, rather than the Scots or the Germans. For whatever value of Welsh the Tudors actually were. We certainly didn't get on terribly well with the Scots - Stuart kings were overthrown twice within the century.)

It may be down to the Reformation, and the dominance of the puritan tradition in history down to the 19thc., but I would hope nowadays we could look beyond that!

Could be that, too. There's probably no one reason.

Possibly because it's the one most of the producers, editors or program commissioners studied in depth in history O-level?

Possibly, but there is a romanticism about the Tudors which just baffles me. Not a pleasant set of people at all.

They were masters at spin and properganda. Giving the public and the rest of the world the image they wanted them to see hoping they wouldn't look too closely at what really was going on in the palace. If Henry VII hadn't left such a well stocked treasury that Henry VIII was able to pull stunts like The Field of Cloth of Gold and indulge in mass palace building and lavish courts would we really have been left with such glowing chronicles of his reign.

If Elizabeth had married would we still have the myth of Gloriana or would she have been overshadowed by whichever Prince of Europe she waas persuaded to wed. Also, if the wind had not been in our favour in a couple of places then Spain could well have won and that would have been her lot.

I bet if Elizabeth had married at all and H8 had married one or even 2 people only, they would be on our TV about as much as say Henry 11. (that remains my favourite monarch fiction-historical period). Sorry I iz lo brow, iz all about pr0n..

Henry II is more interesting than Henry VIII, but I'm rather tired of Eleanor d'Acquitaine and her fans. Henry III is interesting, though -- origins of parliament and so on.

I think part of the Tudor appeal is in Henry VIII claiming religious independence for England combined with well-documented soap opera combined with the early days of European world discovery/conquest, with a soupçon of residual Renaissance Superiority.

I'm really grateful for your comments on Fantasycon. As someone who reads more fantasy than SF by default, I recently found myself a little confused to realize I've been involved in science fiction conventions whose relationship to fantasy is ambiguous. Does it include fantasy? Often. If so, why are there separate fantasy organizations in this country? Did they split at some point? Did they develop in parallel? (But if horror, rather than fantasy, is symptomatic of them, that does reduce my interest and my feeling that maybe I was doing something wrong by not going.)

I thought we decided at dinner that fantasy was defined by dragonage? *ducks*

That's a passel of questions I really would like to read answers to. I write fantasy - not horror or science. Where are the cons for people like me?

There's a lot of fantasy fans and items at the annual British Eastercons, which are technically SF cons, but are a very broad church.

Thank you. I'll look into that.

I always assumed that it was due to the long shadow of Elizabeth I. She set the parameters for a female ruler in the UK in the popular mind right up to the modern age, as Margaret Thatcher's strategies of dominance indicate. And if any UK political party has the nerve to elect a woman PM ever again, she might well follow the same pattern.

a romanticism about the Tudors which just baffles me.Not a pleasant set of people at all.

Perhaps precisely because they weren't nice. There are many sad and inadequate people who try to glamourise thuggery and greed as forcefulness, realism and fearlessness. As a genuine realist I naturally hold such attitudes in disdain.

Lack of niceness may have something to do with it. The 'other' well mined period in Early English history centers around John Lackland, (the Sheriff of Nottingham and Merry Robin) who was a right SOB if Sharon Penman can be believed.

I think it's partly a hangover from the "new Elizabethan era" thing that went the rounds when Elizabeth II came to the throne .

that's interesting actually. Were people fascinated with Gloriana pre ER2?

I think it began under Victoria, but I'm not sure. We need an early modernist for this one.

By gum, it sounds exactly like all the Fantasycons I used to attend. Ina was complaining about the horror (or Dark Fantasy as they preferred to call it) when she was Secretary of the BFS, and that was... ooooooo....thirty years ago!

Still, I bought my Westerfilk songbook from Jordin at a Fantasycon, so at least it had something going for it.

Re the Tudors --

I think may be related to most of the things you mentioned, but really, I think it's mostly the soap-opera aspect. AFAICT, the popular legend of the Tudors goes something like this:

Tudors get rid of the Hunchback (ignore HVII's bean-counting and piety)

Henry VIII, one of the three perfect Renaissance kings, marries Catherine of Aragon (ooooh! big marriage that Goes All Wrong)

Break with Rome All For Love and Babies = Henry the hero

But wait! Beheaded!(Incest? Adultery?)
Died! (ah, what would have happened had she lived?)
Divorced! (some fat German, probably deserved it, boring cow)
Beheaded! (Hot! Teen! Sex! + adultery!)
... oh, and that last one survived, I guess... who was she?

Child king, protected by good Protestants from teh ebil Catholics, dies.

Lady Jane, a Tragedy in One Act (badly)

Bloody Mary -- mayhem, persecution, burning (watch Cranmer's hand sizzle!), phantom pregnancies

Young Elizabeth, friendless, abused, attacked on all sides, develops cunning and manipulative skills not unlike a GRRM heroine

Still being attacked. Mostly the ebil Catholics.

Dashing suitors, adulterous murder, but they only love her for her crown.

Her cousin did *what*?? Beheaded!

Some sea battle and some ~~pirates~~ privateers

How long can she live, bitter and alone?

Hahahahaha! Protestants win, James in charge, but is Very Boring and Unpleasant.

let's go watch the soap opera in France!

Also, who wouldn't go see Jasper Fforde?

ETA: also, John Dee.

Edited 2009-09-22 12:56 (UTC)

Jasper fforde was fabulous. But the horror crowd didn't seem interested.

I'd have gone for fforde alone - but (as Lil says, and as you found) the BFS is overly fond of horror, and has always been more of a pro than a fan con. As long ago as the 70s

sidhe_woman and I made valliant attempts to drag in some 'light fantasy' but failed miserably (that was seen as a job for the Tolkien Society, with which the BFS had a love/hate relationship).

I keep hoping that the young blood being brought in through kids fantasy might re-create a British fantasy revival. Give it another 20 years...

Have you ever come across "1066 and all That". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_and_All_That

Henry and Elizabeth were 'memorable', therefore they keep surfacing (and thus reinforce the 'memorable' factor).

I used to use 1066 and All That as a teaching aid.

What english history i know I learnt rom 1066 And All that . (We did Scottish history. And American . And French. but not ENGLISH.) This probably explains a lot..

I suspect it was a lot more interesting, though. The Tudors are dull.

<generalisation and fanciful theory alert>

It's also the age of Shakespeare, which I suspect has had a deep effect on the psyches of the sort of people who make arts programs/write plays/write books. Being a product of his age, they write about the age too, to explain the product.

</generalisation and fanciful theory alert>

the age of Shakespeare, which I suspect has had a deep effect on the psyches of the sort of people who make arts programs/write plays/write books

This, plus what a_d medievalist said.

Personally, I'm a Richard of Gloucester fan, ever since I read The Sun In Splendour back in high school. Tho not enough of one to be sure I'm spelling Gloucester right.

You read The Sunne in Splendour at school? You are a babe in arms: I was in my 20s when that came out. But I'm a Richardian too. (And yes, you've spelt Gloucester right.)

Not "at school"; a relative sent it to me as an early Christmas present. I read it for fun.

But I thought we were more or less the same age or I was a couple of years older? I was sure I read it right around the time my great grandmother died, which was when i was in high school. Now I'm wondering about my memory.

And heh, I had The Sunne and then thought "that can't be right" and changed it. Guess it could be.

Quite loved the book, tho.

I am the wrong side of 40.

Eeeewwwwwwww!!!

You're oooooooooollllllllllllllllllllddddddddddddd!!!!!!!!

(iz 44 here)

Add 3 years to your age and you've got me.

I'm with you on the Tudor/Elizabethan period.

Boo to the Tudors! We want more about the Wars of the Roses.
Interesting to hear about FCon. I've never been (blush).
ETA: I used to be in the Richard III Society! LOL

Edited 2009-09-22 21:54 (UTC)

Definitely more Wars of the Roses!
Nice to hear from you: how are things?

Eee! I love the toile de jouy.
Things are...well they vary. Currently father-in-law is in hospital with suspected brain tumour - or maybe it's not. He's mostly in good spirits and coping with the odd neurological effects (eg he can only read the left side of the newspaper).
Hope you're well - it was great to read about Fantasycon, I've never quite been!

That's very worrying: I hope he gets a diagnosis (and sensible treatment) very soon. A friend of mine lost the ability to read English for a while - she could still read Latin and German, just not English, which is her first language. It turned out to be stress.

Different strokes for different folks. The Tudors are a flamboyant mob, and the period covers some spectacularly intelligent and competent women, which endears it to me. I also rather like Oliver Cromwell (I have a weakness for really competent people, hence my affection for William I, Henry II, Edward I, Edward III and so on.)

I also think that the Tudor period is the earliest in British history in which the mindset is immediately understandable to the general public. I am deeply interest in Henry V (all stemming from catching Henry IV Part 1 on the radio when 13 and wanting to know more), but getting into the religious mindset of the period is difficult and you really have to work at it.

Richard III, on the other hand, leaves me cold precisely because I had read the history and the evidence before the fiction, and therefore having made a judgment uninfluenced by it, I see Richard as being pretty incompetent.

You may be right. But there has been so much about the Tudors and for so long. You'd think people would get bored!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Fantasycon

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject