Fantasycon

[la_marquise]

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.

Comments

[were-gopher.livejournal.com]

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.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

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..

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

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.