I'll be at the convention from Friday to Monday morning. If you see me, please don't feel shy about saying hello! I love putting faces to names.
My panel schedule:
The Unequal Distribution of Emotional Labor - Sunday, 8:30–9:45 AM
Mary Anne Mohanraj, Megan Arkenberg, Megan Condis, Heidi Waterhouse, Kenzie Woodbridge
We see it in fandom, in creative fields, in tech, in the Maker movement. How to identify when this is happening and how to push back.
It Came From the Slush Pile - Sunday, 2:30–3:45 PM
Sigrid Ellis, Megan Arkenberg, Eric M. Heideman, Fred Schepartz, Effie Seiberg
Editors of short fiction share their slush pile horror stories. What are the turns of phrase that have made you spit coffee over your keyboard? What are the cover letter faux pas writers keep committing? What are the stories that have made you edit your guidelines to avoid seeing their like ever again? Part advice for new submitters, part venting for slush pile veterans, this panel should warn both groups just what they're up against–or competing against.
How Not To Think About Women Characters - Sunday, 4:00–5:15 PM
Debbie Notkin, Becky Allen, Megan Arkenberg, Claire Humphrey, Justine Larbalestier
"She's such a Mary Sue." "She's only there to serve the story of a male character." "Her characterization is so inconsistent" or "She's too flat to be interesting." As consumers of media—even feminist consumers—we have a whole language at our disposal when we need to justify disinterest or dislike towards a woman character. But as often as these idioms are accurate criticisms of a work, they can also be ways to avoid actually talking about the character AS a character. Some questions to consider: Do the ways in which we critique women characters result in a denial of their agency? Is describing women characters as "inconsistently characterized" a way to avoid seeking out their motivations? Is being a "foil" or a parallel always a subordinate role?