Not long ago (from the date of posting) I was at Satellite 7, a litcon in Glasgow and, as is my want, I had volunteered for the program. I’ve come away with some wonderful experiences and interesting discussions about the nature of panels at conventions and I feel inclined to share those thoughts and experiences with you.

So, way back when (the heady days of 2019) I had my first experience of paneling at a convention, and it was Dublin Worldcon. I mean, I’d sat in and watched a few but this was my first experience as a panelist. The first item I was passed by the program team?

‘How do Creators and Fans Respond in Times of Political Upheaval’…

I mean, ‘daunting’ was not the word, here I was, a middle-aged British National paneling about political upheaval beside two authors of colour and a non-resident living in the States at a time when ’45’ had ICE hauling people off to gods alone knew where. Luckily I was asked to sit in on a second item (taking place earlier in the con) to warm up, “Celtic” Mythology. Since then I’ve never looked back, I volunteer to sit on and moderate panels at almost every event I attend but, after Satellite, I want to do more, and I’ll explain why.

The process of appearing on panels is simple. Most often you fill out your attending membership form and there’s a tickbox to check if you’re willing to appear on the program. After that the team will contact you with a link to an online form. When I *have* struggled with program participation, this is where. I have an almost clinical aversion to forms, I struggle with them all the time and that has carried down from more complex, formal documents to even the simplest examples. The worst thing for me is having open ‘give your opinion’ boxes. Show me a list of program subject options and I’ll muddle through but ask me what I want to talk about? I freeze, like a rabbit in the headlights. But this is something I need to work on.

The standard format for panel items is three to four panelists and a moderator to guide the flow of topic and prevent any one person dominating the allotted time. I’ve had one situation where two panelists pulled from an item, citing no real experience so myself, as moderator, and the one remaining panelist just had an open discussion about the topic, Cartoons of the 80’s and 90’s, it was fun, it worked. Usually the moderator will contact the panelists beforehand, this can be a brief round of introductions or (for myself) a bit of pre-discussion of the topic and forewarning of the questions to give participants time to prepare their thoughts.

Once you get onsite it’s a simple case of turning up on time but, if there’s a Greenroom, do get there, there’s usually a participant registration where you can notify the organiser’s that you *are* there.

Now, this may all sound pretty dry so far, a roomful of people listening to your panel discussing a subject, but it’s very much dependent upon topic. Some items are, indeed, heavyweight, political, charged, even contentious but, others are whimsical, lighthearted, even fun, however the format remains the same and here is where Satellite comes in. Looking at the program before the event I saw a number of single panelist items and I thought ‘that’s strange’ but, as it turns out, while some of them were a panelist expressing their enthusiasm for a given subject, other were much more fun and varied. Quizzes and games, all sci-fi and fantasy themed, and it opened my eyes. I’ve seen these kind of items before, but only in limited numbers, at Satellite they where many! The workshops included knitting and painting rather than discussions of editing and publishing. I’m not saying it’s for every con, some are inherently more serious than others, some are aimed more toward people within the industry (but who couldn’t use a little whimsy after hours discussing publishing?) and some cater more toward those attendee’s interested in the ‘how’s’ and ‘why’s’ of the industry, but that’s not to say there’s ‘no room’ at most con’s for a little fun.

So, moving on, I’m planning to cultivate a couple of ideas for panel items, items aimed at encouragement and engagement for the audience. Taking the old staple of ‘last 15 minutes, do we have any questions?’ and winding it throughout the whole item. This may involve practical, as it happens examples of the creative process or some other mix of the workshop/panel format.

I love doing panels, I do. Sometimes I’m daunted by the other panelists and think ‘why am I here’ but then, having people at different levels of (dare I say it?) ‘fame’ or experience of the writing world broadens the basis of experience for the audience (since not everyone’s experience of publishing is the same, especially these days) and also increases the relevance of the panels discourse to the individual members of the audience. I do think that the scene could use a little shakeup, a little more variety if it’s to help draw new faces and help increase the draw of the modern literary con, but that’s not so much down to the event organisers as it is down to us, the program participants. So, I’ll be trying to get a handle on my anxiety in the face of the pro-forma and exercise my creativity in trying to put forward fun, informative and engaging program items in the future. I hope you’ll join me.

CW: Spoilers, Marvel Civil War, Dresden Files: Battle Grounds

So, a really good friend of mine linked me to a YouTube video about ‘Allowing good MC’s or characters to do ‘bad’ things and asked me for my take on the subject. Afterwards it occurred to me that I haven’t posted a creative themed blog for a while now. Luckily the whole discourse happened across Discord, so I can share my take with you.

The original video ‘Let them be bad’ is by Bricky, and can be watched here;

So, Bricky makes some very good points here. Moral absolutism can be boring unless it goes counter to the status quo. A ‘good cop’ who does everything by the book is only compelling when they’re surrounded by corruption. Likewise the gung-ho loose cannon only plays if they’re surrounded by straight arrows. But, we see lots of characters who operate from a standpoint of moral absolutism and, when done correctly, they can absolutely compel the viewer/reader. We take characters like The Punisher (Lee, Conway, Romita Snr & Andru) and Judge Dredd (Wagner, Ezquerra, Mills, McCarthy, Spurrier). Both have survived for decades operating within a very narrow purview (it helps that both are anti-heroes). However, in my humble opinion, they work at their best when the stories aren’t actually about them, when the focus shifts to the colorful ensemble cast arranged around them and the very villains that they chase. Both Punisher and Dredd work at their best when treated like the shark from Jaws (Peter Benchley, 1974) as an orbiting threat, a figure of legendary proportions and iron resolve.

But, that’s not the question here, the question is about ‘Good’ characters, the ‘boy-scout’ stereotype, infallible in their moral compass. We’re talking about Captain America and Superman here however, in recent years, even Superman has benefited from a shift of focus. Another great position for moral absolutism is as the antagonist (I know we’re talking about protagonists here, but it’s worth mentioning). When, in the ‘Injustice’ universe (or as part of the mirror-verse Justice Lords) Superman tales a zero-tolerance position on crime, then that unyielding position becomes a terrifying thing, especially in the hands of a set of super powered individuals who can easily subjugate the entire globe. For Cap we look to the Civil War story line where the very structure the Avengers work within makes a decision that Cap finds unjust. The comic arc in Civil War is work of high standard narrative, bringing complexity to the existing relationships between various superhero groups and the authorities, fractures within the groups themselves, the existing relationships between characters and even with those characters themselves. The scene where Cap tries to bolster the anti-Super Hero Registration movement, by taking in super-villains (because the pro-faction have started to) and Frank Castle, the Punisher, (who saved Spiderman from a group of those enlisted villains as the wall-crawler defected, turning from Tony Stark’s side?) executes them out of hand, brings the two to each others throats as their moralities conflict. Of course, Frank won’t raise a hand against Steve since, as he puts it ‘You were always my hero’.

From a narrative standpoint, having characters who can’t adapt to changing moral situations can be a major hurdle, especially with audiences demanding more complex plots with deeper moral ambiguities. It’s like the ‘Lawful Douchebag’ Paladin stereotype in a Dungeons and Dragons campaign who stalls the story because ‘my character wouldn’t do that’. In stubbornly refusing to engage with particular story steps (even if it opens up the way for ‘good’ choices later) they stonewall any progress of any kind. In reality life is complex, it doesn’t always work out how you want and sometimes it all gets a bit mucky or murky. In story terms pushing a ‘good’ character to do ‘bad’ things is how you introduce conflict either into the characters social group, or into the character themselves. It has the benefit of generating complexity in the character. The other aspect of that is ‘Fallout’, both social and emotional. Was the ‘bad’ act witnessed by others? Is the character hiding their ‘crime’ from their team? Are they simply struggling to accept what they did?

It’s something handled very well in the TellTale adventure games, especially their Walking Dead series. As the Bricky says though, such events are not something to be dropped out of the blue and then immediately resolved. Gradually building up to the breakdown of a character’s guiding morals can be a deeply satisfying narrative route. Don’t get me wrong, when our hero finally gives in to their baser instincts and commits (or attempts to commit) some grievous atrocity against a figure who’s been tormenting them for a while, parts of the audience are still going to scream in frustration, and cry, and react, and that’s the important part. In establishing the circumstances in which this bad thing occurs, or the reasoning behind it (defending a loved one, punishing a villain etc) you want to hold on to the uncertainty, the question of what your character is going to do, or even if they *can* go through with it. Either that or the provocation has to be so immense that the character has nowhere else to go, and that’s when the after effects of whatever they did become so important. In the instance it’s a spur of the moment decision it’s the fallout that becomes the narrative payoff. I think it’s certainly a story arc that benefits from a slow burn, timing and pacing are key, the weakest examples come when a villain kills a hero’s friend/love interest, the hero bests the villain but restrains themselves from dealing the deathblow *all in one scene*. Which isn’t to say it can’t be done. Jim Butcher handled it beautifully in The Dresden Files: Battle Grounds when Rudolph fatally shoots Murphy and Harry *nearly* kills him in revenge but! That scene isn’t just that scene, it’s the culmination of a storyline running through seventeen previous books so, in that sense, it is anything but rushed.

The point is that, it’s all well and good to make your audience scream ‘WHAT?!’ at a characters actions. Heck, it’s the name of the game at times, media in any form is about provoking a response, but you can’t just drop a bomb on the audience and immediately resolve it or worse, walk away from it without dealing with it in a narratively satisfying way. Bear in mind that ‘narrative satisfaction’ has nothing to do with the outcome being ‘happy, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, simply that the matter resolves in a way that satisfies the reader and that can involve either rage or tears as much as smiles and laughter.

The final point I’m going to leave you with is this, the very nature of good or bad is itself subjective and entirely dependent upon your genre. In Militaria the act of killing enemy combatants isn’t considered ‘bad’ (although having a character struggle with it is a valid narrative avenue) but giving in to cowardice or worse, betraying comrades is. In anything tagged with Noir beating up an informant is generally not considered bad (as long as the snitch is set-up to be a weaselly stereotype), but taking bribes (as the ‘good’ guy) is a cardinal sin. During the Camelot 2050 trilogy the MC Rosalyn kills a whole mess of people but, since they are enemy combatants in a war setting, it doesn’t play as ‘bad’ to the audience, it’s necessary. The ‘bad’ thing that she does, the thing that is out of character, the thing that she agonizes over and eventually rationalizes to herself, is countermanding a direct order, going against the King’s authority, stealing Excalibur and charging off, half-cocked, to fight the dragon and, for her at least, the fallout from that is pretty big.

So, having ‘good’ characters do ‘bad’ things? Absolutely, it’s a mechanic that works across genres to promote story and rile up the audience. It is those reactions that we, as creators, are actively trying to provoke. The failure comes when these events within a story are seen as a gimmick, or a cheap gag without grounding or consequence and that foundation, or ongoing price are the hallmarks of good storytelling. There are plenty of instances in the world around us, in history, in our own lives when we, and others, have done bad things, either for good or bad reasons. Whether we’ve been hailed for them, villified by them, or still struggle to cope with ourselves over what we did, those are part of a shared human experience and a keystone of narrative conflict. So, yeah, let them be bad from time to time, just remember the keyword, ‘consequences’.

Okay, I *know* I’ve been quiet for a while and I *do* have a good explanation. Producing weekly content about my experiences in writing and publishing is only feasible when I’m having experiences in writing and publishing which, over LockDown has been a bit of a problem. So, let’s have a quick look back at whats been happening over the past two years, shall we?

Rendered Flesh released with little to no fanfare (I’m doing my best) back in 2021 by LevelUp Publishing, but it was still a huge deal for me because it is my first, traditionally published novel and it has opened the door for me with Ockham Publishing. I’m now contracted for a three-book series, my Riding the E-Rail project, with Vulpine Press and I’m looking forward to a long and happy association with this publishing group, I assure you I have *many* more ideas that I am working on across quite a diverse collection of genres.

Events! Well, what to say. I appeared on a few virtual panel items at the online Eastercon 2021 (notably, and to my great frustration, alongside several talented 2000AD writes, including Dan Abnett! Virtually! ARGH!). I attended Fantasy Con (with limited tickets sales capping attendance), Reading Comic Con, Dragonmeet and Eastercon 2022 ‘Reclamation’ and had to can plans to attend Worldcon 2022 Chicago in-person.

I know it’s a little crass to talk in terms of sales but honesty in regards to the self publishing experience is an integral part of this blog and, while said conventions were all to the good when it came to networking and meeting people and such, the physical cons where lackluster in terms of actual sales. This was not new, I’d noticed a downturn in spending at events leading into LockDown but I had hoped, once events started running again, that the audience would be eager to spend a little money. While none of these events was a complete write-off the difference in trade between, for example Dragonmeet 2019 and Dragonmeet 2021, was around 60%, in that I only turned over a third of the trade I did in 2019 in 2021.

However! All is not lost. Just this past weekend I attended the second Portsmouth Comic Con, organised by GoGeek Events CIC and hosted by the Portsmouth Guildhall. The event was a resounding return to pre-Covid form and an incredible boost to both my confidence and my motivation. Satellite 7, Glasgow’s sci-fi and fantasy con, is in two-weeks and I’ve got my fingers crossed for good returns here too. The next event down the line is the Young Adult Literature Convention in London, running alongside LFCC Summer and, fingers crossed, that’s going to be a big return in the ticket.

So, whilst my previous posts about getting back to events might have been a *little* premature I do now have hard evidence that, post Covid, events are getting back to normal. Looking ahead I’m dabbling in a new promotional platform so I’ll hopefully have something to say about that in the weeks ahead and I’m following avenues on the ‘how to win awards (or even get nominated!)’ front as well. So, buckle up, knuckle down, and get those ideas out there, a lot has changed, but a lot more remains the same and the most important part of that, is readers gonna read!