I am typing this on my Blackberry in the Delta lobby, so I apologize if there are typos. The Worldcon Hugos post will be coming later today or tomorrow, once I upload my photos.
This post, however, will address a question I have. Namely, why is it perceived as wrong or bad for people to critique conventions?
This springs from a conversation I was having with John Joseph Adams, where he mentioned that an unknown person had been offended by what I had written about Wiscon this year. And while I felt I was brutally honest in that post, I disagreed with what the unknown person had said, which went something along the lines of "She basically said 'F-you, Wiscon'." Which I hadn't said. And then John brought up the fact that people had been angry or annoyed with something Cat Valente had said about Readercon. And while I personally like Readercon, I wouldn't have been mad if Cat had criticized it. (I haven't read her blog post.)
Because good OR bad, I think criticism makes cons better. They're a lot of work to run, and I do appreciate the effort of all the volunteers. But if you consider the fact that in about 30 years, my generation will be running cons, then I don't understand why I'm not allowed to criticize, and more importantly, LEARN about how to run a con from my criticism and people's responses to it.
Kevin Standlee, for instance, has been kind and polite the last few days while we've been chatting about con logistics and what goes into planning them. I appreciate him taking the time to talk to me and to teach me. I want to take what I'm learning and help with future Worldcons and other conventions.
But my point remains the same that we wouldn't have been having this discussion, if I hadn't been complaining about my blisters (which are on my thighs, not my feet, and are very, very painful; I have been hobbling and sitting a lot) in a prior blog post.
I don't understand why it's viewed as bad to honestly critique a con, and I'd welcome people's thoughts on it.
And now, to catch my plane! :)