This is how things change

by Dana

If you haven't heard about the ongoing debate about Bouchercon 2014 and “Men of Mystery” (MoM), you will soon—Bouchercon is in a week. Here's a short version; I've included links if you want a fuller picture.

About a week ago, a few folks noticed that there was two sessions blocked off on the official Bouchercon schedule, dedicated to celebrating more than 60 male authors. “Men of Mystery” is a yearly local event, and its organizer, Joan Hansen, also has a yearly “Festival of Women Authors” event. Her dedication to the mystery community has been recognized with an MWA Raven award. The goal of those two Bouchercon sessions was to enfold a yearly local event into a larger one, both devoted to mystery; but there were other issues at play.

At the heart of the problem is this: When other outside groups—Sisters in Crime, Mystery Writers of America, Private Eye Writers of America, to name a few—have events at Bouchercon, Bouchercon doesn't pay for their rooms, receptions, etc. Bouchercon is footing the bill for the room for MoM and by doing so, was giving its backing and imprimatur to a private event that excluded women.

One of the great things about Bouchercon is the focus on a variety of topics in the genre, and either a man or a woman can talk about writing noir, or traditional mystery, or supernatural mystery, or historicals, and so on. A woman cannot be a Man of Mystery. I believe there wouldn't have been such a negative response if there had been a combined “Men and Women of Mystery Panel.” Or, if the event had remained "Men of Mystery," but had the MoM organizers pay for the space, and held it before or after the regularly-scheduled Bouchercon panels.

A concerned group began to reach out to Bouchercon and others in the mystery community to try and address this development. Sara Paretsky wrote a passionate and thoughtful response against the inclusion of the MoM event. Mystery Writers of America and Sisters in Crime also made statements, speaking against this exclusive outside event being part of the regular program, as well as recognizing the difficulty of the issue arising at this late date. Robin Burcell wrote eloquently about her experiences as a woman in a man's profession, but more especially about her concern that the hard work of the volunteers was being overshadowed by this discussion. Barbara Fister created a brilliant, succinct dialogue that elaborated on the structures of the arguments being made by all sides.

The Bouchercon National Board issued a statement that essentially started with “This entire episode is based upon a misunderstanding unfairly undermining the good work of a lot of caring, dedicated people without a gender-biased bone in their bodies” and ended with “We apologize to those who perceived including Men of Mystery as an offense to our diverse mystery community, for none was intended.” Which was less of an apology and more of a rebuke to people who protested.

Feelings are running high on all sides, and the situation is at once simpler and more complicated than it appears. For me, it comes down to this: Good people make mistakes without intending to. Good people can respond to those mistakes while still valuing the effort that went into the process. Working together, they can address concerns and find solutions. That's what's happening now: The Bouchercon Local Organizing Committee and Joan Hansen offered to split the time into two one-hour panels, and now the first will be “Men of Mystery;” the second is being designed even as I type this. That is progress.

I have worked on conventions and conferences, and I know what hard work and dedication it requires and all for the love of the organization—because it sure isn't paid work. There are difficult decisions to make in the planning process, problems that occur during and even after the event, and the volunteers are right there, every step of the way, working to make a fabulous convention. So right now, I want to say thank you to the organizers and volunteers of Bouchercon Long Beach. And I'd like to encourage you to thank them too, when you go.

It has been daunting, for me personally, to speak up about this. I suspect it has been the same for others, too. And so I'd also like to thank the people I've been working with (who are simply amazing) and everyone who's been offering ideas and support, for their courage and determination. It takes guts to speak up and it takes dedication to try and change something. Change requires a lot of hustling, a lot of emotion, and in this case, it's a bare two weeks before the event. I'm learning a lot from this experience, and, hard as it is, I'm grateful.

The thing that compelled me to address this situation was the notion that this is how things change. This is how they improve. This is how we learn. Negotiations of this sort are not fun, but there are big rewards. Maybe in the future, both intention and perception will be better aligned. Maybe the next time the need for a dialogue like this arises, we'll all have better skills with which to engage.

I love Bouchercon, all of us do. I've always said that it's like homecoming for crime writers, and we all rejoice in that big tent being there for us. Sometimes, the tent needs to be made bigger or restructured or fixed to keep working for us all.

Comments

[Jessie Lourey]

Well said, Dana, and thank you for culling all the important information. I especially appreciate the section you put in bold: "Good people make mistakes without intending to. Good people can respond to those mistakes while still valuing the effort that went into the process. Working together, they can address concerns and find solutions."

[Dana Cameron]

Thanks, Jessie! As difficult as this is now, I think it's an important process.

[Kelly Saderholm]

Great post Dana. I did not know about "Men of Mystery" and was rather astonished that Bouchercon would sponsor them- because it sounds like that is exactly what they are doing. I am glad some correction is being made. Not keen on the rebuke statement though. Kudos to you for writing this post!

[Dana Cameron]

Thanks, Kelly! Appreciate it!

[Marcia Talley]

Brava, Dana. You have encapsulated the issue so well. For various reasons, I won't be attending B'con this year {pout} the first one I've missed since Monterrey. But sounds like things are heading in the right direction out in Long Beach.

[Toni LP Kelner]

Dana, this is lovely--both caring and well thought out. I hated to see the conflict arise--for a writer specializing in mysteries, I hate fighting--but I think the outcome is worthwhile.

Many cheers to the hardworking Bouchercon committee, and extra cheers to Bouchercon attendees who are so committed to the event.

[catriona]

Great post, Dana. I especially loved the bit about aligning intention and perception.

[Kristopher]

Thank you for this beautifully written post, Dana. Like Jess, I think your bolded statement is the key to it all.

We are all only human and mistakes are made - intended or not. But, people have a right to voice their opinions without being bullied.

None of that means the Bouchercon organization was trying to be unfair, nor does it mean that those who spoke up do not love Bouchercon and what it stands for. What it means is that we as humans can ALWAYS do better.

Bouchercon Long Beach is going to be a success! And I will be there to enjoy it!

[Clair Lamb]

Well said, Dana. Thanks for laying it all out so clearly.

[Dana Cameron]

Thank you, Marcia and Toni; I'll miss seeing you, Marcia!

Catriona, thanks--that is such a huge part of this. EVERYONE is trying to do their best to make it a great con; not all agree on what that looks like.

Thanks, Clair and Kris; Kris, I look forward to B'con and seeing you there!

[Mark Stevens]

Well said...! Good grief. In 2014?
Room comps at conferences are no small deal. This sounds like, say, a snooty golf club, not Bouchercon. If I were start listing the ways female writers have influenced by writing career, well..
My current editor (Terri Bischoff from Midnight Ink)
Linda Hull
Patricia Highsmith
Ruth Rendell
Agatha Christie
My wife
My daughters
Karin Slaughter
Nevada Barr
Rita Mae Brown
Margaret Coel
....I could be here all day.

I guess there's this: what's the point?

[Elaine Viets]

Thank you for writing this, Dana, and for the getting to the heart of the matter: "Good people make mistakes without intending to. Good people can respond to those mistakes while still valuing the effort that went into the process. Working together, they can address concerns and find solutions." Joan Hansen and the local Bouchercon did find a satisfying solution. That is doubly to their credit. I remember earlier Bcons where women's objections to all male events or women being shunted off to less important days were blithely ignored. This is real progress. Now we ALL can enjoy this Bouchercon. See you there.

[Jane]

Hey look, a molehill.

I wonder what can we make out if it?

[Linda Hull]

Dana,
Thank you so much for this thoughtful, fair-minded, appreciative look at the situation. I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said and appreciate that you've spoken out in this way.

[Nikki Bonanni]

It seems there is a very simple solution, maybe te one they are working on. Have one panel for Men of Mystery, and another for Women of Mystery.

[Marlyn Beebe]

Great post. And thank you for including all the links, which makes it so much easier to follow the unfolding of the whole story.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1290803031]

If I read Robin Burcell's post correctly, it is important to note that Bouchercon isn't paying for MOM and Left Coast Crime didn't pay for it either, when MOM was part of their programming. I would also point out that many who objected to this MOM will sit on women-only panels at the convention next week. Now it has been said that MOM event isn't the same as a panel, and therefore the rules against exclusion don't apply. In truth MOM is not even a panel. It is a gathering during which participants speak for one minute only. And it is a charitable event designed to help teenaged writers. If fairness is the goal, then there should be no all-female or all-male panels at this convention. Women on these panels should refuse to sit on them. And MOW, SIC, MWOA should work on including the marginalized writers of color and LGBT writers as well--especially those for whom gender binalty is a stifling and repressive form of dehumanization.

[sharon fiffer]

Well-said, Dana. Thank you.

Sharon Fiffer

[Charlaine Harris]

Thanks, Dana, for a very well reasoned post clarifying the situation and its rectification. Easier to look forward to Bouchercon now.

[Sally Schmidt]

Thanks for this post. I first became of all of this when I read Sara Paretsky's blog (reposted by you, I think). Your post and the links help to understand the whole story.

This will be my first Bouchercon. I am so looking forward to it! Glad to see everyone is able to work together to make it a success and the amazing event I know it will be.

[Margaret Maron]

Dana, I'd propose you for Secretary of State if I thought anyone this fair-minded and sensible could be confirmed. Thanks for this post. Even though I won't be at B'con in body, I'm always there in spirit.

[Charlaine Harris]

Margaret, we wish you'd be there, too. And I second your idea that Dana should be Secretary of State!

[C. Clark Criscuolo]

It's a good column, and these gaffes will change things. I think that so many people were miffed because mysteries are still classified as a male domain.

Yes, there was a bright shining moment in the early 90's where publishing embraced female authors (I was a part of that wave although I had to write under a gender-neutral name to get published.) It was a great thing, but has now passed as all things do.

I think it is reasonable to point out the deficiency, however, wouldn't it be nice if the whole thing was based on talent and readability instead of gender and those blessed by legacy publishing? Not holding my breath, but I'm throwing it out there for consideration.