{"id":10658,"date":"2013-07-12T08:46:11","date_gmt":"2013-07-12T12:46:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scottedelman.com\/?p=10658"},"modified":"2013-07-12T08:46:11","modified_gmt":"2013-07-12T12:46:11","slug":"my-readercon-thursday-including-video-of-two-panels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scottedelman.com\/wordpress\/2013\/07\/12\/my-readercon-thursday-including-video-of-two-panels\/","title":{"rendered":"My Readercon Thursday (including video of two panels)"},"content":{"rendered":"

It was great to return to Readercon after missing 2012’s edition, because I became quite jealous of flat me, who due to an unfortunately coincidence<\/a>, got to have all the fun last year<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I’m going to keep this short, because I want to throw myself quickly into Friday’s maelstrom.<\/p>\n

For those friends who couldn’t make it this year, and wanted to see what it meant that there’d be no lobby during the con because of Marriott’s grand renovation plans, here’s a view toward the entrance from the hallway where registration to the con takes place. That’s the revolving door to the left, and to the right, that wall’s blocking off where the lobby usually is.<\/p>\n

\"Readercon2013NonLobby\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I hope that by the time they’re done, they won’t be too high class for the likes of us.<\/p>\n

And here are two panels from last night, so those of you who couldn’t make it this year—or who did make it but were in one of the other rooms enjoying some other panel or reading—won’t miss out.<\/p>\n

First up, “The News and the Abstract Truth,” which took place at 8:00 p.m., and featured Robert Killheffer, Adrienne Martini, James Morrow, David G. Shaw, and Gayle Surrette. It was described in the program like so:<\/p>\n

The controversies surrounding Mike Daisey’s The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs and John D’Agata and Jim Fingal’s The Lifespan of a Fact arose when art and truth collided. While fiction can play fast and loose with facts in order to tell a compelling story, monologues and essays are held to a higher standard. The authors of these books were surprised by audience reactions to the discovery that their “factual” accounts were fabrications; they claimed that their work was more “beautiful” or “lyrical” than the truth. But which are more important: true words, or beautiful words? Why do some writers think it necessary to take liberties with the truth in order to create great “nonfiction”?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n