Bouchercon roundup, part VI: getting more attention

Although M.J. Rose enjoyed Bouchercon for meeting fellow authors, fans and the general social environment, she raises a much-needed point about the overall lack of publicity and attention given the convention, the awarded prizes, and mystery writing in general:

My problem?

The missed opportunity for press and media attention.

I don’t even know whose fault it is.

The publishers? The authors? The media? The conference organizers?

All I know is that it’s a missed opportunity.

There should be a giant contest in all the mystery magazines and writerly/readerly publications — 10 fans win travel and accommodations – all expense paid to the event.

A contest like that could be funded by adding twenty-five dollars to the cost of the conference for every industry professional. Or a publisher who has a big group of authors attending could come up with the money. Or the authors themselves could create this contest and each pay 50 bucks to make it happen.

At least there would be some press generating excitement and attention and yes, increase attendance.

Rose puts forward an interesting idea, although no doubt the logistics of such an endeavor would require much forethought and planning and might not even produce the desired result. But I had a similar conversation with a couple of people about how little coverage Bouchercon generally gets in its host city. I can barely recall if there was anything at all in DC when it was held there, and I remember checking the Austin papers for signs of life and finding very little. Las Vegas wasn’t much better.

Toronto, OTOH, did at least acknowledge the convention a fair amount. Judy Stoffman wrote a pre-convention piece for the Toronto Star on October 6, while Rebecca Caldwell did the same for the Globe and Mail the next day. The National Post featured the Michael Connelly/Ian Rankin/Peter Robinson signing on the Wednesday as a “Featured pick” in last Wednesday’s edition. The Saturday G&M’s Book Review section was slanted towards crime fiction (and running a full-page ad for Mark Billingham was undoubtedly no accident) while there was a fairly regular media presence in the alleged Bouchercon bar that was really a press conference room, and the opening bash was featured on local news Thursday night. Carol Goodman’s Hammett win merited a long piece in the Sunday Star, and the Sunday edition of the Toronto Sun (no link available) had a short piece interviewing Chris Mathers on his experiences at the convention. So yes, a fair amount indeed.

But perhaps the overall ignorance of Bouchercon can be attributed to its inherent schizophrenia. Is it a fan convention, or a place to do business? Is it a chance for authors to network with their agents and editors, or to meet with fans, or both? Are the panels designed for proper discussion or for writers to shamelessly promote their work? Case in point: a writer friend crossing the border was asked why he was entering the country and said he was attending a mystery convention. He got through eventually but only after many minutes of grilling. Would this have happened had he answered something to the effect of attending a writer’s conference? (or merely that he was going on vacation for a few days?) I know when I try to explain to people outside the crime fiction community what BCon is, I get kind of stumped.

But then, that’s part of the charm, that it’s many things to many people, that people from all walks of life (so to speak)–author, agent, editor, publisher, media, fan, bookseller–can occupy the same space and interact with each other. But as the convention gets bigger and bigger and presumably gets a higher profile with each year, some serious thinking may have to be done to determine, well, exactly who to direct attention towards and how.