Live-tweeting academic conferences is a relatively new phenomenon; as a result, conference participants and coordinators are still working out the kinks, so to speak. For example, at this year’s Society for Cinema and Media Studies conference (SCMS), the absence of WiFi frustrated presenters and attendees who intended to live-tweet:

@loganpoppy #SCMS10 feels backwards w/o sufficient WIFI access. Back channel communication is effectively retarded. Needs to be addressed.

@loganpoppy @kfitz @j_l_r the value of backchannel comm is invaluable to me. We need to make this clearer to the organizing committee

On the other hand, participants at this year’s Console-ing Passions conference were able to tweet furiously because of the availability of wireless Internet access. In fact, a couple of followers from afar noted that the CP tweets had far exceeded those from SCMS in only an hour’s time.

@jmittell In about an hour, #CPUO has surpassed #SCMS in terms of dynamic participation on Twitter. Thanks for sharing with those of us not in Eugene!

@fymaxwell It’s 9:23 am, & #CPUO attendees have already surpassed the # of tweets sent over 5 days of #SCMS. Free WiFi=vibrant back channel. Who knew!

This is not to say that live-tweeting from Console-ing Passions was without problems. On the contrary, some tweets were inadvertently taken out of context while others were overly simplified. This means that some Twitter followers, particularly those who weren’t at CP, justifiably misread and misunderstood the presentations. (For more see Jason Mittell’s “Don’t Tell Me What I Can’t Do,” the comments section in particular.) Other live-tweeting concerns are as follows: several panels go un-tweeted, some live-tweeters take a negative approach toward almost every presentation, and other participants think tweeting during panels is just plain rude.

Still, many would argue that the benefits of live-tweeting academic conferences far outweigh the problems. For example, live-tweeting allows those who cannot attend to participate virtually; it encourages questions/conversations before, during, and after presentations; it helps graduate students to become more visible; and it produces a digital archive (archives: SCMS/SCMS10 and CP).

I am currently putting together some information for those who’d like to live-tweet the 2011 Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association conference (PCA/ACA). Based on Twitter and blog conversations with those who have effectively (and not as effectively) live-tweeted as well as my own live-tweeting experience at this year’s SW/TX PCA/ACA, I’ve created some “Twittiquette” for PCA/ACA coordinators and participants (here’s a sample flyer). Of course, this could serve as a template for any academic conference.

For conference coordinators:

• Set up a hashtag stream on the conference website.
• Include the hashtag and WiFi code on badges and/or in the conference program.
• Inform speakers that they may be live-tweeted.
• Encourage speakers who do not wish to be tweeted to notify the audience accordingly.

And for those who wish to live-tweet during the conference:

• Strive for context. Sound-bites don’t help those following the conference from afar.
• For the purpose of archiving, please include the conference hashtag in your tweets.
• Respect those who do not wish to have their presentation tweeted.
• Cite the source of your tweets; give the speaker credit.
• Avoid negative comments; be critical, not unconstructive.
• Retweet relevant or useful posts.
• But also avoid flooding your followers with tweets; hit the high points.
• Make use of the Twitter feed for post-presentation Q&As.
• To the extent possible, respond to those who live-tweet your presentation.
• To separate the conference feed from your personal Twitter feed, set up a hashtag search in your Twitter client (e.g., Tweetdeck, Seesmic, Twitterific).
• Tweet a summary/teaser of your paper before your panel; publicize your area!
• Think about posting your presentation online. This way, others may further engage with your work and potential live-tweeting (mis)understandings might be minimized.
• Sit near the back of the room so others aren’t distracted by your typing/texting.
• Set up a time and place to meet your Twitter colleagues face to face.
• Finally, if you’ve never tweeted, try it! Its rewards are greater than you might think.

Based on your experience or hearsay, what would you add or remove from the list?

In March 2010, The Second City, the renowned Chicago- and Toronto-based comedy improv company, released on its YouTube network “Sassy Gay Friend: Hamlet.” The short video, which has received over 1 million hits to date, mocks Shakespeare’s most well-known play, specifically the character Ophelia who grows mad and ultimately drowns herself because her lover, Hamlet, has forsaken her. The video claims that Shakespeare’s tragedy would have ended much differently “if Ophelia had a Sassy Gay Friend.” Take a look:

The following week, The Second City released “Sassy Gay Friend: Romeo and Juliet,” which ridicules Juliet’s naïve decisions and hastiness (e.g., “You love [Romeo]? You met him Sunday; it’s barely Thursday. Slow down, Crazy, slow down”). Then two weeks later, the wittiest of the bunch appeared, “Sassy Gay Friend: Othello,” which pokes fun at Desdemona’s gullibility and pretentiousness (e.g., “Some guy ends up with your handkerchief so your husband gets to murder you?”). I imagine there will be more additions to the series in the coming weeks perhaps featuring Lady Macbeth, Cordelia, and/or Lavinia. And then who knows? Maybe the troupe will tackle the Bard’s comedies; after all, Helena and Hermia from A Midsummer Night’s Dream could certainly use a sassy gay friend. In any case, the videos are a hit. But why?

First, I think the videos are popular because they spoof plays that most people studied in high school and/or college; as a result, the stories are familiar. Second, they are spot-on if not simplistic interpretations of Shakespeare’s tragic characters: the seemingly rather passive, patient female and the rather insane, dangerously impulsive male. Third, the videos are short and sharable. I doubt the videos would circulate this much had they greatly exceeded their one-minute running-times; too much Shakespeare usually does not a viral video make. Fourth, although the series relies heavily on stereotyping, it is amusing and apparently inoffensive. For example, several gay fans openly express their love it:

• “I feel cool now cuz I am a sassy gay friend” (degeorgetitanic)
• “As a sassy gay friend […] I absolutely love this video!” (Periclease)
• “See, without us gay guys, life would be boring.” (MascotSith666)
• “I love this! It’s so true! I’ve always gotten the dish on my friends’ sex lives. (edgarae1)

In fact, it was a gay friend who introduced me to the Hamlet parody, offering, “If you need me to guest lecture for one of your [Shakespeare] classes, I’ll fly right in. Super-gay scarf at no additional charge.”

But what strikes me about the videos is their timely message: heterosexual relationships are threatening, insufferable, and unbalanced. Notably, the homosexual figure in the short narrative represents common sense, frankness, and discernment; in short, he is a sassy savior. I wonder, then, if a fifth reason the videos are so popular is that they reflect the current volatile state of heterosexual romantic relationships, particularly those represented in the public eye and in popular culture. See, for example, the deteriorating and/or fractured relationships of Tiger and Elin Woods, Jesse James and Sandra Bullock, David Letterman and Regina Lasko, Jon and Kate Gossalin, David and Michelle Patterson, Eliot and Silda Spitzer, Larry and Suzanne Craig, John and Elizabeth Edwards, and Mark and Jenny Sanford.

Also affirming this notion is the recent onslaught of “bromance” movies and television shows in which heterosexual romance is either floundering or virtually nonexistent and homosociality is the norm, e.g., Superbad (2007), I Love You, Man (2009), Hot Tub Time Machine (2010), House (2004-present), Boston Legal (2004-08). Finally, even fans of the Sassy Gay Friend series seemingly recognize their own dysfunctional (heterosexual?) relationships and the need for a rational non-heterosexual companion. For example, one viewer “needs a sassy gay friend to give it to me straight” while another claims that her/his gay friend is the only person who “really does keep me sane” while still another wishes, “God, I want him as my sassy gay friend. He would stop so many bad choices.” Such statements not only suggest that these fans are perhaps incapable of making wise decisions on their own, but also that their presumably heterosexual relationships are unstable and/or unhealthy. The sassy video series may originate with 400-year-old texts, but it is almost unquestionably of this time period.