Worldcon does it again
January 21, 2024 6:24 PM Subscribe
WorldCon 2023 is long over and the Hugo Winners were announced back in October, after a controversy involving boycotts from some creators in protest of the Uighur minority persecuted by China, and the invitation of Sergey Lukyanenko as a guest of honor. When the list of award nominees came out, there were some curious absences, specifically R. F. Kuang’s Babel, previously considered a front runner. There were suspicions that some works had been removed from contention for political reasons. The nomination statistics for the awards have been released (this is required by the Worldcon charter if I understand correctly) and they are not just curious, they are super hinky and the math literally doesn’t add up. Blockbuster analysis with links to additional commentary here by Cora Buhlert.
Commentary from jscalzi, and disqualified author Paul Weimer. Statistics PDF here.
Previously: 2022 Hugo Awards, 2021 Hugo Awards, 2020 Hugo Awards, Sad Puppies.
Commentary from jscalzi, and disqualified author Paul Weimer. Statistics PDF here.
Previously: 2022 Hugo Awards, 2021 Hugo Awards, 2020 Hugo Awards, Sad Puppies.
Frustrating to see the Hugos at the center of another mess - it seemed like things had finally recovered from the * Puppies mess.
posted by jferg at 6:58 PM on January 21 [6 favorites]
posted by jferg at 6:58 PM on January 21 [6 favorites]
I feel bad for T Kingfisher. Here she wins a big award and months later, has to wonder if her win needs an asterisk next to it.
Related to that, sort of, is a thought I had after read jscalzi's point about potentially extending eligibility for an extra year... while it's a nice gesture, it also introduces two years' worth of competition into what would otherwise be a year's worth (maybe fine to do this). Not to mention, as he points out, it does nothing about the state censorship issue.
Why is holding these awards in places where state censorship exists even an option? What's the upside? I guess it is called WorldCon and that would be a bit of a misnomer if places were disqualified, but it just seems silly to run smack into this utterly foreseeable circumstance.
posted by axiom at 6:58 PM on January 21 [19 favorites]
Related to that, sort of, is a thought I had after read jscalzi's point about potentially extending eligibility for an extra year... while it's a nice gesture, it also introduces two years' worth of competition into what would otherwise be a year's worth (maybe fine to do this). Not to mention, as he points out, it does nothing about the state censorship issue.
Why is holding these awards in places where state censorship exists even an option? What's the upside? I guess it is called WorldCon and that would be a bit of a misnomer if places were disqualified, but it just seems silly to run smack into this utterly foreseeable circumstance.
posted by axiom at 6:58 PM on January 21 [19 favorites]
("EPH" stands for "E Pluribus Hugo" and is their voting method. I didn't know, maybe you didn't, either.)
This is all so shabby and obvious. Why do people have to suck? *sigh*
posted by wenestvedt at 7:10 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
This is all so shabby and obvious. Why do people have to suck? *sigh*
posted by wenestvedt at 7:10 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
Camestros Felapton posted a current summary earlier today: "Hugo stats: where are we today."
Xiran Jay Zhao commented on Twitter just ~3 hours ago, "wait wait wait I just found out RF Kuang and I were deliberately excluded from the Hugo Awards in Chengdu last year for unspecified reasons despite having the votes to be finalists in our categories??" followed by, "Per the Astounding Award's website I was EXPLICITLY ELIGIBLE" with a screenshot of astoundingaward.info.
posted by Wobbuffet at 7:13 PM on January 21 [9 favorites]
Xiran Jay Zhao commented on Twitter just ~3 hours ago, "wait wait wait I just found out RF Kuang and I were deliberately excluded from the Hugo Awards in Chengdu last year for unspecified reasons despite having the votes to be finalists in our categories??" followed by, "Per the Astounding Award's website I was EXPLICITLY ELIGIBLE" with a screenshot of astoundingaward.info.
posted by Wobbuffet at 7:13 PM on January 21 [9 favorites]
Why is holding these awards in places where state censorship exists even an option?
Because one can literally buy a vote towards the Worldcon site selection and autocracies often have tons of cash to launder their reputations by attracting prestigious events and because, at least to Worldcon, rules are more important than principles.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:15 PM on January 21 [20 favorites]
Because one can literally buy a vote towards the Worldcon site selection and autocracies often have tons of cash to launder their reputations by attracting prestigious events and because, at least to Worldcon, rules are more important than principles.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:15 PM on January 21 [20 favorites]
What I find particularly interesting is that it isn't consistent. Novelette and Short Story look normal enough, and while that could be a factor of them being of less interest and promotional value than Novel and Series, it's hard to think someone would be deeply interested in hacking Fan Artist but not Short Story.
Also, it's not consistent even in the distorted ones. Novel has 7 heavily weighted items, while Novella has 5 and Series has 6, with the other distorted ones also in the 5-7 range.
posted by tavella at 7:16 PM on January 21 [3 favorites]
Also, it's not consistent even in the distorted ones. Novel has 7 heavily weighted items, while Novella has 5 and Series has 6, with the other distorted ones also in the 5-7 range.
posted by tavella at 7:16 PM on January 21 [3 favorites]
This whole thing is crummy.
I liked Nettle and Bone immensely, and I was so pleased when it won the Hugo.
(I haven’t read Babel, because her earlier book The Poppy War (or maybe its sequel) was too brutal for me. Great, compelling writing, but I just couldn’t.)
posted by leahwrenn at 7:26 PM on January 21 [3 favorites]
I liked Nettle and Bone immensely, and I was so pleased when it won the Hugo.
(I haven’t read Babel, because her earlier book The Poppy War (or maybe its sequel) was too brutal for me. Great, compelling writing, but I just couldn’t.)
posted by leahwrenn at 7:26 PM on January 21 [3 favorites]
"when it is truly time,
and if you have been chosen,
it will do it by
itself and it will keep on doing it
until you die or it dies in you.
there is no other way.
and there never was."
posted by clavdivs at 7:30 PM on January 21 [1 favorite]
and if you have been chosen,
it will do it by
itself and it will keep on doing it
until you die or it dies in you.
there is no other way.
and there never was."
posted by clavdivs at 7:30 PM on January 21 [1 favorite]
The big red flag is the drop-off from the top nominees along with the first nominee to miss the cut to the subsequently placed works, and the lack of votes for some popular works in later rounds. This all points at stuffing the ballot box so that work X got pushed out of the finalist lists.
posted by thecjm at 7:37 PM on January 21 [3 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 7:37 PM on January 21 [3 favorites]
what jscalzi says. And those numbers looked whacked.
It's like when MLB allowed internet voting for the all star games. But, way worse.
Just more fucked up shit from the Hugo folks.
posted by Windopaene at 7:40 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
It's like when MLB allowed internet voting for the all star games. But, way worse.
Just more fucked up shit from the Hugo folks.
posted by Windopaene at 7:40 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
They just need to make it an explicitly Anglo award--like the Booker with the US and Australia/New Zealand thrown in, and with the hosting held accordingly. There are a ton of places that would love to host a Worldcon, either because they have a large and growing sci fi reading population or because they want to show themselves off as safe for tourism or both. Saudi had a bid, Egypt had a bid, Israel has a bid up right now.
However, the authors involved are really only going to be comfortable in London, Dublin, Wellington, or Cleveland--and Cleveland is a stretch. Best to head off the controversy and just say non-Anglo countries can't host.
posted by kingdead at 8:01 PM on January 21
However, the authors involved are really only going to be comfortable in London, Dublin, Wellington, or Cleveland--and Cleveland is a stretch. Best to head off the controversy and just say non-Anglo countries can't host.
posted by kingdead at 8:01 PM on January 21
Clevention lives.
posted by clavdivs at 8:08 PM on January 21 [6 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 8:08 PM on January 21 [6 favorites]
However, the authors involved are really only going to be comfortable in London, Dublin, Wellington, or Cleveland--and Cleveland is a stretch.
This is a very odd perspective given the specifics of this situation, which seem to have very little to do with Anglo / not-Anglo, but instead (possibly) with politics of China and the Chinese diaspora.
posted by feckless at 8:29 PM on January 21 [32 favorites]
This is a very odd perspective given the specifics of this situation, which seem to have very little to do with Anglo / not-Anglo, but instead (possibly) with politics of China and the Chinese diaspora.
posted by feckless at 8:29 PM on January 21 [32 favorites]
The last line of that Scalzi piece
In the meantime: Check out Babel, if you have not yet done so. It’s a very very good book.
Which reminds me. I fucking hate big deal awards for art. Everything just gets stupidly mercenary and political and crass, various roads to hell getting paved with good-bad-ambiguous agendas. Whereas a solid recommendation from someone you've come to trust -- that actually means something.
Thank you, Mr. Scalzi.
posted by philip-random at 9:01 PM on January 21 [11 favorites]
In the meantime: Check out Babel, if you have not yet done so. It’s a very very good book.
Which reminds me. I fucking hate big deal awards for art. Everything just gets stupidly mercenary and political and crass, various roads to hell getting paved with good-bad-ambiguous agendas. Whereas a solid recommendation from someone you've come to trust -- that actually means something.
Thank you, Mr. Scalzi.
posted by philip-random at 9:01 PM on January 21 [11 favorites]
They just need to make it an explicitly Anglo award--like the Booker with the US and Australia/New Zealand thrown in, and with the hosting held accordingly
This is something I would not want to see. It's Worldcon, not Anglocon. It's good that the locations are starting to finally be held in places outside the anglosphere or Western Europe. And it's a long time coming - the first Worldcon to be held in a non-English speaking nation was the 28th. The first to be held in a non-English speaking nation that wasn't in Western Europe was the 65th. And even now it's still a predominately American con.
The issue here isn't leaving the anglosphere. The issue is transparency and going to nations that have no problem treating fan voting on pop culture as something political to be manipulated. There are plenty of nations around the world that would not do what China seems to have done here who don't speak English as a first language.
posted by thecjm at 9:28 PM on January 21 [25 favorites]
Literary awards are essentially political, though, and always have been. Boris Pasternak's Nobel, which the Soviet Writers Union forbade him from accepting, was precisely for writing honestly about his own country's past. So was Solzhenitsyn's. Often the award of prizes on explicit political grounds is desirable and justified, it's just that what (as I understand it) Chinese participants may be doing is not good---because it's censorious, not because it's political.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 10:01 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 10:01 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
Those ballot drop-offs smell a lot like CSM election tactics in EVE Online. EVE used ranked choice voting to select a number of player representatives who would get to do stuff, including argue with the game developers and take a free trip to Iceland.
We didn't rig the elections, but the alliance leadership produced voting guides and HEAVILY pushed them. And depending on how well the game was played, 1 or 2 of the alliance leadership would win every year. Just another perk of being a space dictator.
Anyway, that kind of organized voting left a huge, obvious footprint in the raw ballot numbers, similar to the weirdness in the award voting.
posted by ryanrs at 10:10 PM on January 21 [5 favorites]
We didn't rig the elections, but the alliance leadership produced voting guides and HEAVILY pushed them. And depending on how well the game was played, 1 or 2 of the alliance leadership would win every year. Just another perk of being a space dictator.
Anyway, that kind of organized voting left a huge, obvious footprint in the raw ballot numbers, similar to the weirdness in the award voting.
posted by ryanrs at 10:10 PM on January 21 [5 favorites]
You cannot exclude Babel and not explain why, it only had 5 fewer votes than Nettle and Bone FFS.
The fact that Kuang and Zhao were both excluded while Worldcon was held in China is incredibly suspect.
I haven't read Iron Widow yet, but Babel was the best book I have read in 5 years. This stinks to the high heavens.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:11 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
The fact that Kuang and Zhao were both excluded while Worldcon was held in China is incredibly suspect.
I haven't read Iron Widow yet, but Babel was the best book I have read in 5 years. This stinks to the high heavens.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:11 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
[for what it's worth, I read very little science fiction because it's not my thing, but anything that's earned the disapproval of a government as illiberal as China's is a recommendation in itself, so Babel is now on my to-read list]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 10:13 PM on January 21 [8 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 10:13 PM on January 21 [8 favorites]
it also introduces two years' worth of competition into what would otherwise be a year's worth
It'd slide a couple books from 2022 to 2023. Obviously I'd be upset if I were a writer and felt I lost because of that, but the exact year a book hits an award cycle is sort of accident of publishing anyway.
posted by mark k at 10:28 PM on January 21 [1 favorite]
It'd slide a couple books from 2022 to 2023. Obviously I'd be upset if I were a writer and felt I lost because of that, but the exact year a book hits an award cycle is sort of accident of publishing anyway.
posted by mark k at 10:28 PM on January 21 [1 favorite]
There was that hubbub a few weeks ago when some professor said that all of sci fi was a net negative for humanity (which I disagree with both on the face of it and in its framing).
But awards? It would not be hard to convince me that This Shit outweighs the benefits.
posted by McBearclaw at 10:54 PM on January 21 [1 favorite]
But awards? It would not be hard to convince me that This Shit outweighs the benefits.
posted by McBearclaw at 10:54 PM on January 21 [1 favorite]
It’s genuinely depressing how often SF shows itself to be comprised of the literal worst of humanity. This isn’t the first time, it’s not going to be the last, and people ought to be trying harder at this point in history.
posted by aramaic at 11:02 PM on January 21 [4 favorites]
posted by aramaic at 11:02 PM on January 21 [4 favorites]
Because one can literally buy a vote towards the Worldcon site selection and autocracies often have tons of cash to launder their reputations by attracting prestigious events
Neil Gaiman tells the story of how he was invited to China's first government-sanctioned science fiction convention in 2007. Science fiction had previously been looked down on as potentially counter-revolutionary. But that changed.
"I took aside one of the Party organisers, and said, "OK. Why are you now in 2007 endorsing a science-fiction convention?" And his reply was that the Party had been concerned that while China historically has been a culture of magical and radical invention, right now, they weren’t inventing things. They were making things incredibly well but they weren’t inventing. And they’d gone to America and interviewed the people at Google and Apple and Microsoft, and talked to the inventors, and discovered that in each case, when young, they’d read science fiction. That was why the Chinese had decided that they were going to officially now approve of science fiction and fantasy."
posted by davidwitteveen at 12:14 AM on January 22 [58 favorites]
Neil Gaiman tells the story of how he was invited to China's first government-sanctioned science fiction convention in 2007. Science fiction had previously been looked down on as potentially counter-revolutionary. But that changed.
"I took aside one of the Party organisers, and said, "OK. Why are you now in 2007 endorsing a science-fiction convention?" And his reply was that the Party had been concerned that while China historically has been a culture of magical and radical invention, right now, they weren’t inventing things. They were making things incredibly well but they weren’t inventing. And they’d gone to America and interviewed the people at Google and Apple and Microsoft, and talked to the inventors, and discovered that in each case, when young, they’d read science fiction. That was why the Chinese had decided that they were going to officially now approve of science fiction and fantasy."
posted by davidwitteveen at 12:14 AM on January 22 [58 favorites]
@ His thoughts were red thoughts -- I'd actually call Babel historical fantasy, and somewhat didactic historical fantasy in that it's explicitly anti-imperialistic. I don't think people who dislike science fiction will be put off, as long as they do like fantasy and are up for a brutal story about imperialism and racism. People who like neither historical fiction nor fantasy and are looking for something cozy probably won't like it. (i.e., Monk and Robot is very popular around here, and Babel is very much not that.)
posted by verbminx at 12:32 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by verbminx at 12:32 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
kingdead: They just need to make it an explicitly Anglo award--like the Booker with the US and Australia/New Zealand thrown in, and with the hosting held accordingly. There are a ton of places that would love to host a Worldcon, either because they have a large and growing sci fi reading population or because they want to show themselves off as safe for tourism or both.
I don't know how else to put this, but China is not the same as Finland, which I mention not because that's where I live but because it hosted a very successful Worldcons just a few years ago. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is not Taiwan, Egypt is not Mauritius, and Qatar isn't Costa Rica.
On the other hand, Florida is probably not somewhere that's safe to hold a Worldcon, and there are other parts of the Anglosphere which have laws on the books which endanger trans people and other members of the LGBTQ+ community more broadly.
What language people speak in the country of the convention isn't the problem. Fandom is a global community, there's nothing gained from closing the linguistic borders.
posted by Kattullus at 12:33 AM on January 22 [52 favorites]
I don't know how else to put this, but China is not the same as Finland, which I mention not because that's where I live but because it hosted a very successful Worldcons just a few years ago. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is not Taiwan, Egypt is not Mauritius, and Qatar isn't Costa Rica.
On the other hand, Florida is probably not somewhere that's safe to hold a Worldcon, and there are other parts of the Anglosphere which have laws on the books which endanger trans people and other members of the LGBTQ+ community more broadly.
What language people speak in the country of the convention isn't the problem. Fandom is a global community, there's nothing gained from closing the linguistic borders.
posted by Kattullus at 12:33 AM on January 22 [52 favorites]
There were legitimate reasons to want a Chinese worldcon. There are Chinese fans, it's reasonable to want a worldcon that was easier/possible for them to attend.
It's just that their government is bad enough to be a problem.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 1:01 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
It's just that their government is bad enough to be a problem.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 1:01 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
I don't know how else to put this, but China is not the same as Finland, which I mention not because that's where I live but because it hosted a very successful Worldcons just a few years ago. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is not Taiwan, Egypt is not Mauritius, and Qatar isn't Costa Rica.
They aren't, but Mauritius and Costa Rica aren't bidding. The countries that are acceptable to voters--and you're right, at this point that probably doesn't even include America outside New York and California--don't overlap with the countries that want to host.
Either these folks need to get their shit together and actively encourage bids from places like Costa Rica or just permanently settle on Dublin, although what Dublin did to deserve it I do not know. Otherwise there are always going to be accusations of vote rigging and nomination to please an unfriendly government, nomination to troll an unfriendly government, etc.
Realistically, though, what's going to happen is Worldcon Tel Aviv. Good luck with that!
posted by kingdead at 2:09 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
They aren't, but Mauritius and Costa Rica aren't bidding. The countries that are acceptable to voters--and you're right, at this point that probably doesn't even include America outside New York and California--don't overlap with the countries that want to host.
Either these folks need to get their shit together and actively encourage bids from places like Costa Rica or just permanently settle on Dublin, although what Dublin did to deserve it I do not know. Otherwise there are always going to be accusations of vote rigging and nomination to please an unfriendly government, nomination to troll an unfriendly government, etc.
Realistically, though, what's going to happen is Worldcon Tel Aviv. Good luck with that!
posted by kingdead at 2:09 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
The exclusion of Sandman on long form because it was nominated for short form, then ruling it ineligible on short form - someone in comments on the main post points out that Gaiman is an ambassador for UNHCR, which has strongly criticized the Chinese government over its treatment of the Uyghurs. They speculated that excluding him was a canary in a coal mine mechanic, I’m not sure if it was that or more a way of avoiding any potentially difficult statements if Gaiman shows up to accept awards in person, but either way, hinky.
posted by corb at 2:41 AM on January 22 [8 favorites]
posted by corb at 2:41 AM on January 22 [8 favorites]
They could have requirements for the hosting candidates, such as "observe the following human rights", etc. And they could require that most nominees be comfortable attending in that location.
Would that fix vote shenanigans though?
posted by trig at 3:26 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Would that fix vote shenanigans though?
posted by trig at 3:26 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
There is a vigorous set of discussions on BlueSky about this, where rahaeli (ex of LJ, now of Dreamwidth) has a lot to say, mostly in very pithy terms about how astonishingly badly the constitutional arrangements for WSFS, Worldcons and the Hugos are set up. Others have done their best to explain that there is no such thing as 'the Hugos' as a constituted award body; the WSFS constitution provides for the awards and their category definitions, but the actual process of administering them is undertaken by the Worldcon taking place for the year in question.
This has sort of worked, very badly, for many years. To date, most of the problems regarding the Hugos have arisen from abuse of the nomination and voting rules, plus various issues about how individual Worldcons have categorised works or defined admissibility. This seems though to be a whole new failure case (if proven): a Worldcon seemingly having abused its power to exclude works for opaque policy or political reasons.
As has been pointed out, if Chengdu 2023 did do this, and gets away with it, then there is little to stop any future Worldcon doing the same. It's one of those problems that hasn't happened before because nobody would ever do such a thing, until they did.
posted by Major Clanger at 3:41 AM on January 22 [12 favorites]
This has sort of worked, very badly, for many years. To date, most of the problems regarding the Hugos have arisen from abuse of the nomination and voting rules, plus various issues about how individual Worldcons have categorised works or defined admissibility. This seems though to be a whole new failure case (if proven): a Worldcon seemingly having abused its power to exclude works for opaque policy or political reasons.
As has been pointed out, if Chengdu 2023 did do this, and gets away with it, then there is little to stop any future Worldcon doing the same. It's one of those problems that hasn't happened before because nobody would ever do such a thing, until they did.
posted by Major Clanger at 3:41 AM on January 22 [12 favorites]
They could have requirements for the hosting candidates, such as "observe the following human rights", etc. And they could require that most nominees be comfortable attending in that location.
This was discussed extensively when Chengdu bid, and when there was a bid for Jeddah. The problem is that it is almost impossible to come up with requirements that aren't open to be criticised as biased, hypocritical or impossibly vague.
There are other factors too, such as economic. Helsinki and Dublin where perhaps the two most politically uncontroversial recent Worldcons, but both were held in cities that were eye-wateringly if not prohibitively expensive for many attendees.
posted by Major Clanger at 3:46 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
This was discussed extensively when Chengdu bid, and when there was a bid for Jeddah. The problem is that it is almost impossible to come up with requirements that aren't open to be criticised as biased, hypocritical or impossibly vague.
There are other factors too, such as economic. Helsinki and Dublin where perhaps the two most politically uncontroversial recent Worldcons, but both were held in cities that were eye-wateringly if not prohibitively expensive for many attendees.
posted by Major Clanger at 3:46 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Ex Urbe had a very interesting post about middleman censorship which delicately suggests that this happened because it was a good chance for China to cheaply reinforce to its own people that Big Brother Is Watching You https://www.exurbe.com/tools-for-thinking-about-censorship/ (I saw this via David Levine on Mastodon)
posted by Shark Hat at 3:48 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
posted by Shark Hat at 3:48 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
And they could require that most nominees be comfortable attending in that location.
The locations are chosen two years before the Worldcon when there are no nominees yet known. (For example, the site for 2026 will be voted on in Glasgow this year.)
posted by scorbet at 3:48 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
The locations are chosen two years before the Worldcon when there are no nominees yet known. (For example, the site for 2026 will be voted on in Glasgow this year.)
posted by scorbet at 3:48 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
tavella linked it above, but I just want to highlight Heather Rose Jones' graphical analysis of the history of long lists, which includes "normal" years both from a while ago and recently as well as a comparison with the Sad Puppy years. This year's data are even weirder looking than the Sad Puppy data, with a drop off from the nominees to everyone else that is even more extreme than the puppy slates' effect. And as others have noted here and elsewhere, that includes vote totals that are greater than the number of votes cast.
I've seen several folks say that this looks so bad that the committee must have known how bad it would look, and a very realistic explanation for that is that if they actually explained what happened, somebody in China involved in organizing the con would be at risk. So they just publish obviously rigged data so that everyone can see that something happened.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:23 AM on January 22 [15 favorites]
I've seen several folks say that this looks so bad that the committee must have known how bad it would look, and a very realistic explanation for that is that if they actually explained what happened, somebody in China involved in organizing the con would be at risk. So they just publish obviously rigged data so that everyone can see that something happened.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:23 AM on January 22 [15 favorites]
This was discussed extensively when Chengdu bid, and when there was a bid for Jeddah. The problem is that it is almost impossible to come up with requirements that aren't open to be criticised as biased, hypocritical or impossibly vague.
That's true for requirements that are fine-grained, but surely things like "no legal discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity" is not that high or impossible a bar these days. Even just "no jurisdiction where the contents of any of the nominated works has been censored" seems like a common-sense minimum (and would potentially rule out Florida...)
posted by trig at 4:54 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
That's true for requirements that are fine-grained, but surely things like "no legal discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity" is not that high or impossible a bar these days. Even just "no jurisdiction where the contents of any of the nominated works has been censored" seems like a common-sense minimum (and would potentially rule out Florida...)
posted by trig at 4:54 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
Even just "no jurisdiction where the contents of any of the nominated works has been censored" seems like a common-sense minimum (and would potentially rule out Florida...)
This also runs into the problem that the venue is voted on a couple of years before the nominations are made, and could lead to a situation where a “legitimate” bid is voided by governmental action between selection and the actual event.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:05 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
This also runs into the problem that the venue is voted on a couple of years before the nominations are made, and could lead to a situation where a “legitimate” bid is voided by governmental action between selection and the actual event.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:05 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
Even just "no jurisdiction where the contents of any of the nominated works has been censored" seems like a common-sense minimum (and would potentially rule out Florida...)
It does seem like a common-sense minimum, but I'm not sure it would work in practice considering the time scales that are involved; Chengdu won the WorldCon bid in 2018, when R. F. Kuang's first novel had just been published and Xiran Jay Zhao's first novel was still a few years away.
And it gets even more complicated with translated works. If no Chinese translation of a particular novel appears, is that censorship? Or is it just that no publisher decided to invest in publishing a translation? I'd bet that at least a few of the works on the Hugo ballot in Helsinki weren't available in Finnish, though not because of censorship.
Jay Blanc, in a Tumblr post I can't at the moment otherwise find corroboration for, says,
posted by Jeanne at 5:18 AM on January 22 [7 favorites]
It does seem like a common-sense minimum, but I'm not sure it would work in practice considering the time scales that are involved; Chengdu won the WorldCon bid in 2018, when R. F. Kuang's first novel had just been published and Xiran Jay Zhao's first novel was still a few years away.
And it gets even more complicated with translated works. If no Chinese translation of a particular novel appears, is that censorship? Or is it just that no publisher decided to invest in publishing a translation? I'd bet that at least a few of the works on the Hugo ballot in Helsinki weren't available in Finnish, though not because of censorship.
Jay Blanc, in a Tumblr post I can't at the moment otherwise find corroboration for, says,
Back before the 2023 Hugo Nominations were conducted, I noted that the Chengdu Worldcon Hugo committee had inserted a worrying clause indicating that local government officials could invalidate nominations for breaching the norms and standards of China.That seems bad, to say the least, and if true, the obvious question is : is it possible to change the rules to say that's the kind of thing you can't do?
posted by Jeanne at 5:18 AM on January 22 [7 favorites]
"no legal discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity" is not that high or impossible a bar these days.
It's not even centre-left orthodoxy that we should demand all of these things from every state anymore, no way this kind of standard actually holds up. Countries that don't allow things as basic as religious intermarriage are considered fine these days.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:18 AM on January 22
It's not even centre-left orthodoxy that we should demand all of these things from every state anymore, no way this kind of standard actually holds up. Countries that don't allow things as basic as religious intermarriage are considered fine these days.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:18 AM on January 22
> surely things like "no legal discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity" is not that high or impossible a bar these days.
Idunno. That would exclude much of the US - there are plenty of states where I can legally be fired from my job because my employer doesn't like the fact that I'm married to a member of the same sex.
I have no inside-baseball knowledge, here, but it looks like some fans put together a plausible bid and then somewhere along the line it got taken over by the government and the venue shifted and hijinx definitely ensued.
Looking ahead to future Worldcon plans, the most plausible bid site in a couple of years is Tel Aviv, so depending on how exciting things are still being over there, that could, uh, lead to a lot of heated discussion. And then I think a year or two after that, one of the bids is from folks in Uganda. (I think an African Worldcon would be awesome but perhaps not there. And a big fuck you very much to Scott Lively and all the other US evangelicals who have pushed for more extremism in Uganda.)
posted by rmd1023 at 5:26 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
Idunno. That would exclude much of the US - there are plenty of states where I can legally be fired from my job because my employer doesn't like the fact that I'm married to a member of the same sex.
I have no inside-baseball knowledge, here, but it looks like some fans put together a plausible bid and then somewhere along the line it got taken over by the government and the venue shifted and hijinx definitely ensued.
Looking ahead to future Worldcon plans, the most plausible bid site in a couple of years is Tel Aviv, so depending on how exciting things are still being over there, that could, uh, lead to a lot of heated discussion. And then I think a year or two after that, one of the bids is from folks in Uganda. (I think an African Worldcon would be awesome but perhaps not there. And a big fuck you very much to Scott Lively and all the other US evangelicals who have pushed for more extremism in Uganda.)
posted by rmd1023 at 5:26 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
Idunno. That would exclude much of the US - there are plenty of states where I can legally be fired from my job because my employer doesn't like the fact that I'm married to a member of the same sex.
And excluding those bids would be good too. (edit: not in wsfa, never been to a worldcon and have no particular intention to go, so not my circus not my monkeys)
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:56 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
And excluding those bids would be good too. (edit: not in wsfa, never been to a worldcon and have no particular intention to go, so not my circus not my monkeys)
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:56 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Surely the issue with China was that the agreement allows the local government to scupper nominations if they are deemed to convene Chinese norms, not anything weird or ineffable or "Anglosphere only"? This is clearly a Worldcon problem more than anything else - Worldcon needs to put in place a rule saying that nominations will happen in X way and no other, and if a potential host won't agree, they don't qualify to host the convention.
It's difficult to say "China can't host Worldcon because of human rights violations" while not saying that, eg, "the US can't host Worldcon because of floridly aiding a genocide" and we all know that the US will never be banned from hosting Worldcon.
But it should be comparatively easy to say, "All host countries must accept that Worldcon's process is X and nothing else", ideally while fixing the other problems with the voting process.
posted by Frowner at 6:00 AM on January 22 [20 favorites]
It's difficult to say "China can't host Worldcon because of human rights violations" while not saying that, eg, "the US can't host Worldcon because of floridly aiding a genocide" and we all know that the US will never be banned from hosting Worldcon.
But it should be comparatively easy to say, "All host countries must accept that Worldcon's process is X and nothing else", ideally while fixing the other problems with the voting process.
posted by Frowner at 6:00 AM on January 22 [20 favorites]
Here’s a good rundown of some of the history, here. MrPhilipsLibrary.wordpress.com
posted by rmd1023 at 6:23 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 6:23 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
That post links this Cheryl Morgan post which explains clearly that - as I sure didn't know! - there really isn't an effective central Worldcon organization. This explains a lot about Worldcon, not just the recent situation.
My bet is that, as with other world affairs, once everyone knows that there is no check on terrible behavior, terrible behavior is only going to increase and become more open, in this case undermining science fiction fandom and criticism. If the real situation is "any host country can tilt the process to exclude any work locally deemed unacceptable" then the choice will be between a Uganda Worldcon and any LGBTQ work being seriously considered, etc, and places where people would perhaps not have considered manipulating the nominations in the past will start manipulating them because they know it's not censured.
Seems bad, man.
posted by Frowner at 6:32 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
My bet is that, as with other world affairs, once everyone knows that there is no check on terrible behavior, terrible behavior is only going to increase and become more open, in this case undermining science fiction fandom and criticism. If the real situation is "any host country can tilt the process to exclude any work locally deemed unacceptable" then the choice will be between a Uganda Worldcon and any LGBTQ work being seriously considered, etc, and places where people would perhaps not have considered manipulating the nominations in the past will start manipulating them because they know it's not censured.
Seems bad, man.
posted by Frowner at 6:32 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
But it should be comparatively easy to say, "All host countries must accept that Worldcon's process is X and nothing else", ideally while fixing the other problems with the voting process.
Yeah. And as far as content censorship goes, I don't think it would be out of line or impossible to come up with guidelines about ruling out bids from jurisdictions where books have been censored for certain defined types of content (for example, lgbtq content) in the past X years. I say jurisdictions because this isn't only about countries; as mentioned, there are US states that have passed censorship laws on books in schools for example. It makes total sense for a literary organization to take a firm stand on censorship.
And jurisdictions where things like being gay or trans or getting around on your own as a woman are in the criminal code, or otherwise notably more unsafe than in other parts of the world, should not be viable candidates either.
It might be hard to find the perfect wording, and maybe the perfect wording doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean they don't need to try, or that even imperfect standards wouldn't be an improvement. Otherwise, besides this kind of censorship, you're forcing a lot of participants to choose between not attending or actively endangering themselves.
posted by trig at 6:39 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Yeah. And as far as content censorship goes, I don't think it would be out of line or impossible to come up with guidelines about ruling out bids from jurisdictions where books have been censored for certain defined types of content (for example, lgbtq content) in the past X years. I say jurisdictions because this isn't only about countries; as mentioned, there are US states that have passed censorship laws on books in schools for example. It makes total sense for a literary organization to take a firm stand on censorship.
And jurisdictions where things like being gay or trans or getting around on your own as a woman are in the criminal code, or otherwise notably more unsafe than in other parts of the world, should not be viable candidates either.
It might be hard to find the perfect wording, and maybe the perfect wording doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean they don't need to try, or that even imperfect standards wouldn't be an improvement. Otherwise, besides this kind of censorship, you're forcing a lot of participants to choose between not attending or actively endangering themselves.
posted by trig at 6:39 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
"No legal discrimination" is ambiguous. Does it mean the government doesn't require discrimination, or the government doesn't permit discrimination?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:50 AM on January 22
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:50 AM on January 22
ITT: A lot of lack of clarity on "it's not hard to understand that Worldcon should not be held in countries where journalists get sent to prison for writing unflattering things about the government."
If you want one simple test about where to not hold Worldcon, that would be it.
Also I cannot believe that the Uganda bid is not attracting more comment from this crowd.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:00 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
If you want one simple test about where to not hold Worldcon, that would be it.
Also I cannot believe that the Uganda bid is not attracting more comment from this crowd.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:00 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
Leopards, faces.
This is why we should avoid doing business with China. Well, this and the Uyghur genocide it's in support of.
Avoiding holding conventions in China is not hard. Avoiding doing business with China altogether is. I do what I can, but today I am spending literally five times as much for a lightbulb made in the US. I can afford it, but not everyone can. This worries me a lot, actually.
posted by novalis_dt at 7:13 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
This is why we should avoid doing business with China. Well, this and the Uyghur genocide it's in support of.
Avoiding holding conventions in China is not hard. Avoiding doing business with China altogether is. I do what I can, but today I am spending literally five times as much for a lightbulb made in the US. I can afford it, but not everyone can. This worries me a lot, actually.
posted by novalis_dt at 7:13 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
This is why we should avoid doing business with China.
Not that I necessarily disagree with your point, but worth noting that the "we" here implicitly excludes 1.4 billion people, many of whom are fans (and some of whom are award-winning authors) of science fiction. Answers that are obvious for an exclusive "we" may be less obvious when starting from a global "we."
posted by Not A Thing at 7:57 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
Not that I necessarily disagree with your point, but worth noting that the "we" here implicitly excludes 1.4 billion people, many of whom are fans (and some of whom are award-winning authors) of science fiction. Answers that are obvious for an exclusive "we" may be less obvious when starting from a global "we."
posted by Not A Thing at 7:57 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
The repeated, unspoken assumption behind so many comments here is that Worldcon venues are decided by some sort of standing managing body, or that there is such a body with the power to screen and approve bids.
That is simply not how it works.
The rules for bidding and site selection are set out in the WSFS Constitution.
Firstly, a group proposing a venue has to file a bid. The process is set out at rules 4.6.1 to 4.6.5. The only real gateway is the requirement to show evidence that suitable facilities exist and are available (e.g. via a conditional contract). To the extent this is checked, it is done by the committee of the Worldcon that is administering the bidding process, i.e. typically the Worldcon two years before the one being bid for. So, the requirement is almost purely procedural, and is not vetted by any oversight body.
Then, there is a single eligibility requirement at rule 4.7, that the site be at least 800km from the site at which site selection occurs. This is a simple objective criterion. (It is the descendant of much more complex rules that used to rotate Worldcon around zones of the US.)
Voting on bids is governed by rules 4.1.1 to 4.1.4, using the voting procedure set out at rule 6.4. Again, it is administered by the committee of the Worldcon at which selection takes place, and is a purely procedural process with no other criteria.
So, the only thing you have to do to get a Worldcon bid on the ballot in year Y is to lodge evidence in year Y-2 that you have a venue lined up that is at least 800km from the year Y venue. After that, it's down to a vote by members of the year Y Worldcon.
(Now, there is a process in the rules for the WSFS Business Meeting to select a venue if nobody bids, or if 'none of the above' beat any bids. But we are discussing the scenario where a controversial bid gets onto the ballot, which as noted it does automatically as long as it meets the minimal criteria.)
So what is to stop a country that wants the prestige, for what it's worth, of holding a Worldcon from simply getting a lot of citizens to join the upcoming Worldcon and voting for the bid that has been filed? Nothing at all.
You may think this is stupid (and you would be in good company, reading comments on Bluesky and elsewhere) but those are the rules.
So, you might say, change the rules! Two points here. Firstly, rule 6.6 provides that any amendment must be passed by the Business Meeting of two successive Worldcons. That rule is meant to stop, for example, local fan group X (or country X...) from just changing the rules so that Worldcon is permanently held in the same place for ever more. But it does make it hard to make changes. (In legal terms, WSFS has an 'entrenched' constitution.)
Secondly and more importantly, WSFS Business Meetings are a bizarre sub-fandom of themselves, attended in large part - at least, so it seems - by people whose main reason for coming to Worldcon is to attend the Business Meeting and who both worship Robert's Rules of Order as if they were a religion while treating the Business Meeting as a sort of LARP where you win by being the best at twisting said rules into a pretzel.
posted by Major Clanger at 8:18 AM on January 22 [23 favorites]
That is simply not how it works.
The rules for bidding and site selection are set out in the WSFS Constitution.
Firstly, a group proposing a venue has to file a bid. The process is set out at rules 4.6.1 to 4.6.5. The only real gateway is the requirement to show evidence that suitable facilities exist and are available (e.g. via a conditional contract). To the extent this is checked, it is done by the committee of the Worldcon that is administering the bidding process, i.e. typically the Worldcon two years before the one being bid for. So, the requirement is almost purely procedural, and is not vetted by any oversight body.
Then, there is a single eligibility requirement at rule 4.7, that the site be at least 800km from the site at which site selection occurs. This is a simple objective criterion. (It is the descendant of much more complex rules that used to rotate Worldcon around zones of the US.)
Voting on bids is governed by rules 4.1.1 to 4.1.4, using the voting procedure set out at rule 6.4. Again, it is administered by the committee of the Worldcon at which selection takes place, and is a purely procedural process with no other criteria.
So, the only thing you have to do to get a Worldcon bid on the ballot in year Y is to lodge evidence in year Y-2 that you have a venue lined up that is at least 800km from the year Y venue. After that, it's down to a vote by members of the year Y Worldcon.
(Now, there is a process in the rules for the WSFS Business Meeting to select a venue if nobody bids, or if 'none of the above' beat any bids. But we are discussing the scenario where a controversial bid gets onto the ballot, which as noted it does automatically as long as it meets the minimal criteria.)
So what is to stop a country that wants the prestige, for what it's worth, of holding a Worldcon from simply getting a lot of citizens to join the upcoming Worldcon and voting for the bid that has been filed? Nothing at all.
You may think this is stupid (and you would be in good company, reading comments on Bluesky and elsewhere) but those are the rules.
So, you might say, change the rules! Two points here. Firstly, rule 6.6 provides that any amendment must be passed by the Business Meeting of two successive Worldcons. That rule is meant to stop, for example, local fan group X (or country X...) from just changing the rules so that Worldcon is permanently held in the same place for ever more. But it does make it hard to make changes. (In legal terms, WSFS has an 'entrenched' constitution.)
Secondly and more importantly, WSFS Business Meetings are a bizarre sub-fandom of themselves, attended in large part - at least, so it seems - by people whose main reason for coming to Worldcon is to attend the Business Meeting and who both worship Robert's Rules of Order as if they were a religion while treating the Business Meeting as a sort of LARP where you win by being the best at twisting said rules into a pretzel.
posted by Major Clanger at 8:18 AM on January 22 [23 favorites]
wenestvedt is my new hero for providing the meaning of EPH.
posted by BCMagee at 8:52 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by BCMagee at 8:52 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Also, WSFS is a part-time volunteer fan organization that was originally designed to create a system of conventions that ambitiously hoped to represent everyone (within the conception of 1930s SF fans and writers, so, yes). It could deal with procedural problems as they came up, but isn't very good at anticipating malignant actors. Also, I suspect a lot of people voted for China because they wanted WorldCon (and, by extension, SF) to be more global and more inclusive, to give more voice to non-Anglophone writers and fans and a lot of other good things. Should voters have known (and cared) about Uighur oppression and other issues with China? Yes, and many did. As I recall, there was only one other bid that year, and it wasn't enticing. Again, that's poor reasoning, but it's also done by a bunch of distracted fans with good intentions but maybe not the best foresight. And here we are.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:52 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:52 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
It has been floated on BlueSky that "friends don't let friends run conventions," and this is one reason why 2023 came down to Chengdu vs. Winnipeg, and 2027 will be in Tel Aviv, and 2028 will be in Uganda - it's hard, thankless, unpaid work, and a lot of people who have the organizing skills and fandom connections to bid on a WorldCon just... don't want to.
WisCon, the feminist science fiction in Madison, WI, which I attended sporadically but passionately for many years, is taking a year off in 2024 because of a lack of volunteer labor - and may never come back.
I'm not very connected on that end of fandom (except for knowing a bunch of burned-out long-time WisCon volunteers), but I wonder if that model of not-for-profit conventions run on volunteer labor is still a viable model or not. Maybe too many people who would otherwise have some time and money available for volunteering are working on side hustles and trying not to get evicted. Maybe too many people are burned out from fandom drama, political drama, and the overlap between them. It seems like it has been hard for conventions to change with how the times have changed.
posted by Jeanne at 9:16 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
WisCon, the feminist science fiction in Madison, WI, which I attended sporadically but passionately for many years, is taking a year off in 2024 because of a lack of volunteer labor - and may never come back.
I'm not very connected on that end of fandom (except for knowing a bunch of burned-out long-time WisCon volunteers), but I wonder if that model of not-for-profit conventions run on volunteer labor is still a viable model or not. Maybe too many people who would otherwise have some time and money available for volunteering are working on side hustles and trying not to get evicted. Maybe too many people are burned out from fandom drama, political drama, and the overlap between them. It seems like it has been hard for conventions to change with how the times have changed.
posted by Jeanne at 9:16 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
it is worth noting that babel is a wrenchingly beautiful and awful analysis of the intertwined workings of imperialism and language, that it will sear itself into your brain, that it is doing necessary political work, that the novel is itself praxis, that it is the best novel published this year — note the absence of any qualifiers before "best" — that any hugo award given while babel is excluded from consideration for best novel is automatically invalid, that a hugo award given under these circumstances will be a blot on whoever dares accept it, and that any of you here whose works may have been nominated for a hugo award in any category have a moral and professional obligation to remove your work from consideration until such time as babel is added to the list of nominees for best novel.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:32 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:32 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
This problem of how to include a global community while continuing to support human rights and work against censorship is larger than just WorldCon, though. WorldCon may have its specific organizational difficulties, but the quandary happens in other setups with very different organizational structures.
From the Olympics, the World Cup, golf, all the way to various niche scientific conferences -- places that have a bad human rights+censorship record want to host these events. And yeah, it's not great when these things are only held in rich countries in Europe or North America. I don't think anyone has quite figured out how to solve this fundamental disconnect.
The Olympics and the World Cup are famously corrupt, and I can't think the world of golf is better. They do have central organization, but they don't evade this problem. So I'm not sure having a more centrally organized body to figure out who hosts WorldCon would help.
posted by nat at 9:35 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
From the Olympics, the World Cup, golf, all the way to various niche scientific conferences -- places that have a bad human rights+censorship record want to host these events. And yeah, it's not great when these things are only held in rich countries in Europe or North America. I don't think anyone has quite figured out how to solve this fundamental disconnect.
The Olympics and the World Cup are famously corrupt, and I can't think the world of golf is better. They do have central organization, but they don't evade this problem. So I'm not sure having a more centrally organized body to figure out who hosts WorldCon would help.
posted by nat at 9:35 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
that any of you here whose works may have been nominated for a hugo award in any category have a moral and professional obligation to remove your work from consideration until such time as babel is added to the list of nominees for best novel..
That's the problem, it's too late. The Hugos were already held last year in October, and awarded based on people voting on the shortlist. The longlist of nominees and number of votes is usually released almost immediately afterwards, but this time it was delayed by several months.
posted by scorbet at 9:37 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
That's the problem, it's too late. The Hugos were already held last year in October, and awarded based on people voting on the shortlist. The longlist of nominees and number of votes is usually released almost immediately afterwards, but this time it was delayed by several months.
posted by scorbet at 9:37 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
So what is to stop a country that wants the prestige, for what it's worth, of holding a Worldcon from simply getting a lot of citizens to join the upcoming Worldcon and voting for the bid that has been filed?
And there are some folks who are saying that's what happened with the Chengdu bid's win.
posted by rmd1023 at 9:54 AM on January 22
And there are some folks who are saying that's what happened with the Chengdu bid's win.
posted by rmd1023 at 9:54 AM on January 22
> That's the problem, it's too late. The Hugos were already held last year in October, and awarded based on people voting on the shortlist.
well shit, that's embarrassing.
the committee for bombastic lowercase pronouncements on metafilter apologizes for failing to provide the quality and accuracy of bombast you deserve. appropriate measures are being implemented to ensure that this type of oversight not reoccur.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 10:07 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
well shit, that's embarrassing.
the committee for bombastic lowercase pronouncements on metafilter apologizes for failing to provide the quality and accuracy of bombast you deserve. appropriate measures are being implemented to ensure that this type of oversight not reoccur.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 10:07 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
From the Olympics, the World Cup, golf, all the way to various niche scientific conferences -- places that have a bad human rights+censorship record want to host these events.
Who goes to these events when they're held in such places? Who went to the World Cup in Qatar? People who were somehow ignorant of it being held in Qatar? People who were wealthy and/or selfish enough not to care? People who did know better but still went anyway for the experience? Who?
The reason sportswashing is a thing is because people go. We've reified these events into something that can't be missed even if there are very good reasons for skipping them. People go to these sporting events even when there are burdensome restrictions on the consumption of alcohol and severe punishments for violating those restrictions.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:10 AM on January 22
Who goes to these events when they're held in such places? Who went to the World Cup in Qatar? People who were somehow ignorant of it being held in Qatar? People who were wealthy and/or selfish enough not to care? People who did know better but still went anyway for the experience? Who?
The reason sportswashing is a thing is because people go. We've reified these events into something that can't be missed even if there are very good reasons for skipping them. People go to these sporting events even when there are burdensome restrictions on the consumption of alcohol and severe punishments for violating those restrictions.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:10 AM on January 22
RonButNotStupid: Who goes to these events when they're held in such places? Who went to the World Cup in Qatar? People who were somehow ignorant of it being held in Qatar? People who were wealthy and/or selfish enough not to care? People who did know better but still went anyway for the experience? Who?
People from the region, broadly speaking, and people from countries who have difficulties getting visas to go to Europe and North America. Morocco, who got to the semi-finals, were a team that benefited from this, with each match feeling like a home game because the stadium was full of their fans.
posted by Kattullus at 10:23 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
People from the region, broadly speaking, and people from countries who have difficulties getting visas to go to Europe and North America. Morocco, who got to the semi-finals, were a team that benefited from this, with each match feeling like a home game because the stadium was full of their fans.
posted by Kattullus at 10:23 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Windopaene: There are no "Hugo folks". There are simply people who pay for a worldcon membership, which entitles them to vote for their favourite items the Hugo awards, to nominate works for next year's Hugos, and to vote in Site Selection for the worldcon-after-next.
Different locations put together bids to host the worldcon: this requires them to have a team of convention runners working for some years ahead of the event. Usually there's more than one bid, so the members get a choice. 2024 is Glasgow, 2025 is Seattle, and the members of the Glasgow worldcon will vote on the site for 2026.
What happened in Chengdu seems to be that a large regional Chinese convention got the idea that calling themselves the worldcon would be a neat way to publicize themselves and gain additional prestige, so they threw together a bid (there was already a large regional convention running there on a regular basis so that wasn't a problem) then got a bunch of their regulars to pay the $50 or so for a supporting (voting) membership back in 2021 and tick the box for themselves.
It may only have dawned on them too late that being the worldcon came with a bunch of duties attached, including running the Hugos ... and also came with some high profile visibility that might attract the attention of people the convention organizers didn't want to attract, i.e. the police and communist party. Oops.
I'm pretty sure we're only seeing the first outraged reactions to this stunt, and that it'll be a cold day in hell before the regular worldcon attendees—there's a core of SF fans who are willing and able to travel internationally and attend any worldcon—will tolerate another Chinese bid. It has also shone a bright light on some failure modes of the worldcon site selection system that were hitherto only potential failure modes: I suspect the idea of a Middle East worldcon is dead in the water for at least a decade now (both the Saudi/Egypt bids are dead and Tel Aviv will probably follow suit) and so is Africa. (There was a Uganda bid, although a bunch of folks were already saying "hell, no!" over the whole let's-criminalize-being-gay thing, never mind the lack of democracy.)
But nothing substantial's going to get done before August, because that's when the next WSFS meeting will be held (at the Glasgow worldcon) to vote on amendments to the WSFS rules.
posted by cstross at 10:25 AM on January 22 [17 favorites]
Different locations put together bids to host the worldcon: this requires them to have a team of convention runners working for some years ahead of the event. Usually there's more than one bid, so the members get a choice. 2024 is Glasgow, 2025 is Seattle, and the members of the Glasgow worldcon will vote on the site for 2026.
What happened in Chengdu seems to be that a large regional Chinese convention got the idea that calling themselves the worldcon would be a neat way to publicize themselves and gain additional prestige, so they threw together a bid (there was already a large regional convention running there on a regular basis so that wasn't a problem) then got a bunch of their regulars to pay the $50 or so for a supporting (voting) membership back in 2021 and tick the box for themselves.
It may only have dawned on them too late that being the worldcon came with a bunch of duties attached, including running the Hugos ... and also came with some high profile visibility that might attract the attention of people the convention organizers didn't want to attract, i.e. the police and communist party. Oops.
I'm pretty sure we're only seeing the first outraged reactions to this stunt, and that it'll be a cold day in hell before the regular worldcon attendees—there's a core of SF fans who are willing and able to travel internationally and attend any worldcon—will tolerate another Chinese bid. It has also shone a bright light on some failure modes of the worldcon site selection system that were hitherto only potential failure modes: I suspect the idea of a Middle East worldcon is dead in the water for at least a decade now (both the Saudi/Egypt bids are dead and Tel Aviv will probably follow suit) and so is Africa. (There was a Uganda bid, although a bunch of folks were already saying "hell, no!" over the whole let's-criminalize-being-gay thing, never mind the lack of democracy.)
But nothing substantial's going to get done before August, because that's when the next WSFS meeting will be held (at the Glasgow worldcon) to vote on amendments to the WSFS rules.
posted by cstross at 10:25 AM on January 22 [17 favorites]
One idea about the Hugo Awards that does come up from time to time, and I've seen floated again in response to this, is that the Hugo voting should be administered by a WSFS body that's somehow separate from each individual Worldcon committee.
This has, de facto, kind of been the case. The Hugo Administrators have been a fairly small group of people, usually helping each other across conventions. For instance, Dave McCarty, who administered the voting this time around, has done so before. But there's always been new people coming in, usually through the process of helping administer voting at their local Worldcons.
On some level, I think it's a good idea, as it seems to be that in this case whatever pressure was brought to bear happened inside the borders of China. But on the other hand, it might make it a closed shop, and I'm not sure that's such a good thing either. It's already difficult enough to get people to volunteer.
posted by Kattullus at 10:38 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
This has, de facto, kind of been the case. The Hugo Administrators have been a fairly small group of people, usually helping each other across conventions. For instance, Dave McCarty, who administered the voting this time around, has done so before. But there's always been new people coming in, usually through the process of helping administer voting at their local Worldcons.
On some level, I think it's a good idea, as it seems to be that in this case whatever pressure was brought to bear happened inside the borders of China. But on the other hand, it might make it a closed shop, and I'm not sure that's such a good thing either. It's already difficult enough to get people to volunteer.
posted by Kattullus at 10:38 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Just to tease out a nuance here - people saying “hell no” to whichever location either have to have paid a non-attending (voting only) membership or have to be attending the Worldcon 2 years prior to where they want to say “hell no.” So people being outraged, visibly online or not, don’t count until they pay to vote.
There is no like, professional/permanent CEO or comms director to track the upside/outrage, calculate the damage to the brand/revenue, and make a decision. It all depends on people caring enough to pay to vote.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:43 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
There is no like, professional/permanent CEO or comms director to track the upside/outrage, calculate the damage to the brand/revenue, and make a decision. It all depends on people caring enough to pay to vote.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:43 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
But nothing substantial's going to get done before August, because that's when the next WSFS meeting will be held (at the Glasgow worldcon)
It seems like a real, real longshot to me, but in addition to the Tumblr post above Jay Blanc has a comment on jscalzi's blog encouraging people to push for a declaration of incapacity, I think meaning this clause in the WSFS Constitution:
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:47 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
It seems like a real, real longshot to me, but in addition to the Tumblr post above Jay Blanc has a comment on jscalzi's blog encouraging people to push for a declaration of incapacity, I think meaning this clause in the WSFS Constitution:
Section 2.6: Incapacity of Committees. With sites being selected two (2) years in advance, there are at least two selected current or future Worldcon Committees at all times. If one of these should be unable to perform its duties, the other selected current or future Worldcon Committee shall determine what action to take, by consulting the Business Meeting or by mail poll of WSFS if there is sufficient time, or by decision of the Committee if there is not sufficient time. Where a site and Committee are chosen by a Business Meeting or Worldcon Committee pursuant to this section, they are not restricted by exclusion zone or other qualifications.I think the idea of doing much under this clause--like retroactively saying the Hugo committee wasn't able to perform its duties--is reading against the grain of "sufficient time," which to me implies you only invoke the clause before a committee has failed, but in theory Glasgow 2024 polling the current known membership under this clause, or just because they want to, could be reasonable to find out what support (if any) there is for taking further action under a strained reading. I realize it's an understatement to say WSFS rules aficionados would be unlikely to be moved by this.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:47 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Camestros Felapton, who Wobbuffet linked up top, has a new post summarizing and quoting some frankly bizarre exchanges between Dave McCarty and sundry others on his Facebook profile page.
posted by Kattullus at 11:21 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 11:21 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
I hope it's becoming clearer to those reading here that the Worldcon is a very unusual organization, possibly unique, and what people know about other organizations will tend to not apply.
It's sort of a cross between a gift economy, Robert's Rules of Order, and almost a century of accumulated efforts to make it work for a large event. It's pretty much done by middle and upper middle class people (I think) with their own time and money. There's no really big organization behind it.
I think that it might develop good enough government requirements for site selection, but then there might also need to be further thought given to what happens if a good enough government goes bad after a site has been selected.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:24 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
It's sort of a cross between a gift economy, Robert's Rules of Order, and almost a century of accumulated efforts to make it work for a large event. It's pretty much done by middle and upper middle class people (I think) with their own time and money. There's no really big organization behind it.
I think that it might develop good enough government requirements for site selection, but then there might also need to be further thought given to what happens if a good enough government goes bad after a site has been selected.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:24 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
What baffles me though, is that one would naively think that given their stated values, the Chinese government shouldn't find anything objectionable in Babel. But who knows these days. The translated versions are quite well-received on Douban.
By the way, the best novelette winner "The Space-Time Painter" by Hai Ya is quite a stinker. (It's not just my personal opinion but the consensus on Chinese websites I frequent.)
posted by of strange foe at 11:40 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
By the way, the best novelette winner "The Space-Time Painter" by Hai Ya is quite a stinker. (It's not just my personal opinion but the consensus on Chinese websites I frequent.)
posted by of strange foe at 11:40 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
I would think that having a Worldcon in any nation that is going to be dangerous, or extremely hostile, towards some subset of fans and authors is a terrible idea.
What next, Worldcon Dubai and then excluding all works by women as well as assuring that very few women attend?
America, the UK, and the EU have a lot of probems, no denying it. But they aren't actively censoring writers, nor do they pose an extreme danger of kidnap and torture to expats who go back to attend the con.
I'm sorry for Chinese SF fans, I'm sure at least some of the votes that put Worldcon 2023 in China were 100% legit. But their country isn't a safe place to have Worldcon.
I've no clue what the ultimate solution might be. Change the rules (over the next three years) to allow only people who physically attend Worldcon to vote on the location for the future? Add clauses to the rules excluding certian nations by name or by censorship and risk to attendees? There are significant problems with either approach.
Plus, of course, the rules do take a long time to change. Is this a one off thing where the PRC decided to fuck with Worldcon and now they're done? Or are Worldcon Moscow, Worldcon Riyadh, and Worldcon Pyongyang on the way?
posted by sotonohito at 12:08 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
What next, Worldcon Dubai and then excluding all works by women as well as assuring that very few women attend?
America, the UK, and the EU have a lot of probems, no denying it. But they aren't actively censoring writers, nor do they pose an extreme danger of kidnap and torture to expats who go back to attend the con.
I'm sorry for Chinese SF fans, I'm sure at least some of the votes that put Worldcon 2023 in China were 100% legit. But their country isn't a safe place to have Worldcon.
I've no clue what the ultimate solution might be. Change the rules (over the next three years) to allow only people who physically attend Worldcon to vote on the location for the future? Add clauses to the rules excluding certian nations by name or by censorship and risk to attendees? There are significant problems with either approach.
Plus, of course, the rules do take a long time to change. Is this a one off thing where the PRC decided to fuck with Worldcon and now they're done? Or are Worldcon Moscow, Worldcon Riyadh, and Worldcon Pyongyang on the way?
posted by sotonohito at 12:08 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
The answers from Dave McCarty - well, they’re either carefully to avoid denying that there was unofficial pressure from the Chinese government or com organizers at risk who are being protect - or it’s just that he’s a regular person with a flavor of frank who’s not used to communicating clearly. But it definitely does not explicitly rule out those things.
posted by bq at 12:34 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
posted by bq at 12:34 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
So yeah after all the explanations so far I hope there is a bylaws change getting voted on soon to ensure that "Does the wannabe host country have a government that sends writers to jail for writing" gets asked, and if answered in the affirmative, is disqualifying.
Which kind of sucks for fans in a lot of places. But if the premier reader's prize in SF (which is supposed to be the asker of uncomfortable questions) is going to get into bed with the CCP's writers' union about what kinds of things can be eligible for awards... It's hard for me to see that WorldCon is accomplishing its mission by meeting where that can happen.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 12:34 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Which kind of sucks for fans in a lot of places. But if the premier reader's prize in SF (which is supposed to be the asker of uncomfortable questions) is going to get into bed with the CCP's writers' union about what kinds of things can be eligible for awards... It's hard for me to see that WorldCon is accomplishing its mission by meeting where that can happen.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 12:34 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
The answers from Dave McCarty - well, they’re either carefully to avoid denying that there was unofficial pressure from the Chinese government or com organizers at risk who are being protect - or it’s just that he’s a regular person with a flavor of frank who’s not used to communicating clearly
The only conclusion I came to from reading that exchange is that he’s an enormous asshole who is refusing to provide a straight answer.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:24 PM on January 22 [13 favorites]
The only conclusion I came to from reading that exchange is that he’s an enormous asshole who is refusing to provide a straight answer.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:24 PM on January 22 [13 favorites]
As a huge fan of Babel, and therefore thoroughly pissed about this, I think it's worth quoting RF Kuang's statement in full:
I initially planned to say nothing bout Babel’s inexplicable disqualification form the Hugo Awards. But I believe that these cases thrive on ambiguities, the lingering question marks, the answers that aren’t answers. I wish to clarify that no reason for Babel’s ineligibility was given to me or my team. I did not decline a nomination, as no nomination was offered.
Until one is provided that explains why the book was eligible for the Nebula and Locus awards, which it won, and not the Hugos, I assume this was a matter of undesirability rather than ineligibility. Excluding the “undesirable” work is not only embarrassing for all involved parties, but renders the whole process and organisation illegitimate. Pity.
That’s all from me. I have books to write.
posted by jokeefe at 2:35 PM on January 22 [10 favorites]
I initially planned to say nothing bout Babel’s inexplicable disqualification form the Hugo Awards. But I believe that these cases thrive on ambiguities, the lingering question marks, the answers that aren’t answers. I wish to clarify that no reason for Babel’s ineligibility was given to me or my team. I did not decline a nomination, as no nomination was offered.
Until one is provided that explains why the book was eligible for the Nebula and Locus awards, which it won, and not the Hugos, I assume this was a matter of undesirability rather than ineligibility. Excluding the “undesirable” work is not only embarrassing for all involved parties, but renders the whole process and organisation illegitimate. Pity.
That’s all from me. I have books to write.
posted by jokeefe at 2:35 PM on January 22 [10 favorites]
What baffles me though, is that one would naively think that given their stated values, the Chinese government shouldn't find anything objectionable in Babel. But who knows these days.
Perhaps it's the Poppy War trilogy, explicitly based on 20th century Chinese history, which basically ends with the question "What if Chiang Kai-shek was the winner of the civil war in 1949"? Perhaps it's something to do with her father being a student protester at Tiananmen Square before emigrating to the US? Perhaps it's something about how Babel is a metaphorical retelling of those same Tiananmen Square protests?
posted by jokeefe at 2:49 PM on January 22 [14 favorites]
Perhaps it's the Poppy War trilogy, explicitly based on 20th century Chinese history, which basically ends with the question "What if Chiang Kai-shek was the winner of the civil war in 1949"? Perhaps it's something to do with her father being a student protester at Tiananmen Square before emigrating to the US? Perhaps it's something about how Babel is a metaphorical retelling of those same Tiananmen Square protests?
posted by jokeefe at 2:49 PM on January 22 [14 favorites]
and in general it's a rigorously anti-imperialist work with the subtitle "or, the necessity of violence."
the book is set in a period where the british empire was at its peak and where china was the country having imperialism done to it, sure, but it's a text against imperialism, full stop, arguing that certain means are necessary to achieve that anti-imperialist end. as such it's not surprising that people might expect the government of china to be non-fond of it.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:28 PM on January 22 [8 favorites]
the book is set in a period where the british empire was at its peak and where china was the country having imperialism done to it, sure, but it's a text against imperialism, full stop, arguing that certain means are necessary to achieve that anti-imperialist end. as such it's not surprising that people might expect the government of china to be non-fond of it.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:28 PM on January 22 [8 favorites]
also every sentence r.f. kuang writes is made of knives.
babel is so good, everyone, so so good, but plz leave yourself some time to recover after reading it.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:29 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
babel is so good, everyone, so so good, but plz leave yourself some time to recover after reading it.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:29 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
I’ll say this: everyone who was involved in it happening in Chengdu was fucking wrong and should admit as much and if not should be trusted about as much as the smoking pit in the ground that was Dave McCarty’s credibility.
posted by Artw at 4:08 PM on January 22 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:08 PM on January 22 [7 favorites]
Gizmodo has just published an article on this and will be following the outcome, apparently.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:23 PM on January 22
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:23 PM on January 22
As a minimum, I'd hope McCarty will be barred from ever serving as Hugo administrator again.
posted by tavella at 4:37 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
posted by tavella at 4:37 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
As a minimum, I'd hope McCarty will be barred from ever serving as Hugo administrator again.
His non-responses to the question "Why was Babel disqualified" are infuriating.
"It just was, suck it up" is not anything close to an answer.
posted by jokeefe at 9:59 PM on January 22 [9 favorites]
His non-responses to the question "Why was Babel disqualified" are infuriating.
"It just was, suck it up" is not anything close to an answer.
posted by jokeefe at 9:59 PM on January 22 [9 favorites]
does anyone know about any of Zhao's public statements on the CCP? I only read Iron Widow and have seen their video essays but don't think I've ever heard them explicitly criticize the government. Kuang's Mao the Last Airbender is such an explicitly KMT'ified retelling of PRC history that it would have surprised me if she hadn't been banned from even entering the country
posted by paimapi at 10:12 PM on January 22
posted by paimapi at 10:12 PM on January 22
I would like to nominate the 2023 Hugo Awards for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form.
posted by eemeli at 12:08 AM on January 23 [16 favorites]
posted by eemeli at 12:08 AM on January 23 [16 favorites]
The only conclusion I came to from reading that exchange is that he’s an enormous asshole who is refusing to provide a straight answer.
After reading the entire McCarty Facebook post and the comments, that is my take as well. Several people have pointed out that when Neil Gaiman asked a question about The Sandman TV show results, McCarty's non-answers became considerably more polite than his non-answers to other people. That's McCarty correctly assessing that Gaiman has high enough status in fandom that McCarty cannot get away with rudeness. If he were some poor ordinary schlub who was incapable of saying anything without being rude, he wouldn't have suddenly switched to Polite Mode when Gaiman showed up.
The fact that multiple people are coming up with fanciful potential excuses for this jerk makes me think some con will be dumb enough to put him in a position of power again in the future.
posted by creepygirl at 12:18 AM on January 23 [11 favorites]
After reading the entire McCarty Facebook post and the comments, that is my take as well. Several people have pointed out that when Neil Gaiman asked a question about The Sandman TV show results, McCarty's non-answers became considerably more polite than his non-answers to other people. That's McCarty correctly assessing that Gaiman has high enough status in fandom that McCarty cannot get away with rudeness. If he were some poor ordinary schlub who was incapable of saying anything without being rude, he wouldn't have suddenly switched to Polite Mode when Gaiman showed up.
The fact that multiple people are coming up with fanciful potential excuses for this jerk makes me think some con will be dumb enough to put him in a position of power again in the future.
posted by creepygirl at 12:18 AM on January 23 [11 favorites]
The longlist of nominees and number of votes is usually released almost immediately afterwards, but this time it was delayed by several months.
Which itself is hugely suspect, as the end of the excellent Heather Rose Jones piece hydropsyche and tavella linked above points out:
One reason for the delay in releasing the nomination stats was quoted as “this delay is purely to make sure that everything I put out is verified as correct (and the detailed stats take time to verify, there’s lot of stuff going on there.” [McCarty]
But remember that unexpected delay when announcing the finalists, way back earlier? Surely that was the point when everything needed to be verified as correct?...That’s why the nomination stats are usually able to be released immediately after the award ceremony: the work should have been complete months before. The nomination stats document should be ready to release at the time the finalists are announced...So what possible verification and correction could still be pending after the date of the announcement of the finalists? Much less after voting is complete? Much less for three months after the awards are given out? It doesn’t make sense.
Any errors or inconsistencies whose correction contributed to the 3 month delay after the con would be errors and inconsistencies that existed at the time the nomination data was processed to generate the finalist list.
posted by mediareport at 1:44 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
Which itself is hugely suspect, as the end of the excellent Heather Rose Jones piece hydropsyche and tavella linked above points out:
One reason for the delay in releasing the nomination stats was quoted as “this delay is purely to make sure that everything I put out is verified as correct (and the detailed stats take time to verify, there’s lot of stuff going on there.” [McCarty]
But remember that unexpected delay when announcing the finalists, way back earlier? Surely that was the point when everything needed to be verified as correct?...That’s why the nomination stats are usually able to be released immediately after the award ceremony: the work should have been complete months before. The nomination stats document should be ready to release at the time the finalists are announced...So what possible verification and correction could still be pending after the date of the announcement of the finalists? Much less after voting is complete? Much less for three months after the awards are given out? It doesn’t make sense.
Any errors or inconsistencies whose correction contributed to the 3 month delay after the con would be errors and inconsistencies that existed at the time the nomination data was processed to generate the finalist list.
posted by mediareport at 1:44 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
AardvarkCheeselog:
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:01 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
ITT: A lot of lack of clarity on "it's not hard to understand that Worldcon should not be held in countries where journalists get sent to prison for writing unflattering things about the government."So, Worldcon could not be held in the US either? I'm fine with that but it'd be a nonstarter for the usual suspects!
If you want one simple test about where to not hold Worldcon, that would be it.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:01 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
Don’t start with the whataboutism, there was enough of it when Chengdu was proposed, and we are having this conversation because it has comprehensively been proved that holding it there was a mistake.
posted by Artw at 7:32 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:32 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
It's not "whataboutism". There are certainly many ways in which China is less free than the USA. There are other ways in which the USA is less free than China. And there are a vast multitude of ways in which the USA and China are about even in terms of how many boots there are on people's necks and how heavy they are. Both countries are engaged in ongoing genocides against indigenous peoples; both countries are putting people in concentration camps (but in the US we don't call them that because it wouldn't be nice, we call them "temporary migrant housing" and "the prison system"). You are not immune to propaganda.
I think this is an omnishambles, obviously, but i don't think we have "comprehensively … proved" any such thing, especially since the best available evidence at the current moment is that a white US citizen (Dave McCarty) was at least largely responsible for how it played out. And the absolutely relentless sinophobia that has been all over the Chengdu bid since its inception is, in my opinion, a much bigger problem for global SFF fandom than a single-year Hugo award clusterfuck, regardless of the badness of it (and it is very bad!!!)
It is possible, and desirable, to say "this experience has really sucked and we need to learn from it, and we definitely need to build stronger safeguards against shenanigans especially when dealing with jurisdictions known for shenanigans" without comprehensively writing off 1.4 billion people.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:52 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
I think this is an omnishambles, obviously, but i don't think we have "comprehensively … proved" any such thing, especially since the best available evidence at the current moment is that a white US citizen (Dave McCarty) was at least largely responsible for how it played out. And the absolutely relentless sinophobia that has been all over the Chengdu bid since its inception is, in my opinion, a much bigger problem for global SFF fandom than a single-year Hugo award clusterfuck, regardless of the badness of it (and it is very bad!!!)
It is possible, and desirable, to say "this experience has really sucked and we need to learn from it, and we definitely need to build stronger safeguards against shenanigans especially when dealing with jurisdictions known for shenanigans" without comprehensively writing off 1.4 billion people.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:52 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
although state-backed murder of journalists is a very, very, very bad thing, probably the metric used for determining whether a worldcon site is valid shouldn't be "does this place kill journalists" but instead "is there a non-negligible chance that holding this convention in this place result in violence against attendees based on their identity categories or political views?"1
the venn diagram circle for "places that kill journalists" isn't exactly contained within the "non-negligible chance of violence against attendees based on identity categories/political views" circle. there's great swathes of the united states southeast and midwest where the chance of violence against queer and trans people is extremely non-negligible, but where the chance of a journalist getting killed as a result of the convention being held there is more or less negligible.
1: for the purpose of this interpretive frame, assume that people with political views that will get them expelled from the convention — i.e. neonazis and the equivalent — do not count as attendees.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:55 AM on January 23
the venn diagram circle for "places that kill journalists" isn't exactly contained within the "non-negligible chance of violence against attendees based on identity categories/political views" circle. there's great swathes of the united states southeast and midwest where the chance of violence against queer and trans people is extremely non-negligible, but where the chance of a journalist getting killed as a result of the convention being held there is more or less negligible.
1: for the purpose of this interpretive frame, assume that people with political views that will get them expelled from the convention — i.e. neonazis and the equivalent — do not count as attendees.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:55 AM on January 23
I am just so tired of people who want to reduce every large complex geopolitical actor, all of which are full of millions or billions of people, to "are they the good guys or the bad guys?" It's not useful.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:00 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:00 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Oh we can absolutely learn from it, we can learn from it as regards the US even - if for some reason the state of Florida tries to buy WorldCon one year we can point to this as to why maybe that’s a bad idea.
But Whatsboutism wouldn’t help with that at all, Whataboutism would just say “well what about Seattle, you held it there and the SPD is an out of control fascist gang masquerading as a police force”, and argue for holding it in Florida.
Whataboutism is a tool of authoritarianism, not a defense against it.
posted by Artw at 8:12 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
But Whatsboutism wouldn’t help with that at all, Whataboutism would just say “well what about Seattle, you held it there and the SPD is an out of control fascist gang masquerading as a police force”, and argue for holding it in Florida.
Whataboutism is a tool of authoritarianism, not a defense against it.
posted by Artw at 8:12 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
The entire US is authoritarian. It's just that the authoritarianism is unevenly distributed.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:13 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:13 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I mean, actual award finalists from outside the USA have been prevented from accepting awards at US cons because they are from the Wrong Country and cannot get visas. (I'm thinking in particular of Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki, who is a perfectly nice normal dude who happens to be Nigerian.) People really have to stop acting like the US is the default, natural, neutral place for global fandom to hold a convention.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:30 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:30 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
It's a bit weird as conversational flow goes, to go
"You're doing this thing, stop it.
But I'm not doing that thing. I'm making a different point, & you're conflating it.
Yes, but doing the thing would hypothetically make a different and bad point. So stop it."
If someone is making more nuanced of a point than the alternate conversation you're imagining, it's bad form to keep pressing them as if they're making the bad point.
posted by CrystalDave at 8:33 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
"You're doing this thing, stop it.
But I'm not doing that thing. I'm making a different point, & you're conflating it.
Yes, but doing the thing would hypothetically make a different and bad point. So stop it."
If someone is making more nuanced of a point than the alternate conversation you're imagining, it's bad form to keep pressing them as if they're making the bad point.
posted by CrystalDave at 8:33 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
People really have to stop acting like the US is the default, natural, neutral place for global fandom to hold a convention.
Nowhere is.
Using that to pretend Chengdu hosting didn’t have specific and predictable problems is asinine.
posted by Artw at 8:36 AM on January 23 [9 favorites]
Nowhere is.
Using that to pretend Chengdu hosting didn’t have specific and predictable problems is asinine.
posted by Artw at 8:36 AM on January 23 [9 favorites]
I am in no way denying that there was almost certainly unofficial pressure, at the very least, from some level of government. However, again, the current best evidence is that a white, US-dwelling US citizen (Dave McCarty) was at least largely responsible for many of the specific ways in which this fiasco has played out.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:40 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:40 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
There’s never going fi be a specific “don’t let the child of a Tiananmen Square protestor on the ballot” edict, everyone’s just going to know that’s what the deal is and act accordingly, that’s how it works.
posted by Artw at 8:47 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:47 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Well, yes, but there's also "don't let a rando fan writer that nobody in China has ever heard of onto the ballot" and that one's a lot harder to explain by Official Censorship. Also Babel has an official Chinese translation and is apparently very popular!
On top of that, the actual numbers show wrongness in a way that doesn't strongly correspond to any kind of political maneuvering at all, and at least some of it looks to folks in the know like it started out as an accident that someone tried to fix with ass-covering. Especially since McCarty has previous form for being this kind of barely-competent jackass!
Consensus seems to be converging on "some shenanigans, some legitimate fuckups, a lot of ass-covering" but i understand that's inconvenient to a narrative that China Is Always The Ultimate Bad Guy.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:58 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
On top of that, the actual numbers show wrongness in a way that doesn't strongly correspond to any kind of political maneuvering at all, and at least some of it looks to folks in the know like it started out as an accident that someone tried to fix with ass-covering. Especially since McCarty has previous form for being this kind of barely-competent jackass!
Consensus seems to be converging on "some shenanigans, some legitimate fuckups, a lot of ass-covering" but i understand that's inconvenient to a narrative that China Is Always The Ultimate Bad Guy.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:58 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Meg McCarty, on Bluesky
In 2014 I ran the social media accounts for the London Worldcon and the proximity the role gave me allowed me to watch Dave McCarty push the idea that as administrator he could throw away identical ballots that would have brought the 5% rule into play.
He. Does. Not. Care.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:01 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
It's spread over many Bluesky threads including Ursula Vernon's, but current speculation seems to head towards a crossover of incompetence with predatory Chinese capitalism rather than authoritarian control - the nomination numbers do point to stuffing the ballot box with extra points for works from two Chinese publishers whose employees were also con staff. Combined with the kind of bad math that comes with trying to tweak EPH, esoteric at the best of times.
I've had a ticket to Glasgow for a while. If there are no must see programme items opposite it, I might swong by the business meeting because wow it'll be a mess.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 9:05 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
I've had a ticket to Glasgow for a while. If there are no must see programme items opposite it, I might swong by the business meeting because wow it'll be a mess.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 9:05 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
AardvarkCheeselog:
(snip)
So, Worldcon could not be held in the US either? I'm fine with that but it'd be a nonstarter for the usual suspects!
OK, the first link goes to a story about a guy getting busted by his local Sheriff as a harassment move that (unfortunately) will not cost the Sheriff anything. The second link is busted but I assume it's as irrelevant as the first. Because if you think you scored some kind of sick burn here by citing a case of an asshole sheriff who got overridden by the first judge who heard about it when the topic is people getting disappeared by the security forces of the central government of their country...
I will not accuse you of willful bad faith argumentation. But you should be aware that you absolutely did not score a sick burn. Nor did you contribute in any meaningful way to the topic under discussion.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:06 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
(snip)
So, Worldcon could not be held in the US either? I'm fine with that but it'd be a nonstarter for the usual suspects!
OK, the first link goes to a story about a guy getting busted by his local Sheriff as a harassment move that (unfortunately) will not cost the Sheriff anything. The second link is busted but I assume it's as irrelevant as the first. Because if you think you scored some kind of sick burn here by citing a case of an asshole sheriff who got overridden by the first judge who heard about it when the topic is people getting disappeared by the security forces of the central government of their country...
I will not accuse you of willful bad faith argumentation. But you should be aware that you absolutely did not score a sick burn. Nor did you contribute in any meaningful way to the topic under discussion.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:06 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
but i understand that's inconvenient to a narrative that China Is Always The Ultimate Bad Guy.
Pretending the PRC isn’t going to behave exactly like the PRC out of some weird principle just seems like willfully burying your head in the sand.
posted by Artw at 9:08 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Pretending the PRC isn’t going to behave exactly like the PRC out of some weird principle just seems like willfully burying your head in the sand.
posted by Artw at 9:08 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
There's a thought that's circulating that one good way to handle this would be to separate "Hugo administration" from "the duties of a Worldcon" and on reflection i think that could be an excellent idea. It would, done correctly, both provide consistency/accountability AND insulate local concoms from a lot of potential issues like this, i think? "Collecting nominations and counting votes" isn't really the same skillset as "hosting a big party" ANYWAY.
And in any case McCarty should never be allowed near a Worldcon staff role again.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:10 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
And in any case McCarty should never be allowed near a Worldcon staff role again.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:10 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Pretending the PRC isn’t going to behave exactly like the PRC out of some weird principle just seems like willfully burying your head in the sand.Okay but again, there is actual evidence that, at the very least, complicates this nice simple narrative of What Went Wrong With The Hugos?
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:11 AM on January 23
Two things can both be true! China is an evil authoritarian state (all states are evil and authoritarian, to varying degrees! China is particularly bad in some respects!) AND that other factors are at work (and potentially more salient) here?????
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:13 AM on January 23
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:13 AM on January 23
Will you here ever be any evidence beyond “they held the con in Chengdu and exactly the kind of problem predicted occurred”? No, probably not. I would not expect there to be.
posted by Artw at 9:15 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:15 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Would having less of a weak fool running things given a better result? It might have resulted in a more satisfying blow up earlier on but Babel absolutely was not going to be on a ballot in China.
posted by Artw at 9:17 AM on January 23
posted by Artw at 9:17 AM on January 23
I'm not at all up on the nuances of publishing and censorship in China, but it might be worth mentioning that the Chinese edition of Babel is from a Taiwanese publisher and not available on, say, Amazon.cn, or in PRC libraries (as far as my limited search skills can find). (I think that's typical of Taiwanese-published books; the PRC publishing industry and the Taiwanese publishing industry are entirely separate, for what I assume is a combination of linguistic and political reasons). I am not sure that a Taiwanese-published Chinese-language edition of Babel is evidence one way or the other in regards to possible censorship.
posted by Jeanne at 9:18 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by Jeanne at 9:18 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
From File770, a Chinese fan who's particularly disgusted with how everything went down is apparently writing a long essay about problems with the con in general. I'm hoping that gets translated into English by someone competent, because i'm very interested to read what an actual Chinese person thinks as opposed to people who don't actually care about Chengdu other than slotting it into the Boogeyman Of The Week narrative.
Especially since, as far as i can tell from their comments, said fan seems to think that Chinese capitalists were a whole lot more responsible than the Chinese government.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:18 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Especially since, as far as i can tell from their comments, said fan seems to think that Chinese capitalists were a whole lot more responsible than the Chinese government.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:18 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Will you here ever be any evidence beyond “they held the con in Chengdu and exactly the kind of problem predicted occurred”? No, probably not. I would not expect there to be.Okay but you get how this sounds incredibly racist, right?
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:20 AM on January 23
Jameson Quinn, the professional statistician and voting expert who invented EPH, has a thread on Bluesky with some info and speculation about the numbers.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:25 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:25 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Okay but you get how this sounds incredibly racist, right?
I get how people tried to make it sound like a racist argument before it actually happened.
And then it happened and people are making the same argument, which is fascinating.
You realize a lot of people making the argument against Chengdu and with direct first hand experience were of Chinese heritage, right?
posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
I get how people tried to make it sound like a racist argument before it actually happened.
And then it happened and people are making the same argument, which is fascinating.
You realize a lot of people making the argument against Chengdu and with direct first hand experience were of Chinese heritage, right?
posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Okay but at least some substantial number of people in China wanted it to happen (and while there was clearly some ballot manipulation on the bid itself, at least a lot of that desire does seem to have been organic); why do their desires matter less than diaspora folks'?
You can't just pull out folks from a diaspora to tokenize in an argument about a sourceland issue (or vice-versa); that is also racist!
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:31 AM on January 23
You can't just pull out folks from a diaspora to tokenize in an argument about a sourceland issue (or vice-versa); that is also racist!
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:31 AM on January 23
I'm fine with "let's never hold a Worldcon in China ever again" if and only if it comes along with "let's never hold a Worldcon in the US ever again". Both countries have long and storied histories of human rights abuses, and sauce for the goose is good for the gander.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:37 AM on January 23
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:37 AM on January 23
Also, on a more lighthearted note:
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:41 AM on January 23 [10 favorites]
UPDATE: after declaring 2023 hugo awards invalid, the french cardinals have voted to initiate the WSFS schism and elect an antihugoMargaret Owen, on Bluesky
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:41 AM on January 23 [10 favorites]
could we focus on risk to the attendees and risk to the validity of the awards rather than "thing bad no other thing bad" tit for tat?
like, i despise the united states too, it's a fake dumb thing that shouldn't exist even more than all the other nation-states are fake dumb things that shouldn't exist. as an america-hater who knows that the united states and china are both fake dumb things that shouldn't exist i'm in the target demographic for your take, but nevertheless i find your take way unpersuasive.
i am fully comfortable arguing that "no u" is a weak take here.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:41 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
like, i despise the united states too, it's a fake dumb thing that shouldn't exist even more than all the other nation-states are fake dumb things that shouldn't exist. as an america-hater who knows that the united states and china are both fake dumb things that shouldn't exist i'm in the target demographic for your take, but nevertheless i find your take way unpersuasive.
i am fully comfortable arguing that "no u" is a weak take here.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:41 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
A lot of people predicted that the PRC would be a hazard to worldcon attendees and especially to the committee, but did anyone specifically predict that the PRC would fuck with the Hugos?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 9:47 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 9:47 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
adrienneleigh No one is writing off the PEOPLE we're writing off the GOVERNMENT.
I fucking hate most of what the US goverment does, OK? I am not trying to say 'Murca is perfect or even particularly good.
But if you're arguing that it was not a collosal mistake to hold Worldcon in a totalitarian oligarchy with a well deserved reputation for censorship and abuse of anyone who diverges from the norm then you're not making sense.
Serious question: should we hold Worldcon in the DPRK? If not is that "writing off 26 million people"? What about Saudi Arabia, if we're not open to holding Worldcon in a place that makes women legally inferior to and subordinate to men does that mean we're "writing off 35 million people"? Are we Koreaphobes and Arabphobes?
The PRC is a terrible place to have Worldcon. That was obvious from the beginning and now we unfortunatel have very real proof that everyone who objected to a PRC Worldcon was 100% correct and people who said they were racist Sinophobes were 100% incorrect. The PRC messed up Worldcon, and that's especially horrible since it's still reeling from the *puppies.
Are you capable of admitting it was a terrible, awful, mistake to host Worldcon in a place where some of the nominees would literally be at risk of kidnap and torture by Chinese authorities if they dared to attend?
posted by sotonohito at 9:52 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
I fucking hate most of what the US goverment does, OK? I am not trying to say 'Murca is perfect or even particularly good.
But if you're arguing that it was not a collosal mistake to hold Worldcon in a totalitarian oligarchy with a well deserved reputation for censorship and abuse of anyone who diverges from the norm then you're not making sense.
Serious question: should we hold Worldcon in the DPRK? If not is that "writing off 26 million people"? What about Saudi Arabia, if we're not open to holding Worldcon in a place that makes women legally inferior to and subordinate to men does that mean we're "writing off 35 million people"? Are we Koreaphobes and Arabphobes?
The PRC is a terrible place to have Worldcon. That was obvious from the beginning and now we unfortunatel have very real proof that everyone who objected to a PRC Worldcon was 100% correct and people who said they were racist Sinophobes were 100% incorrect. The PRC messed up Worldcon, and that's especially horrible since it's still reeling from the *puppies.
Are you capable of admitting it was a terrible, awful, mistake to host Worldcon in a place where some of the nominees would literally be at risk of kidnap and torture by Chinese authorities if they dared to attend?
posted by sotonohito at 9:52 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
sotonohito: at this point i think holding Worldcon anywhere is a terrible idea until fans fix their shit, but i've been a member of fandom for nearly 40 years at this point and can say conclusively that that is unlikely ever to happen.
Also, i am categorically not saying that all objections to hosting Worldcon in China were sinophobic. There were and are plenty of reasonable objections! What i am saying is that ever since the Chengdu bid process started, many people have in fact been sinophobic, and it's fucking vile, and i'm really tired of how people mix that into legit criticisms such that they make the sinophobia untouchable by virtue of that air of legitimacy.
Also, the latest File770 Pixel Scroll has some (GTranslated) commentary from Chinese fans on the situation. Mike seems to have done a good job of picking a lot of different sentiments, which i appreciate.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:01 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Also, i am categorically not saying that all objections to hosting Worldcon in China were sinophobic. There were and are plenty of reasonable objections! What i am saying is that ever since the Chengdu bid process started, many people have in fact been sinophobic, and it's fucking vile, and i'm really tired of how people mix that into legit criticisms such that they make the sinophobia untouchable by virtue of that air of legitimacy.
Also, the latest File770 Pixel Scroll has some (GTranslated) commentary from Chinese fans on the situation. Mike seems to have done a good job of picking a lot of different sentiments, which i appreciate.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:01 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Can we maybe not tankie the Hugos.
posted by corb at 10:02 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:02 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
I'm not a tankie; i absolutely loathe the PRC. I just don't hate it more than i hate the USA, which i understand is a cardinal sin on MeFi.
Oh, and i don't think "hating the PRC" is a reason to be disgustingly racist.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:06 AM on January 23
Oh, and i don't think "hating the PRC" is a reason to be disgustingly racist.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:06 AM on January 23
Worldcon Taipei, imo.
It's the clear not-racist, not-PRC choice. Everyone wins!
posted by ryanrs at 10:22 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
It's the clear not-racist, not-PRC choice. Everyone wins!
posted by ryanrs at 10:22 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Current open WorldCon bids.
The discussion around 2027 is going to be spicy.
posted by Artw at 10:41 AM on January 23
The discussion around 2027 is going to be spicy.
posted by Artw at 10:41 AM on January 23
Jeanne, in mainland China, Babel is published by a pretty big publishing house, 中信出版集团. (There are more details on the Douban page I linked up-thread.) It's available for purchase on multiple online shopping sites like Dangdang and Dongjing, both in ebook and paper form, so this is by no means a book that's being kept away from mainland Chinese readers.
In fact, Babel is in Douban (think Chinese Goodreader)'s annual SF reading list. (You need to scroll down about half the page to find it.)
posted by of strange foe at 10:43 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
In fact, Babel is in Douban (think Chinese Goodreader)'s annual SF reading list. (You need to scroll down about half the page to find it.)
posted by of strange foe at 10:43 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
I think that's the core of our disagreement, to me this isn't about which country you hate more. It's about which countries you can have Worldcon in without local authorities censoring them or without putting expat fans/authors at risk from authorities who are often violently upset with expats and without putting fans/authors at risk from misogynist or homophobic laws.
That last is why Uganda shouldn't even be under consideration. They not only have laws that make being gay punishable by death they enforce those laws.
I'd agree if anyone said that Florida should be off limits due to risk to LGBT attendees.
Not the point here is not thar I hate China or even that I have any particular objection to the PRC govenrment. The issue is that Worldcon was harmed by holding it in China due to local laws that had direct impact on the con.
And I'll add you seem to be ignoring the Chinese fans and authors who did not attend specifically because they believed they would be in danger from the Chinese authorities if they did. If that's not a good reason to say a place shouldn't be considered for Worldcon I don't know what would be. And no let's not get into "but Roman Polanski", real criminals who have committed real crimes are different and you know it.
I get and appreciate the need to oppose racism and I'll agree that there is some sinophobia involved in what some people are saying.
But I do not think there is anything even slightly sinophobic involved in arguing that Worldcon should not be held in China until its goverment undergoes massive changes.
posted by sotonohito at 12:20 PM on January 23 [9 favorites]
That last is why Uganda shouldn't even be under consideration. They not only have laws that make being gay punishable by death they enforce those laws.
I'd agree if anyone said that Florida should be off limits due to risk to LGBT attendees.
Not the point here is not thar I hate China or even that I have any particular objection to the PRC govenrment. The issue is that Worldcon was harmed by holding it in China due to local laws that had direct impact on the con.
And I'll add you seem to be ignoring the Chinese fans and authors who did not attend specifically because they believed they would be in danger from the Chinese authorities if they did. If that's not a good reason to say a place shouldn't be considered for Worldcon I don't know what would be. And no let's not get into "but Roman Polanski", real criminals who have committed real crimes are different and you know it.
I get and appreciate the need to oppose racism and I'll agree that there is some sinophobia involved in what some people are saying.
But I do not think there is anything even slightly sinophobic involved in arguing that Worldcon should not be held in China until its goverment undergoes massive changes.
posted by sotonohito at 12:20 PM on January 23 [9 favorites]
Wait, what is the actual evidence, or even rumor, of Chinese political pressure?
"Dave McCarty blinked twice while telling me off on Facebook" isn't enough.
posted by ryanrs at 1:22 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
"Dave McCarty blinked twice while telling me off on Facebook" isn't enough.
posted by ryanrs at 1:22 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
> I'd agree if anyone said that Florida should be off limits due to risk to LGBT attendees
One the one hand, Pulse Nightclub. OTOH, Gay Days Orlando. Also, South Beach. I'd argue Pulse could have happened anywhere.
It's well and good to remind white people that in America, safety from arbitrary arrest and mistreatment by cops comes with some big asterisks. It's not at all skillful or honest to try to conflate a local sheriff with a grudge with the national security cops of a nation that literally runs gulags for the disappearing of people who speak their minds in ways the State does not like. And then when you get called on that, to try to change the subject to how much you hate Sinophobia.
Oklahoma is probably a better poster child than Florida for State repression of the kind of people who go to cons. The guy who introduced a law to make animal control responsible for removing students in furry costume from schools for example. But even in OK it's not actually against the law to be gay, the way it is in Kampala. To suggest that anyplace in the US (where a WorldCon might plausibly happen... out in the butthole of nowhere doesn't count, there has to be a convention center) is as dangerous to attendees as anyplace in the PRC, that's just so profoundly wrong I don't know how to say it.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:27 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
One the one hand, Pulse Nightclub. OTOH, Gay Days Orlando. Also, South Beach. I'd argue Pulse could have happened anywhere.
It's well and good to remind white people that in America, safety from arbitrary arrest and mistreatment by cops comes with some big asterisks. It's not at all skillful or honest to try to conflate a local sheriff with a grudge with the national security cops of a nation that literally runs gulags for the disappearing of people who speak their minds in ways the State does not like. And then when you get called on that, to try to change the subject to how much you hate Sinophobia.
Oklahoma is probably a better poster child than Florida for State repression of the kind of people who go to cons. The guy who introduced a law to make animal control responsible for removing students in furry costume from schools for example. But even in OK it's not actually against the law to be gay, the way it is in Kampala. To suggest that anyplace in the US (where a WorldCon might plausibly happen... out in the butthole of nowhere doesn't count, there has to be a convention center) is as dangerous to attendees as anyplace in the PRC, that's just so profoundly wrong I don't know how to say it.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:27 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Camestros Felapton: I’m coming around to the Unified Stuff-Up theory. This is speculation, like almost everything else, but he's been digging into the released stats and following the discussion closely, so at least this is informed speculation.
posted by Kattullus at 2:11 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 2:11 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Wait, what is the actual evidence, or even rumor, of Chinese political pressure?
"Dave McCarty blinked twice while telling me off on Facebook" isn't enough.
Dave McCarty repeatedly complained that he was replying to "people who have never administered the awards" and "people [who] don't actually understand how things work." Several days ago, Kevin Standlee--someone who has the kind of experience that McCarty is talking about--posted, "Elections Have Consequences," essentially saying of course Worldcons have to follow local law, "no matter what" the WSFS Constitution says.
Neither of them suggests there was overt political pressure, and at one point, McCarty explicitly denies it. But McCarty does say "Are your actions or decisions in your day to day life indirectly or informally influenced by US government policy?" That leaves plenty of room for speculation, like maybe someone made decisions they believed to be compliant or overly-compliant or whatever just because they knew or feared the law--who knows, but it's more than blinking twice.
Kevin Standlee's post also adds pretty debatable opinions. One is a hypothetical I'll skip completely, but he makes one point that feels like an attempt at a justification of how the Hugos were administered, interpreting site selection as something like the unbendable and well-informed will of the voters even if it compromises the Hugo process. Then he complains about the same voters being rude and naive while dismissing election irregularities he'd pointed out.
I think that overlooks a middle ground where what site selection voters were naive about was trusting Hugo admins to do something like resign, leave the committee incapacitated, etc. rather than accept, carry out, and try to defend a compromised process.
posted by Wobbuffet at 2:32 PM on January 23
"Dave McCarty blinked twice while telling me off on Facebook" isn't enough.
Dave McCarty repeatedly complained that he was replying to "people who have never administered the awards" and "people [who] don't actually understand how things work." Several days ago, Kevin Standlee--someone who has the kind of experience that McCarty is talking about--posted, "Elections Have Consequences," essentially saying of course Worldcons have to follow local law, "no matter what" the WSFS Constitution says.
Neither of them suggests there was overt political pressure, and at one point, McCarty explicitly denies it. But McCarty does say "Are your actions or decisions in your day to day life indirectly or informally influenced by US government policy?" That leaves plenty of room for speculation, like maybe someone made decisions they believed to be compliant or overly-compliant or whatever just because they knew or feared the law--who knows, but it's more than blinking twice.
Kevin Standlee's post also adds pretty debatable opinions. One is a hypothetical I'll skip completely, but he makes one point that feels like an attempt at a justification of how the Hugos were administered, interpreting site selection as something like the unbendable and well-informed will of the voters even if it compromises the Hugo process. Then he complains about the same voters being rude and naive while dismissing election irregularities he'd pointed out.
I think that overlooks a middle ground where what site selection voters were naive about was trusting Hugo admins to do something like resign, leave the committee incapacitated, etc. rather than accept, carry out, and try to defend a compromised process.
posted by Wobbuffet at 2:32 PM on January 23
I’m unclear on how any level of data mess up leads to Babel being “ineligible”, unless I have missed something?
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on January 23 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on January 23 [7 favorites]
@hernibsen.bsky.social
Chengdu's second progress report contains this:
"Eligible members vote according to the "one person, one vote" rule to select Hugo Award works and individuals
that comply with local laws and regulations. The Chengdu organizing committee will review the nominated works and validate the votes."
posted by Artw at 3:08 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Chengdu's second progress report contains this:
"Eligible members vote according to the "one person, one vote" rule to select Hugo Award works and individuals
that comply with local laws and regulations. The Chengdu organizing committee will review the nominated works and validate the votes."
posted by Artw at 3:08 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Ensuing discussion and speculation on that thread includes this link: Online fan communities in China carry out their own form of self-censorship
posted by Artw at 3:11 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:11 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
the ada palmer essay linked upthread is very good at tracing out the whole "you don't need to do state censorship to do state censorship, you just have to get people to self-censor due to the potential for state censorship" thing. also and relatedly, one of her books has a digression on how some languages (notably, classical greek) have something called the "middle voice" for designating people who caused a particular thing to happen, but who didn't carry it out personally.1 like, the ruler who orders a person executed isn't the person who cuts off their head, but they are middle-voice responsible for the executioner doing the deed. the middle voice is super useful and i wish english had it.
to echo the palmer piece, most state censorship is middle-voice censorship, with the state middle-voice censoring by giving everyone it governs a sense that there are certain types of thing it would censor were it to encounter those things, instead of by actually directly wielding its power to censor.
1: n.b. the definition of middle voice given by the character making the digression in said book doesn't accord with the definition on wikipedia, but possibly that's because ada palmer is smarter than wikipedia, alternately, possibly that's because the character making the digression is a cannibalistic serial killer with only the most tenuous connection to consensus intersubjective reality
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:59 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
to echo the palmer piece, most state censorship is middle-voice censorship, with the state middle-voice censoring by giving everyone it governs a sense that there are certain types of thing it would censor were it to encounter those things, instead of by actually directly wielding its power to censor.
1: n.b. the definition of middle voice given by the character making the digression in said book doesn't accord with the definition on wikipedia, but possibly that's because ada palmer is smarter than wikipedia, alternately, possibly that's because the character making the digression is a cannibalistic serial killer with only the most tenuous connection to consensus intersubjective reality
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:59 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I think Ada Palmer's article is the smartest thing written about this subject and the closest to correct.
posted by ChrisR at 5:09 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by ChrisR at 5:09 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Also this fantastic and very correct comment by Gary Farber over on File 770, which I excerpt here: https://file770.com/chengdu-hugo-administrator-dave-mccarty-fields-questions-on-facebook/comment-page-3/#comment-1601600
No police or government are directly involved. The point is to AVOID that kind of attention, which is apt to wind up with you in jail, or worse, for a significant amount of time, possibly for years.
Meanwhile, none of the Western members of the concom wish to endanger their Chinese friends who will all remain living in China and subject to Chinese investigation and punishment in any number of possible ways.posted by ChrisR at 5:15 PM on January 23 [5 favorites]
I'm sure there are other suggestions that people more knowledgeable about the Worldcon, and about the running of volunteer organizations, will come up with in the coming weeks. In particular, there is a conversation to be had about how the system for selecting future Worldcons can help ensure that their teams will abide by the convention's values, without sacrificing the democratic process, or surrendering to racist caricature. But I think the most important lesson we need to take going forward is the same one we learned from dealing with the Puppies: no one is going to swoop in to fix this for us. We are going to have to do it ourselves. I believe that we will.The 2023 Hugo Awards: Now With an Asterisk
posted by jomato at 5:21 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
I think there should probably a new set of rules that would explicitly disqualify from hosting any area where attendees or awardees might be in danger of imprisonment for their political views or for using the wrong bathroom.
posted by bq at 5:26 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
posted by bq at 5:26 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
So on Weibo folks are complaining about the local WorldCon organizers and lamenting that China would never get a chance to host again. The tag is #雨果奖统计数据引争议# (Hugo statistics deemed controversial). It has truly come full circle.
posted by of strange foe at 6:56 PM on January 23 [5 favorites]
posted by of strange foe at 6:56 PM on January 23 [5 favorites]
I’ve been digging into this for the last couple of days and I feel like I have a reasonable overall theory that takes most of the details into account and doesn’t involve any major straining of belief (like McCarty falling on the grenade or nefarious Chinese government plots)?.
So I noticed that when you search weibo for the Hugo Awards, there’s a lot of critique of the Chengdu team specifically, and one post that got reposted under that aforementioned hashtag made a cryptic comment about how they tried to intervene because they could tell there were hidden mines buried under certain positions, but they were slandered and had personal repercussions for it and now they hope it’s clear why they tried to intervene.
I feel like Ada Palmer’s framing makes the most gut-check sense to me. My best guess is that the committee was focused on delivering a really great in-person convention, and at some point they started to feel concerned that certain authors might be a problem, for one reason or another. They’ve got a LOT of money and effort on the line, they don’t want to anger their sponsors, and they don’t want the government to shut down their convention which has taken a lot of work and money to plan (because the government can and will unilaterally shut down a massive production if it catches the notice of some official or another). They tell Dave McCarty this apologetically, framing it in terms of what local laws and regulations will allow.
Dave McCarty has developed a decent rapport with them (he boasts of being wined and dined by the Chengdu folks) and is a weird letter-of-the-law rules robot (see the Sad/Rabid Puppies debacle, which he left up to the voters to handle within the existing system) so he says that, well, rules are rules. They all decide together to agree to take this approach (which is why Dave is stonewalling as opposed to throwing them under the bus) and Dave justifies it to himself as following the local laws and regulations, without any direct external pressure being put on him eg a scary visit from an official, which I think accounts for his vehement disavowal of that possibility. I honestly think he bought in to the Chengdu team’s reasoning and that’s why he’s defending this choice and consistently stonewalling.
The Chengdu team quietly strikes off certain authors as ineligible, only thinking about what an embarrassment it would potentially be to have them awarded at Worldcon, not really thinking about the international ramifications. Dave McCarty releases the data not really feeling like he did anything wrong, and that the worst thing he did was not manage to clean up the data very well of various copy-paste/language barrier errors. (I did notice an exchange between Camestros and Dave that is detailed by ErsatzCulture where Dave says he’s extremely overworked but promises to put the data out on January 19th, and he does keep his promise.)
Everything blows up. Dave deliberates with the Chengdu team and decide the tack they’ll take is to stonewall with boilerplate “it’s in the rules”—and yes, technically, following the laws or regulations of the country is in the rules. The Chengdu team are currently “playing dead” on Weibo and being called out for it by furious Chinese SF fans, who are simply mortified beyond belief that this has set them back on the world stage so much and undone so much of their progress. (I really feel bad for the Chinese SF fans. A lot of them on Weibo feel like this shit is very par for the course in China.)
posted by oh__lol at 10:36 PM on January 23 [23 favorites]
So I noticed that when you search weibo for the Hugo Awards, there’s a lot of critique of the Chengdu team specifically, and one post that got reposted under that aforementioned hashtag made a cryptic comment about how they tried to intervene because they could tell there were hidden mines buried under certain positions, but they were slandered and had personal repercussions for it and now they hope it’s clear why they tried to intervene.
I feel like Ada Palmer’s framing makes the most gut-check sense to me. My best guess is that the committee was focused on delivering a really great in-person convention, and at some point they started to feel concerned that certain authors might be a problem, for one reason or another. They’ve got a LOT of money and effort on the line, they don’t want to anger their sponsors, and they don’t want the government to shut down their convention which has taken a lot of work and money to plan (because the government can and will unilaterally shut down a massive production if it catches the notice of some official or another). They tell Dave McCarty this apologetically, framing it in terms of what local laws and regulations will allow.
Dave McCarty has developed a decent rapport with them (he boasts of being wined and dined by the Chengdu folks) and is a weird letter-of-the-law rules robot (see the Sad/Rabid Puppies debacle, which he left up to the voters to handle within the existing system) so he says that, well, rules are rules. They all decide together to agree to take this approach (which is why Dave is stonewalling as opposed to throwing them under the bus) and Dave justifies it to himself as following the local laws and regulations, without any direct external pressure being put on him eg a scary visit from an official, which I think accounts for his vehement disavowal of that possibility. I honestly think he bought in to the Chengdu team’s reasoning and that’s why he’s defending this choice and consistently stonewalling.
The Chengdu team quietly strikes off certain authors as ineligible, only thinking about what an embarrassment it would potentially be to have them awarded at Worldcon, not really thinking about the international ramifications. Dave McCarty releases the data not really feeling like he did anything wrong, and that the worst thing he did was not manage to clean up the data very well of various copy-paste/language barrier errors. (I did notice an exchange between Camestros and Dave that is detailed by ErsatzCulture where Dave says he’s extremely overworked but promises to put the data out on January 19th, and he does keep his promise.)
Everything blows up. Dave deliberates with the Chengdu team and decide the tack they’ll take is to stonewall with boilerplate “it’s in the rules”—and yes, technically, following the laws or regulations of the country is in the rules. The Chengdu team are currently “playing dead” on Weibo and being called out for it by furious Chinese SF fans, who are simply mortified beyond belief that this has set them back on the world stage so much and undone so much of their progress. (I really feel bad for the Chinese SF fans. A lot of them on Weibo feel like this shit is very par for the course in China.)
posted by oh__lol at 10:36 PM on January 23 [23 favorites]
Artw: I’m unclear on how any level of data mess up leads to Babel being “ineligible”, unless I have missed something?
Camestros Felapton's theory is that Babel wasn't declared ineligible beforehand, but that it was left off the ballot due to a stuff-up, and was then labeled ineligible afterwards to cover up the mistake. That neatly explains why otherwise innocuous-seeming works and authors are also said to be ineligible, such as Hai Ya's short story "Fogong Temple Pagoda" and Paul Weimer in Best Fan Writer. Same goes for Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki's short story "Destiny Delayed", which seems to have been eliminated by numerical error, rather than anything else.
Either the ballots weren't tabulated correctly, or whoever was doing the math for the count didn't do it right. Either way, instead of admitting to it, the Hugo Administrators decided to obfuscate and mark the various affected entries as "ineligible".
A stuff-up would also explain the strangeness of The Sandman series being ineligible for best long form dramatic presentation because it was nominated in best short form dramatic presentation, and that a single episode of the series being deemed ineligible for best short form dramatic presentation because it was nominated in best long form dramatic presentation. It suggests, more than anything else, that the people in charge either didn't understand the rules or the math, or that the results they were presented with were so mixed up that they got confused trying to sort through it all.
I'll admit that it seems counterintuitive that people would rather have others think they're stooges of the Chinese government rather than admit to an error, but I've known people who'd rather confess to crimes they didn't commit than acknowledge that they made a mistake.
posted by Kattullus at 1:35 AM on January 24 [9 favorites]
Camestros Felapton's theory is that Babel wasn't declared ineligible beforehand, but that it was left off the ballot due to a stuff-up, and was then labeled ineligible afterwards to cover up the mistake. That neatly explains why otherwise innocuous-seeming works and authors are also said to be ineligible, such as Hai Ya's short story "Fogong Temple Pagoda" and Paul Weimer in Best Fan Writer. Same goes for Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki's short story "Destiny Delayed", which seems to have been eliminated by numerical error, rather than anything else.
Either the ballots weren't tabulated correctly, or whoever was doing the math for the count didn't do it right. Either way, instead of admitting to it, the Hugo Administrators decided to obfuscate and mark the various affected entries as "ineligible".
A stuff-up would also explain the strangeness of The Sandman series being ineligible for best long form dramatic presentation because it was nominated in best short form dramatic presentation, and that a single episode of the series being deemed ineligible for best short form dramatic presentation because it was nominated in best long form dramatic presentation. It suggests, more than anything else, that the people in charge either didn't understand the rules or the math, or that the results they were presented with were so mixed up that they got confused trying to sort through it all.
I'll admit that it seems counterintuitive that people would rather have others think they're stooges of the Chinese government rather than admit to an error, but I've known people who'd rather confess to crimes they didn't commit than acknowledge that they made a mistake.
posted by Kattullus at 1:35 AM on January 24 [9 favorites]
"Destiny Delayed" is eliminated correctly by the EPH method: you take the two items with the lowest EPH values (in this case, "Destiny Delayed" and "Zhurong on Mars"), and keep the one which had the highest number of nominations ("Zhurong on Mars" was nominated by 501 people and "Destiny Delayed" by 429 people, so you keep "Zhurong on Mars").
posted by penguinliz at 3:23 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
posted by penguinliz at 3:23 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
Thanks, penguinliz! I hadn't seen that the strangeness with the votes for "Destiny Delayed" had been accounted for.
I think my point still stands with just Hai Ya's short story being deemed ineligible (he won in another category) and Paul Weimer's mysterious ineligibility, but the stuff-up is maybe a little bit less total than I thought.
posted by Kattullus at 4:04 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
I think my point still stands with just Hai Ya's short story being deemed ineligible (he won in another category) and Paul Weimer's mysterious ineligibility, but the stuff-up is maybe a little bit less total than I thought.
posted by Kattullus at 4:04 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Hai Ya's short story being deemed ineligible
Cora Buhlert is careful to mention this may be an instance of prior publication not noted as such for some reason. The story appeared in a Galaxy Awards anthology in December 2022. The anthology's copyright page says the story was published in Science Fiction World Supplement 2022. I'm not sure when the Galaxy Awards were held in 2022, but in 2023 one source says they were held in early April. If that was true in 2022, there was only a 3 month span of time for the story to be published, nominated, and win a Galaxy Award while remaining eligible for a Hugo Award. Science Fiction World was represented at Worldcon at least by its deputy editor-in-chief, so if it has an annual supplement actually published toward the end of the year anticipating the coming year, the Hugo committee would be likely to know. It isn't clear to me how they'd decide on its eligibility under 3.2.3 ("Publication date, or cover date in the case of a dated periodical, takes precedence over copyright date") since the supplement does say 2022 on the cover, but it strikes me as a a judgment call that would raise a question if it were noted as inegligble for prior publication in a venue dated 2022.
posted by Wobbuffet at 4:57 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Cora Buhlert is careful to mention this may be an instance of prior publication not noted as such for some reason. The story appeared in a Galaxy Awards anthology in December 2022. The anthology's copyright page says the story was published in Science Fiction World Supplement 2022. I'm not sure when the Galaxy Awards were held in 2022, but in 2023 one source says they were held in early April. If that was true in 2022, there was only a 3 month span of time for the story to be published, nominated, and win a Galaxy Award while remaining eligible for a Hugo Award. Science Fiction World was represented at Worldcon at least by its deputy editor-in-chief, so if it has an annual supplement actually published toward the end of the year anticipating the coming year, the Hugo committee would be likely to know. It isn't clear to me how they'd decide on its eligibility under 3.2.3 ("Publication date, or cover date in the case of a dated periodical, takes precedence over copyright date") since the supplement does say 2022 on the cover, but it strikes me as a a judgment call that would raise a question if it were noted as inegligble for prior publication in a venue dated 2022.
posted by Wobbuffet at 4:57 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Hm, thinking about it further, Hai Ya's story would likely still have been eligible under 3.4.1 for having its first translation into English in 2022, even if the Galaxy Awards were run under typical time requirements and Science Fiction World's 2022 supplement came out earlier than it's dated, but I could really understand this one being confusing either way.
posted by Wobbuffet at 5:29 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
posted by Wobbuffet at 5:29 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
Even accounting for 'Destiny Delayed' as a correct but weird edge case of EPH, there's still some additional weirdness, which falls into two categories. There's either definite maths issues, like the EPH totals for Best Novel, Short Story, Fanwriter, Lodestar and Related Work do not sum correctly. Then there is unusual redistribution patterns, for instance when David Pomerico (editor for HarperVoyager US) is eliminated, his points all redistribute to Yao Haijun, and none at all to any of the other US or Chinese nominees higher up. In comparison, when Priyanka Krishnan is eliminated one round later, some points are transferred to 6 out of the 7 remaining nominees. I can't point to it and say it's mathematically impossible, but it's a really odd pattern. Camestros Felapton points out a similarly weird point transfer in Fanzine.
posted by penguinliz at 5:59 AM on January 24 [5 favorites]
posted by penguinliz at 5:59 AM on January 24 [5 favorites]
they don’t want the government to shut down their convention which has taken a lot of work and money to plan (because the government can and will unilaterally shut down a massive production if it catches the notice of some official or another)
I know personally someone who runs a conference where the local police threatened to shut it down because some of the vendors were selling maps that depicted the South China Sea ‘illegally’.
posted by bq at 7:56 AM on January 24 [6 favorites]
I know personally someone who runs a conference where the local police threatened to shut it down because some of the vendors were selling maps that depicted the South China Sea ‘illegally’.
posted by bq at 7:56 AM on January 24 [6 favorites]
Yeah, IMO we shouldn’t attribute to galaxy brain what can be reasonably explained by smooth brain, and both a self-censorship theory and the stuff-up theory are theories that feel plausible to me given the facts and an assumption of smooth-brainedness. But I’m leaning self-censorship because the mood on Weibo from Chinese netizens seems to be a fair amount of, “Well… what could they expect? Our country is just like this,” and blaming the Chengdu committee and the culture/politics of China for being an embarrassment to international SF. They’re not protesting the idea of corruption from the Chengdu team, they’re taking the L on this one (though maybe they are just taking our lead, who knows—though they do poke a little fun at the more ludicrous Sinophobic accusations on this side of the ocean).
I also think it’s possible that the stats are all janked up because their concerns about the ineligible books came up partway into the process and they had to backtrack poorly and try to fix the stats to cover up what happened but bungled it. They probably did what they considered the “best they could” given the circumstances. So maybe a combination of poor communication, incompetence, anxiety about the roving eye of the government (but likely no actual government interference given Dave McCarty is vehemently denying it), and then trying to soldier on without realizing how bad the repercussions were going to be. 🤷🏻♀️
posted by oh__lol at 9:14 AM on January 24 [4 favorites]
I also think it’s possible that the stats are all janked up because their concerns about the ineligible books came up partway into the process and they had to backtrack poorly and try to fix the stats to cover up what happened but bungled it. They probably did what they considered the “best they could” given the circumstances. So maybe a combination of poor communication, incompetence, anxiety about the roving eye of the government (but likely no actual government interference given Dave McCarty is vehemently denying it), and then trying to soldier on without realizing how bad the repercussions were going to be. 🤷🏻♀️
posted by oh__lol at 9:14 AM on January 24 [4 favorites]
@cwbuecheler.bsky.social
As someone who worked for a company that did business in China for a time, I can assure you that anyone claiming "The government had no influence on us" is either profoundly deceiving themselves, or straight-up lying. You might as well say that air has no influence on your lungs.
posted by Artw at 9:36 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
As someone who worked for a company that did business in China for a time, I can assure you that anyone claiming "The government had no influence on us" is either profoundly deceiving themselves, or straight-up lying. You might as well say that air has no influence on your lungs.
posted by Artw at 9:36 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
See also Naomi Wu, aka sexycyborg, who was threatened and possibly physically assaulted by local police because she had built an online presence with a Western audience doing DIY engineering and happened to be gay. No high ranking officials were involved, likely most people who could be considered to be high ranking officials have never even heard about her.
And she wasn't explicitly told what to say or not say. She'd never said anything remotely political. She was gay, and outed by vile American click hungry assholes, and that was enough. In the absence of specific instructions on what not to say she just shut down her entire online presence.
Censorship is only rarely about a Winston Smith type in some Ministry of Truth making official decisions on what may and may not be said. Censorship is mostly self censorship that is encouraged by vague threats and an feeling of uncertainty. Give people hard rules and they'll skirt them. Give them uncertainty and fear of stepping over a line they don't know the exact location of and they'll censor themselves much more effectively than any official censor could.
posted by sotonohito at 10:04 AM on January 24 [11 favorites]
And she wasn't explicitly told what to say or not say. She'd never said anything remotely political. She was gay, and outed by vile American click hungry assholes, and that was enough. In the absence of specific instructions on what not to say she just shut down her entire online presence.
Censorship is only rarely about a Winston Smith type in some Ministry of Truth making official decisions on what may and may not be said. Censorship is mostly self censorship that is encouraged by vague threats and an feeling of uncertainty. Give people hard rules and they'll skirt them. Give them uncertainty and fear of stepping over a line they don't know the exact location of and they'll censor themselves much more effectively than any official censor could.
posted by sotonohito at 10:04 AM on January 24 [11 favorites]
but likely no actual government interference given Dave McCarty is vehemently denying it)
Dave McCarty specifically said is that:
'No-one is ordering me to do anything'
'No-one is changing decisions I have made'
'There was no communication between the Hugo administration team and the Chinese government in any offical manner.'
Those statement specifically do not say 'there was no government interference' or 'there was no unoffical pressure applied by the Chinese government' or 'the committee did not declare entries ineligible in order to avoid scrutiny by the government'.
*ETA as of my last review of his statements
posted by bq at 10:26 AM on January 24 [8 favorites]
Dave McCarty specifically said is that:
'No-one is ordering me to do anything'
'No-one is changing decisions I have made'
'There was no communication between the Hugo administration team and the Chinese government in any offical manner.'
Those statement specifically do not say 'there was no government interference' or 'there was no unoffical pressure applied by the Chinese government' or 'the committee did not declare entries ineligible in order to avoid scrutiny by the government'.
*ETA as of my last review of his statements
posted by bq at 10:26 AM on January 24 [8 favorites]
Amy Hawkins (The Guardian, 01/24/2024), "Science fiction awards held in China under fire for excluding authors." Basically a summary/overview that will be mostly familiar, though they did get a fresh quote from Paul Weimer.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:37 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:37 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
@bq Yep. That’s what I picked up on too.
posted by oh__lol at 10:38 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
posted by oh__lol at 10:38 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
yeah, "in any official manner" is a big ol' tell and it was hella dumb of him to use that wording
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:34 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:34 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Dunno if anyone is still watching this thread, but for the record, the subtweet on Weibo I mentioned in the theory of self-censorship above… turns out to have been from La Zi, one of the vice chairs of the Chengdu Worldcon committee!? The machine translation on File770 is whack but a commenter (pomelo) did it justice:
“The shit was bound to hit the fan sooner or later. I tried to prevent it from happening but got totally crapped on, and then a certain someone cut ties with me. Hope you know now why I tried to prevent it—because I saw that some positions were booby-trapped and exploded if you took them—but small-minded gossips slandered me behind my back as trying to steal others’ thunder. Your good intentions might get your name dragged through the mud, but it doesn’t matter as long as your own conscience is clear.”
For the record, this cryptic subtweet was reblogged by the main person covering Chengdu Hugosgate on Weibo under the Hugosgate hashtag and given the poster’s identity as one of the vice chairs of Worldcon really seems like a subtweet of the whole controversy. If there was internal pushback against what happened at the time, it makes me feel like they definitely knew what they were doing and it wasn’t just a mistake.
posted by oh__lol at 7:07 PM on January 24 [11 favorites]
“The shit was bound to hit the fan sooner or later. I tried to prevent it from happening but got totally crapped on, and then a certain someone cut ties with me. Hope you know now why I tried to prevent it—because I saw that some positions were booby-trapped and exploded if you took them—but small-minded gossips slandered me behind my back as trying to steal others’ thunder. Your good intentions might get your name dragged through the mud, but it doesn’t matter as long as your own conscience is clear.”
For the record, this cryptic subtweet was reblogged by the main person covering Chengdu Hugosgate on Weibo under the Hugosgate hashtag and given the poster’s identity as one of the vice chairs of Worldcon really seems like a subtweet of the whole controversy. If there was internal pushback against what happened at the time, it makes me feel like they definitely knew what they were doing and it wasn’t just a mistake.
posted by oh__lol at 7:07 PM on January 24 [11 favorites]
Camestros Felapton goes through what the data says, and comes up with various observations on the “vote cliff”. The whole thing’s worth reading, but here’s an excerpt from the conclusion part:
What could it be:posted by Kattullus at 1:23 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
* An organic outcome of an unusual Worldcon? Anything is possible and people are strange but we’ve never seen anything like this since EPH votes became available.
* Slate voting? There is some indication of slates from Chinese publishers but firstly the works in the “cliff top” weren’t the works being slated and are mainly English-language works that were plausible finalist if it had been a US-based Worldcon. Secondly, as Heather’s graphs show, the year when there was a known slate in the Hugo Awards shows a less dramatic change in distribution. There is no evidence of English-language based slate external to the stats that I’ve seen. So, on balance probably not slate voting by genuine voters.
* Ballot stuffing? By that, I mean a person or a small group of people submitting a large number of ballots under false names. The stronger cohesion of the votes but also that we have in Best Novel 7 nominees benefiting by appearing on together with 4+ other top-ranked finalists suggests a degree of planning. It isn’t simply 6 works on a bunch of identical ballots. Perhaps the down-ballot smaller cliffs were due to the fake ballots having a mix of down-ballot nominees as well so they looked less fake? No way of knowing without access to the ballots which isn’t going to happen. Also, it is interesting that the Best Novel cliff-top appears to anticipate losing one of the finalists to being deemed ineligible (7 works rather than 6 in Best Series).
* Data manipulation. The easiest place to change the results is if you are counting the votes. One odd aspect of the cliff is that the outcomes don’t look that strange if you don’t look at the numbers too carefully. One theory that has been suggested is maybe the cliff is due to an attempt to boost the overall vote totals. Except…why do that in the nominations and not the final votes? Also, the easiest and least detectable way of doing that would be to just duplicate all the votes – twice the data and it would look just as organic! Sure, you might get more even numbers in your data than you might expect but that would be hard to spot. Yet, if the Hugo number crunchers were fixing the numbers then why fix the numbers so that Babel was a legit finalist that then had to be deemed ineligible by the same Hugo committee?
* Stuff-up? In my unified stuff-up theory I’d see it as an attempt to fix some accidental data loss and the cliff-top is extra data to make EPH give the desired result that they’d already seen with legit data…which, I have zero evidence for other than I’m running out of ideas.
I can’t help but notice that Spear doesn’t seem to be on the nominations list at all, which seems weird when it was in the finalist list for the Nebula, the WFA, and the LeGuin award. LGBT+ themes?
posted by bq at 8:04 AM on January 25
posted by bq at 8:04 AM on January 25
For the record, i've never denied that (probably unofficial, probably self-) censorship was one of the factors here. Nor that China is unsafe for many people, both people who live there and people who don't.
But "the Chinese government kidnaps and disappears people and the US doesn't" thing is a little rich. Two weeks ago we discovered that there's a mass grave/pauper's field in Mississippi; at least some of the people buried there had families who were never told what happened. (Others' families were told, but they were also told they had to "buy back" their loved ones' corpses.) At least a few of them were murdered by cops. Also surveillance and deportation (and yes, in at least a few cases outright disappearance) of US Arabs & Muslims has been a thing since 9/11, and has ramped up again substantially since October 7. Does the Chinese government do more of it, and more blatantly? Sure! But i stand by my statement that any rule that forbids hosting a Worldcon in Chengdu should also forbid hosting one in the US.
Also, the Chengdu bid made a bunch of people so angry, when it happened, that WSFS outright allowed Winnipeg to break the rules in order to have an opposing bid on the ballot. It lost. Chinese fans wanted a Worldcon.
To quote the inimitable Nick Mamatas:
But "the Chinese government kidnaps and disappears people and the US doesn't" thing is a little rich. Two weeks ago we discovered that there's a mass grave/pauper's field in Mississippi; at least some of the people buried there had families who were never told what happened. (Others' families were told, but they were also told they had to "buy back" their loved ones' corpses.) At least a few of them were murdered by cops. Also surveillance and deportation (and yes, in at least a few cases outright disappearance) of US Arabs & Muslims has been a thing since 9/11, and has ramped up again substantially since October 7. Does the Chinese government do more of it, and more blatantly? Sure! But i stand by my statement that any rule that forbids hosting a Worldcon in Chengdu should also forbid hosting one in the US.
Also, the Chengdu bid made a bunch of people so angry, when it happened, that WSFS outright allowed Winnipeg to break the rules in order to have an opposing bid on the ballot. It lost. Chinese fans wanted a Worldcon.
To quote the inimitable Nick Mamatas:
Is it Worldcon's fault that Hugo democracy was interfered with because it refused to interfere with site selection democracy? Just keep reading that question to yourself until it makes sense to you to ask.posted by adrienneleigh at 8:17 AM on January 25
In short: a whole lot of people talking about this sound like John W. Campbell, frankly.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:18 AM on January 25
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:18 AM on January 25
And a whole lot of people don't, frankly.
posted by mediareport at 8:46 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
posted by mediareport at 8:46 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
adrienneleigh
You keep trying all manner of motivated reasoning to avoid just simply admitting that Worldcon cannot operate in China as it does elsewhere.
All this boils down to one simple question: Can Worldcon operate in China EXACTLY as it does in other countries. No? Then China can't have Worldcon.
One does not need to either be racist nor be an America cheerleader to recognize that America is safe for Worldcon and China is not.
posted by sotonohito at 8:47 AM on January 25 [2 favorites]
You keep trying all manner of motivated reasoning to avoid just simply admitting that Worldcon cannot operate in China as it does elsewhere.
All this boils down to one simple question: Can Worldcon operate in China EXACTLY as it does in other countries. No? Then China can't have Worldcon.
One does not need to either be racist nor be an America cheerleader to recognize that America is safe for Worldcon and China is not.
posted by sotonohito at 8:47 AM on January 25 [2 favorites]
There are two issues here which are getting conflated - first, "if we're using a moral standard for who gets to host, which countries are 'good' enough to qualify" and second, "in which countries is there likely to be government pressure to interfere with the nominations/voting". There's also a practical consideration - which countries are physically safe enough for attendees and will give visas fairly?
The answer to the moral standard question is probably "few countries are morally qualified to host Worldcon if the standard is 'markedly more democratic and just than China, considered broadly". Most states do as much harm as they have reach to do. Does this mean that since a smaller state can do less harm, it's morally better? Maybe! So maybe Worldcon ought to be hosted only in smaller, liberal-ish states. But certainly "the United States is Morally Better than China" is a tough proposition to argue.
The voting question is a bit different - it seems like most potential host countries simply don't have the same kind of censorship concerns that China does. China is an outlier here. I tend to think that if there is likely to be political interference with the ballot in a particular country, that country can't be considered as a host, because what then is the point? This sucks, frankly, and is bad for Chinese fans and unjustly impugns the areas of the Chinese state which are in fact good and well administered. But the whole point of the Hugos is that they genuinely reflect something about SFnal sentiment, so the awards need to mirror the sentiment of the voters as much as possible.
The safety question is also important - would we feel good about inviting LGBTQ fans or international fans of color to Florida? No, we would not. Or pregnant fans! And do we feel good about the US just denying visas to attendees from, eg, Nigeria for racist bullshit reasons? No! So maybe the US isn't a good candidate for those reasons - I think "a diverse range of attendees can't get visas because of racism" is a reason not to host. In re China, weren't there people who were plausibly afraid that they would be arrested for political reasons if they attended?
Surely there are potential host countries where attendees can reliably get visas, do not expect to be in physical danger or danger of arrest and do not expect that the voting will be manipulated in some way? Those are the host countries that should be under consideration.
posted by Frowner at 9:00 AM on January 25 [9 favorites]
The answer to the moral standard question is probably "few countries are morally qualified to host Worldcon if the standard is 'markedly more democratic and just than China, considered broadly". Most states do as much harm as they have reach to do. Does this mean that since a smaller state can do less harm, it's morally better? Maybe! So maybe Worldcon ought to be hosted only in smaller, liberal-ish states. But certainly "the United States is Morally Better than China" is a tough proposition to argue.
The voting question is a bit different - it seems like most potential host countries simply don't have the same kind of censorship concerns that China does. China is an outlier here. I tend to think that if there is likely to be political interference with the ballot in a particular country, that country can't be considered as a host, because what then is the point? This sucks, frankly, and is bad for Chinese fans and unjustly impugns the areas of the Chinese state which are in fact good and well administered. But the whole point of the Hugos is that they genuinely reflect something about SFnal sentiment, so the awards need to mirror the sentiment of the voters as much as possible.
The safety question is also important - would we feel good about inviting LGBTQ fans or international fans of color to Florida? No, we would not. Or pregnant fans! And do we feel good about the US just denying visas to attendees from, eg, Nigeria for racist bullshit reasons? No! So maybe the US isn't a good candidate for those reasons - I think "a diverse range of attendees can't get visas because of racism" is a reason not to host. In re China, weren't there people who were plausibly afraid that they would be arrested for political reasons if they attended?
Surely there are potential host countries where attendees can reliably get visas, do not expect to be in physical danger or danger of arrest and do not expect that the voting will be manipulated in some way? Those are the host countries that should be under consideration.
posted by Frowner at 9:00 AM on January 25 [9 favorites]
Frowner: sure, but US-based fandom will never tolerate it if the US doesn't get a worldcon ever again (which it should not, because it is in fact a giant evil regime that abuses people).
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:01 AM on January 25
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:01 AM on January 25
Also, thank you for saying what i'm saying in a way that MetaFilter is more likely to listen to. I have zero illusions that i've ever actually been part of this community, or even compatible with it!
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:02 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:02 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
A good thread on Bluesky that collates a lot of Chinese social media posts including at least one purportedly from an actual organizer. There are translations.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:10 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:10 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
This BlueSky thread mentioned a 'Tianwen Project' that I hadn't heard about (Tianwen: Unveiling China’s Diverse Science Fiction to the World) that seems to be a large-scale effort to promote Chinese SF that includes a literary award and (possibly) large amounts of money?. No official link to McCarty, only rumors that I could find, although "I directly asked McCarty about it way back in November, and he dodged the question." which seems consistent with his modus operandi. Serious question, has this guy ever been anything except an evasive rude blowhard?
posted by bq at 11:18 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
posted by bq at 11:18 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
adrienneleigh I apologize, I had absolutely no intention of giving the impression that I didn't consider you part of the community, but intentions don't matter and I did so I apoloigize and will attempt to alter my behavior so I don't do that again.
I would also like to clarify that while I don't agree with you, I don't think you should stop posting, and that while I don't agree with you does not mean that I'm not listening. I actually do agree with you on many points, though our points of disagreement on this issue tend to be more significant.
Given the amount of jingoism, including subconscious jingoism on the part of liberals and even leftists in America, I get and agree the need to push back hard on claims of American moral superiority and I'm grateful to you for being here and forcibly presenting a position that goes contrary to conensus. I find myself in that position fairly often, and I should have been more sympathetic to the feeling of being piled on that it can have. Again, I apologize and I'll do my best to avoid doing similar things in the future.
posted by sotonohito at 11:21 AM on January 25 [3 favorites]
I would also like to clarify that while I don't agree with you, I don't think you should stop posting, and that while I don't agree with you does not mean that I'm not listening. I actually do agree with you on many points, though our points of disagreement on this issue tend to be more significant.
Given the amount of jingoism, including subconscious jingoism on the part of liberals and even leftists in America, I get and agree the need to push back hard on claims of American moral superiority and I'm grateful to you for being here and forcibly presenting a position that goes contrary to conensus. I find myself in that position fairly often, and I should have been more sympathetic to the feeling of being piled on that it can have. Again, I apologize and I'll do my best to avoid doing similar things in the future.
posted by sotonohito at 11:21 AM on January 25 [3 favorites]
sotonohito: i very much appreciate the apology, thank you very much. I also apologize; i have been fighty in this thread for all sorts of reasons, and i've said some shit i should've thought more carefully about, at the very least. I'm angry at the world right now, and it's not particularly useful.
(Not feeling part of the mefi community has nothing to do with you in particular, though, i hasten to add; i'm pretty uncertain i should even have returned after buttoning years ago, because i've never felt like it was possible for me to be a member of this community. i did a couple people some good, here and there, though, back in the day.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:56 AM on January 25 [3 favorites]
(Not feeling part of the mefi community has nothing to do with you in particular, though, i hasten to add; i'm pretty uncertain i should even have returned after buttoning years ago, because i've never felt like it was possible for me to be a member of this community. i did a couple people some good, here and there, though, back in the day.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:56 AM on January 25 [3 favorites]
I just want to add that it’s very hard to disentangle the legitimate criticisms of China and Chengdu as a Worldcon site from Sinophobic flights of fancies in the larger discourse. I’m deeply sympathetic to the Chinese sci fi fans who wanted to bring authors they were excited about to China and show off their domestic sci fi on the world stage as well. I’m also sympathetic to the diaspora Chinese who argued vehemently against the decision and seem to have been proven right to do so. And I don’t think the Chengdu bids were part of some shadowy government conspiracy to commit fraud, or that Chengdu Worldcon was unsafe for foreigners who were going to get carted off with a sack over their heads. There’s a lot of exaggeration and fear mixed in with very valid criticisms of what seems to have gone down in Chengdu in this conversation. It’s hard to sort all of it out.
posted by oh__lol at 1:29 PM on January 25 [7 favorites]
posted by oh__lol at 1:29 PM on January 25 [7 favorites]
Coming back to post this subthread from BlueSky, which I don't think you'll encounter if you just lookt at the one linked by adrienneleigh above. It points to a lengthy human-performed translation of one the longer weibo posts, to give a flavor of what is being said in China.
Also adrienneleigh I want to apologize for being snarky in my responses to you. Looking at Frowner's upthread, I am definitely arguing about "risk of arrest for attendees," not "moral fitness to host a WorldCon," and I will not argue with you about the US's status by the latter metric.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:13 PM on January 25 [3 favorites]
Also adrienneleigh I want to apologize for being snarky in my responses to you. Looking at Frowner's upthread, I am definitely arguing about "risk of arrest for attendees," not "moral fitness to host a WorldCon," and I will not argue with you about the US's status by the latter metric.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:13 PM on January 25 [3 favorites]
Aardvark Cheeselog: yeah, that subthread definitely wouldn't have been available at the time i posted the bsky thread, because i'm the one who tagged Brendan into a different subthread and he ended up doing this translation! :D
Also, thanks for the apology; i was also pretty snarky, and came in hot in a way that wasn't helpful.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:20 PM on January 25 [2 favorites]
Also, thanks for the apology; i was also pretty snarky, and came in hot in a way that wasn't helpful.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:20 PM on January 25 [2 favorites]
Something new from McCarty:
Surprised to see McCarty's name tied to a new Chinese SFF award, with "tons of money in prizes," I reached out for clarification on the upcoming award and his role in its creation and/or administration. (This had previously been reported in October, 2023 by Mike Glyer at File 770.)
The Tianwen Plan, McCarty told me via email, is a project to create a new literary award inside China "with the purpose of further connecting fans and fandom inside China with that at the worldcon each year by bringing fans from China to the worldcon for the presentation of the award."
He also provided further details about his specific role with The Tianwen Plan:
The scope and handling of the awards is determined by fans in China and my only role there would be to offer advice if any were sought.
“The aspect of getting Chinese fans connected to the worldcon was the aspect of the plan where I thought I might be helpful, but that would be limited to showing them how to connect with the program team each year and see how they might get such items into the schedule at worldcon and get Chinese fans on the broader panels.
There's no compensation for this of any kind, it is simply that friends of mine asked "what do (you) think of doing something to try to bring Chinese and Western fandom closer together?" And I said I thought that was an amazing plan and I'd like to help see it happen.”
posted by bq at 9:58 AM on January 26 [3 favorites]
Surprised to see McCarty's name tied to a new Chinese SFF award, with "tons of money in prizes," I reached out for clarification on the upcoming award and his role in its creation and/or administration. (This had previously been reported in October, 2023 by Mike Glyer at File 770.)
The Tianwen Plan, McCarty told me via email, is a project to create a new literary award inside China "with the purpose of further connecting fans and fandom inside China with that at the worldcon each year by bringing fans from China to the worldcon for the presentation of the award."
He also provided further details about his specific role with The Tianwen Plan:
The scope and handling of the awards is determined by fans in China and my only role there would be to offer advice if any were sought.
“The aspect of getting Chinese fans connected to the worldcon was the aspect of the plan where I thought I might be helpful, but that would be limited to showing them how to connect with the program team each year and see how they might get such items into the schedule at worldcon and get Chinese fans on the broader panels.
There's no compensation for this of any kind, it is simply that friends of mine asked "what do (you) think of doing something to try to bring Chinese and Western fandom closer together?" And I said I thought that was an amazing plan and I'd like to help see it happen.”
posted by bq at 9:58 AM on January 26 [3 favorites]
At the risk of being “guy who links to Camestros Felapton” as this thread slows ever more down… he makes an interesting observation in his latest blogpost. Now, I should preface this by saying that he treats this as a half-baked attempt to account for one of the weirdnesses of the data, namely that if there was a slate, it would’ve had more entries than there are slots to vote for on the Hugo ballot. Excerpt:
Clause 3.8.9: I’ve said in various conversations about the limits of some numbers in EPH based on the fact that you can only nominate five things per category. However, I’d forgotten that there is an exception:posted by Kattullus at 12:58 PM on January 26
“3.8.9: If a work receives a nomination in its default category, and if the Committee relocates the work under its authority under subsection 3.2.9 or subsection 3.2.11, the Committee shall count the nomination even if the member already has made five (5) nominations in the more-appropriate category.”
If you nominate something in a category and the category you picked was the sensible one BUT the admins move the category it is in, then your vote still counts even if you already had 5 things in that category. This is most obvious in Best Dramatic Presentation, where maybe the run time of an episode of a show might but it on the border between categories but it also could impact the story categories.
This might be more relevant in 2023 because of the world limits being given in terms of western word counts that have an inexact correspondence with how Chinese characters work. Does this explain the weird EPH counts? No. For example, Fan Writer is one of the categories with an inconsistent vote count and that is not a category where this rule applies.
Still, I’m mentioning it for completeness.
cstross, expanding on comments above, has posted "Worldcon in the news."
I think this is a good article to share with your friends semi-local to Glasgow and Seattle who are into SF/F but not insiders to this kind of news, because it has background, an explanation, and forward-looking thoughts.
Also, for SF/F readers in the Seattle area especially, right now could be a good time to hear that they don't need to be any kind of expert for this--just whatever fun stuff they read over the next 12 months is what they'd be able to nominate for a Hugo if they participate in Seattle Worldcon 2025. I'd guess a lot of people who might be interested aren't thinking about how this is the year their reading would matter for it.
A pointer to brainwane's list of short fiction sources might be worth passing on too.
posted by Wobbuffet at 1:04 PM on January 26 [4 favorites]
I think this is a good article to share with your friends semi-local to Glasgow and Seattle who are into SF/F but not insiders to this kind of news, because it has background, an explanation, and forward-looking thoughts.
Also, for SF/F readers in the Seattle area especially, right now could be a good time to hear that they don't need to be any kind of expert for this--just whatever fun stuff they read over the next 12 months is what they'd be able to nominate for a Hugo if they participate in Seattle Worldcon 2025. I'd guess a lot of people who might be interested aren't thinking about how this is the year their reading would matter for it.
A pointer to brainwane's list of short fiction sources might be worth passing on too.
posted by Wobbuffet at 1:04 PM on January 26 [4 favorites]
I've voted/nominated for the Hugo for several years. Having a Worldcon in my hometown (Seattle) seemed wonderful two weeks ago.
As it stands now, I will not participate (by buying a supporting membership at Glasgow or attending in Seattle) unless the respective Worldcons issue a statement that they intend to run the Hugos in a fair and transparent manner.
I'm not willing to throw money at a Worldcon (especially a supporting membership for Hugo voting purposes) unless they're willing to publicly state that they will do better than last year's debacle.
posted by creepygirl at 1:27 PM on January 26
As it stands now, I will not participate (by buying a supporting membership at Glasgow or attending in Seattle) unless the respective Worldcons issue a statement that they intend to run the Hugos in a fair and transparent manner.
I'm not willing to throw money at a Worldcon (especially a supporting membership for Hugo voting purposes) unless they're willing to publicly state that they will do better than last year's debacle.
posted by creepygirl at 1:27 PM on January 26
Also, for SF/F readers in the Seattle area especially, right now could be a good time to hear that they don't need to be any kind of expert for this--just whatever fun stuff they read over the next 12 months is what they'd be able to nominate for a Hugo if they participate in Seattle Worldcon 2025.
Hmm. I am reading and liking Exordia enough that dropping money on that Seattle membership just to vote for it is kinda tempting… and it is in town.
On the other hand damn is it frustrating witnessing their glacial pace on tackling arising issues and the prospect of this being multiple business meetings away from any resolution AGAIN.
Also: Seattle MeFi Hugo meet up?
posted by Artw at 2:03 PM on January 26 [3 favorites]
Hmm. I am reading and liking Exordia enough that dropping money on that Seattle membership just to vote for it is kinda tempting… and it is in town.
On the other hand damn is it frustrating witnessing their glacial pace on tackling arising issues and the prospect of this being multiple business meetings away from any resolution AGAIN.
Also: Seattle MeFi Hugo meet up?
posted by Artw at 2:03 PM on January 26 [3 favorites]
Is Worldcon before or after the bar, she asks? But otherwise yeah great idea.
posted by corb at 2:16 PM on January 26 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 2:16 PM on January 26 [1 favorite]
You know, watching the Hugo Awards as much as I have over the years I should probably have a better idea what the in person WorldCon is like outside of streaked ceremonies and I totally don’t.
posted by Artw at 3:02 PM on January 26 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 3:02 PM on January 26 [1 favorite]
I've only attended one, and it was small and low key compared to, like, Gen Con--but it was a lot of fun and very memorable. TBH the 4-person 'topic' panels that fill the schedule were mainly people talking off the cuff with occasional moments of insight--imagine a bunch of decent podcast episodes with guests whose work you know. But most timeslots have something interactive or quirky going on too: some kind of activity, or a couple of well-known people in a more dynamic conversation, or a bad fanfic reading, or music / filking, or an introduction to a hobby you'd have never considered, and so on--I'd really encourage prioritizing these. The Masquerade and the Hugo ceremony are traditional highlights. The exhibit hall has an art show, book dealers and whatnot, and tables for conventions bidding on site selection (I don't know about years when there's only one bid, but I'd guess there'd still be a party at the hotel to ask them about). I think you inevitably run across new things all weekend and wind up with a bunch of odd anecdotes to share. It's just really nice.
posted by Wobbuffet at 3:53 PM on January 26 [7 favorites]
posted by Wobbuffet at 3:53 PM on January 26 [7 favorites]
Glasgow has opened Hugo nominations along with a comment on Twitter noting that "At the time of announcing the final Hugo ballot, we will also publish the reasons for any disqualifications of potential finalists, and any withdrawals of potential finalists from the ballot." I think that's new--like, as far as I can recall, that's info that doesn't normally come out in full until the stats are released after the awards are given--and I'd take it as an indication of added transparency.
I believe the Hugos are administered this year by Kat Jones, who administered them for Chicon 8, and next year by Nicholas Whyte, who I think administered them for Helsinki and Dublin. A comment thread at Cora Buhlert's website expresses confidence in them both.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:07 AM on January 27 [10 favorites]
I believe the Hugos are administered this year by Kat Jones, who administered them for Chicon 8, and next year by Nicholas Whyte, who I think administered them for Helsinki and Dublin. A comment thread at Cora Buhlert's website expresses confidence in them both.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:07 AM on January 27 [10 favorites]
The latest unsurprising but still lamentable development from Weibo's #雨果奖统计数据引争议# hashtag -- the original post that attracted the most attention has been deleted. The poster @科幻光年 is still around, but his Weixin public account post about Babel's ineligibility issue has been removed (though his Weibo post on the same subject is still up).
posted by of strange foe at 10:09 AM on January 27 [3 favorites]
posted by of strange foe at 10:09 AM on January 27 [3 favorites]
There’s been some debate Re: privacy of authors wishing to quietly withdraw / drawing attention to works that aren’t on the ballot shortchanging the ones that are, but overall this seems like a necessary move.
posted by Artw at 10:47 AM on January 27 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:47 AM on January 27 [3 favorites]
There have been a few further developments.
1. Glasgow 2024 has tacitly addressed the issue, as part of a wider announcement of the opening of nominations for the 2024 Hugo Awards (Facebook public post). Within the announcement, Glasgow 2024 says (my emphasis added):
The Hugo Awards are fan-run, fan-given, and fan-supported. We encourage all eligible members to nominate whatever works and creators you have personally read or seen that were your favourites from 2023. The works and creators with sufficient nominations will move onto the final ballot for the 2024 Hugo Awards, which will be announced later this year after the close of nominations.
At that time, we will also publish the reasons for any disqualifications of potential finalists, and any withdrawals of potential finalists from the ballot. The winners will be announced at a formal ceremony to be held in Glasgow on the evening of Sunday, August 11, 2024. Full voting results will be published at that time.
This, without being an express criticism of Chengdu 2023's handling of the Hugos, seems to be a commitment to transparency about the process by which nominations are considered for eligibility under the Hugo rules. Neil Gaiman, one of the writers directly affected by the unexplained ineligibility rulings, has declared himself satisfied with this approach, and has expressly stated that the Glasgow 2024 committee cannot be expected to go back and try to fix the 2023 mess.
2. Dave McCarty has posted what he is calling an apology (Facebook public post). I think it fair to note that some commentators don't agree that it is really an apology, but it is at least an admission that he has caused a serious problem. Interpretations of this seem to vary from "he is not admitting that he screwed up" to "he is still heroically refusing to say anything that could get the Chinese fans he worked with into trouble." It is of course possible that both of these factors might be in play.
3. File 770 has published a post by Zimozi Natsuco, described as 'an ordinary sf fan from China' who attended Chengdu 2023 and the Business Meeting. Now I note that this is one fan's own take, and should be treated with the same level of caution as any account based on personal observations and views. However, it gives an interesting insight into where any pressure on the Chengdu 2023 Hugo committee may have come from:
"It is not our intention to defend the arrogant, haughty, and insolent Dave McCarty, yet while he was the target for the most firepower, some bugbears masquerading as Chinese were stealthily making their way through the organizing committee. They were never science fiction fans in the first place; they were not a part of fandom. a couple of media company executives had somehow gotten involved in the convention, taken over everything, including the Hugo Awards, used their few contacts in the media world to make a big splash in the press and in government hospitality receptions. Then they passed the job of external surrender to McCarty, who would bend over backward with small favors, and the job of internal repression to the Chinese workers who had to be be forced into surrender through the use of intimidation."
It's certainly the case that Chengdu 2023 enjoyed lavish sponsorship from Chinese businesses:
"The main sponsors of Chengdu Worldcon were Chengdu Technology Innovation New City Investment and Development Co. LTD and Chengdu Media Group, who sponsored in aspects including venue rental and facilities, media support, guest invitation and accommodations, and publications and IT support."
If anyone wants to doubt that 'Chengdu Technology Innovation New City Investment and Development Co' is what we lawyers familiar with EU Law would term 'an emanation of the State' well, I have a bridge or two to sell you. I feel it is all too plausible that this lavish sponsorship came with some strings attached, and that those strings may have been being pulled on by people who, at the very least, did not want to risk upsetting local or national government.
posted by Major Clanger at 2:08 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]
1. Glasgow 2024 has tacitly addressed the issue, as part of a wider announcement of the opening of nominations for the 2024 Hugo Awards (Facebook public post). Within the announcement, Glasgow 2024 says (my emphasis added):
The Hugo Awards are fan-run, fan-given, and fan-supported. We encourage all eligible members to nominate whatever works and creators you have personally read or seen that were your favourites from 2023. The works and creators with sufficient nominations will move onto the final ballot for the 2024 Hugo Awards, which will be announced later this year after the close of nominations.
At that time, we will also publish the reasons for any disqualifications of potential finalists, and any withdrawals of potential finalists from the ballot. The winners will be announced at a formal ceremony to be held in Glasgow on the evening of Sunday, August 11, 2024. Full voting results will be published at that time.
This, without being an express criticism of Chengdu 2023's handling of the Hugos, seems to be a commitment to transparency about the process by which nominations are considered for eligibility under the Hugo rules. Neil Gaiman, one of the writers directly affected by the unexplained ineligibility rulings, has declared himself satisfied with this approach, and has expressly stated that the Glasgow 2024 committee cannot be expected to go back and try to fix the 2023 mess.
2. Dave McCarty has posted what he is calling an apology (Facebook public post). I think it fair to note that some commentators don't agree that it is really an apology, but it is at least an admission that he has caused a serious problem. Interpretations of this seem to vary from "he is not admitting that he screwed up" to "he is still heroically refusing to say anything that could get the Chinese fans he worked with into trouble." It is of course possible that both of these factors might be in play.
3. File 770 has published a post by Zimozi Natsuco, described as 'an ordinary sf fan from China' who attended Chengdu 2023 and the Business Meeting. Now I note that this is one fan's own take, and should be treated with the same level of caution as any account based on personal observations and views. However, it gives an interesting insight into where any pressure on the Chengdu 2023 Hugo committee may have come from:
"It is not our intention to defend the arrogant, haughty, and insolent Dave McCarty, yet while he was the target for the most firepower, some bugbears masquerading as Chinese were stealthily making their way through the organizing committee. They were never science fiction fans in the first place; they were not a part of fandom. a couple of media company executives had somehow gotten involved in the convention, taken over everything, including the Hugo Awards, used their few contacts in the media world to make a big splash in the press and in government hospitality receptions. Then they passed the job of external surrender to McCarty, who would bend over backward with small favors, and the job of internal repression to the Chinese workers who had to be be forced into surrender through the use of intimidation."
It's certainly the case that Chengdu 2023 enjoyed lavish sponsorship from Chinese businesses:
"The main sponsors of Chengdu Worldcon were Chengdu Technology Innovation New City Investment and Development Co. LTD and Chengdu Media Group, who sponsored in aspects including venue rental and facilities, media support, guest invitation and accommodations, and publications and IT support."
If anyone wants to doubt that 'Chengdu Technology Innovation New City Investment and Development Co' is what we lawyers familiar with EU Law would term 'an emanation of the State' well, I have a bridge or two to sell you. I feel it is all too plausible that this lavish sponsorship came with some strings attached, and that those strings may have been being pulled on by people who, at the very least, did not want to risk upsetting local or national government.
posted by Major Clanger at 2:08 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]
some commentators don't agree that it is really an apology
It's not an apology about anything related to the voting, eligibility or skewed statistics, and specifically excludes the possibility of ever offering to anyone any kind of clarity about the errors he made there. It also avoids any mention of any kind of amends. Fuck McCarty.
posted by mediareport at 3:41 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]
It's not an apology about anything related to the voting, eligibility or skewed statistics, and specifically excludes the possibility of ever offering to anyone any kind of clarity about the errors he made there. It also avoids any mention of any kind of amends. Fuck McCarty.
posted by mediareport at 3:41 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]
Dave McCarty has admitted to receiving substantive gifts and having trip expenses paid for, which might be the ‘small favors’ referred to. Under ‘normal’ circumstances, if there was no apparent pressure on the ballot, that might not have become an issue. As it is, it’s absolutely damming to his integrity.
posted by bq at 7:27 AM on January 28
posted by bq at 7:27 AM on January 28
Substantial description of the clusterfuck from a Chinese fan
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 8:19 AM on January 28 [3 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 8:19 AM on January 28 [3 favorites]
The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems that the very substantial sponsorship from what appears to be a municipal development corporation was the issue. I can well imagine that, when the nominations were being tallied and reviewed for eligibility, there may well have been anxiety at the implications for sponsorship if certain works appeared on the shortlist. It may not even have been an instruction, or hint, from above; the relevant people at Chenghu 2023 might just have got twitchy at the thought of embarrassing the sponsors they were relying on to run the event in just a few months' time.
posted by Major Clanger at 11:52 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]
posted by Major Clanger at 11:52 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]
I’m fully embracing my role here as “commenter who just posts links to Camestros Felapton’s analysis”, and he’s finally gotten around to Best Editor Long Form. Excerpt:
I agree with him that nothing about these stats make any sense, which makes me think that they’re made up from whole cloth to fit the nominations, suggesting that somewhere in between the nominations being published and the Hugo admins looking for the file to release the stats, someone had accidentally deleted the computer records of the voting tallies.
However, there are categories which look more plausible than Best Editor Long Form, so another explanation is that they had partial records, or that for whatever reason the votes for that (and a few other categories) were so embarrassing for whatever reason that they tried to fudge it.
posted by Kattullus at 1:03 AM on January 29 [5 favorites]
So on BlueSky I was asked about Best Editor Long Form. Now, this is not a category I care for and I’ve given my reasons before but it still deserves to properly counted. I assume other people have already written about it but I went looked and this time paid attention and it is NUTS.I recommend reading the whole thing, as the stats are indeed (to pick another foodstuff for variety’s sake) bananas.
I agree with him that nothing about these stats make any sense, which makes me think that they’re made up from whole cloth to fit the nominations, suggesting that somewhere in between the nominations being published and the Hugo admins looking for the file to release the stats, someone had accidentally deleted the computer records of the voting tallies.
However, there are categories which look more plausible than Best Editor Long Form, so another explanation is that they had partial records, or that for whatever reason the votes for that (and a few other categories) were so embarrassing for whatever reason that they tried to fudge it.
posted by Kattullus at 1:03 AM on January 29 [5 favorites]
Please continue linking!
It does seem that there may have been multiple screw-ups as opposed to one Global Theory of Screwup.
posted by bq at 12:38 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
It does seem that there may have been multiple screw-ups as opposed to one Global Theory of Screwup.
posted by bq at 12:38 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
“Worldcon Intellectual Property, whose board of directors is the members of the Mark Protection Committee of the World Science Fiction Society, has issued the following announcement:
(…)
Dave McCarty has resigned as a Director of W.I.P.
Kevin Standlee has resigned as Chair of the W.I.P. Board of Directors (BoD).
W.I.P. has censured or reprimanded the following persons, listed in alphabetic order, for the reason given:
Dave McCarty – censured for his public comments that have led to harm of the goodwill and value of our marks and for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over.
Chen Shi – censured for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over.
Kevin Standlee – reprimanded for public comments that mistakenly led people to believe that we are not servicing our marks.
Ben Yalow – censured for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over.
Donald Eastlake has been elected Chair of the W.I.P. BoD.“
posted by bq at 9:42 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
(…)
Dave McCarty has resigned as a Director of W.I.P.
Kevin Standlee has resigned as Chair of the W.I.P. Board of Directors (BoD).
W.I.P. has censured or reprimanded the following persons, listed in alphabetic order, for the reason given:
Dave McCarty – censured for his public comments that have led to harm of the goodwill and value of our marks and for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over.
Chen Shi – censured for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over.
Kevin Standlee – reprimanded for public comments that mistakenly led people to believe that we are not servicing our marks.
Ben Yalow – censured for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over.
Donald Eastlake has been elected Chair of the W.I.P. BoD.“
posted by bq at 9:42 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
On balance this has made me a lot more likely to participate rather than less. Looking over the ballots, I was shocked at how small the numbers involved are in some categories. A single vote can carry a lot of weight.
posted by bq at 9:48 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
posted by bq at 9:48 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
“Worldcon Intellectual Property, whose board of directors is the members of the Mark Protection Committee of the World Science Fiction Society, has issued the following announcement:
This is good, but it ultimately won't help much unless someone can explain why Babel, Iron Widow and the others were summarily ruled ineligible.
Please note that each year’s World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) is run by a separate organization which administers the Hugo Awards for that year. The Chengdu 2023 Worldcon has asked that any specific questions about the administration of the 2023 Hugo Awards be sent to hugoteam@chengduworldcon.com.
(For media inquiries on topics related to W.I.P. other than the specifics of the 2023 Hugo Awards, you may contact info@thehugoawards.org.)
Ah, no chance of that then. Even if McCarty is gone, I doubt those who remain will provide any answers.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:51 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
This is good, but it ultimately won't help much unless someone can explain why Babel, Iron Widow and the others were summarily ruled ineligible.
Please note that each year’s World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) is run by a separate organization which administers the Hugo Awards for that year. The Chengdu 2023 Worldcon has asked that any specific questions about the administration of the 2023 Hugo Awards be sent to hugoteam@chengduworldcon.com.
(For media inquiries on topics related to W.I.P. other than the specifics of the 2023 Hugo Awards, you may contact info@thehugoawards.org.)
Ah, no chance of that then. Even if McCarty is gone, I doubt those who remain will provide any answers.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:51 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
I hate to say it, but if I were in charge here I’d re-run the 2023 awards. If they have records of the people who voted, which they may not, they could notify them all and request new ballots.
posted by bq at 9:57 PM on January 30
posted by bq at 9:57 PM on January 30
If, like me, you were a bit confused why Kevin Standlee was part of the list, given that he wasn't involved in the Chengdu Worldcon, he wrote about it on his Livejournal page:
I haven't seen anyone calling for his resignation, but I appreciate that the board, and perhaps he himself, felt that it was better, out of propriety, for him to step down as chairman.
For what it's worth, and I doubt he knows me from a hole in the wall, Standlee has always seemed like a stand-up guy in what I've seen of him online and in business meeting contexts.
posted by Kattullus at 11:54 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]
Effective earlier today, upon the election of my successor (Donald Eastlake III), resigned as the Chairman of the WSFS Mark Protection Committee and as Chairman of the Board of Worldcon Intellectual Property, the California non-profit corporation whose directors are the members of the WSFS MPC. I did not resign as a member of the MPC/WIP Board. I am no longer an officer of either the MPC or WIP.If I'm parsing this correctly, he got into arguments online and didn't make it clear enough that he wasn't speaking as the Chairman of the WSFS Mark Protection Committee and as Chairman of the Board of Worldcon Intellectual Property.
As detailed in the official announcement from WIP, I was "reprimanded for public comments that mistakenly led people to believe that we are not servicing our marks." I elected to resign to allow WIP to continue with its important activities without people continuing to assume that I officially spoke for WIP.
I was not part of the 2023 Hugo Award Administration Subcommittee, and this matter is not directly related to the 2023 Hugo Awards, but to possibly intemperate public statements that people interpreted as official WSFS or WIP or MPC policy.
While I remain an MPC member/WIP director, I am no longer in a leadership position.
I haven't seen anyone calling for his resignation, but I appreciate that the board, and perhaps he himself, felt that it was better, out of propriety, for him to step down as chairman.
For what it's worth, and I doubt he knows me from a hole in the wall, Standlee has always seemed like a stand-up guy in what I've seen of him online and in business meeting contexts.
posted by Kattullus at 11:54 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]
Not that I know much of anything about Standlee, but this particular ousting doesn't seem as justified as everyone else's ousting/censure.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:09 AM on January 31 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:09 AM on January 31 [1 favorite]
Today is the last day to buy a WSFS membership and be eligible to nominate, if anyone wants to do that.
posted by bq at 10:08 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
posted by bq at 10:08 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately, I cannot find a concise summary of the trademark discussions that Standlee was participating in, they were mostly on Bluesky or File770.
The gist of it, as I understand it, is that Standlee was making statements about how Worldcon handles the Hugo trademark that could put the trademarks at risk if anyone were to challenge them.
Here's a bluesky thread where Kevin argues with a bunch of experienced IP lawyers about trademark:
https://bsky.app/profile/questauthority.bsky.social/post/3kjo7447poz2x
Highlights:
Kevin: So tell us who gets to take it away from them and how they could enforce such a ruling. In China, a country which famously obeys all laws regarding intellectual property. 🙄
Connor Lynch (IP attorney): Trademark law is territorial. If you want to sell your books in the United States, you're using a US trademark to do it.
companies that source goods that are don't meet fair trade stds don't get to use the "Fair Trade Certified" mark in the US
Connor Lynch: I haven't thought too hard about who might have standing to sue here, but if there's a dispute about the US mark it would be heard in the US.
Mike Dunford (IP attorney): As for standing to sue, here's a potential answer:
Anyone that WSFS threatens in the future regarding any use/misuse of the Hugo Award mark, to bring a dec j action asserting abandonment.
Connor Lynch: I was skeptical on first reading this that the mark might really have gone abandoned here, but seeing that the guy saying the IP holding org has no ability whatsoever to enforce quality control standards over licensees of the mark is an *officer of the IP holding org*... 🤯
Mike Dunford: Right? Also something something fiduciary but hey what the hell probably fine nobody to be a fiduciary to.
Kevin: I ask again: how could you take away the license from an organization based in China? And what do you do when they tell you to get stuffed?
Connor Lynch: Is this a real question? (1) Go retain counsel! (2) Provide your counsel the relevant documents, such as the trademark license agreement (3) Discuss with counsel what IP holdco, which owns the US trademark registration(s) (e.g., US TM Reg. 1287322) should send to terminate the TM license.
Kevin: How much do you think trying to bring such a case would cost? Do you really think that WSFS has that much money sitting around? Oh, I forgot; we must have tens of millions of dollars in our gigantic headquarters building.
Connor Lynch: The other thing I would do is not announce that the organization that owns the trademarks has no money to enforce its trademark rights and no intent to take any action whatsoever (including just sending letters!) to do so in any circumstances.
I'm not sure if this is the same bluesky thread (I don't understand bluesky), but multiple lawyers in this Bluesky thread begged him to shut up and talk to an IP lawyer.
https://bskyreader.xyz/thread/3kjlnt6aap424#post-3kjlvc66gtt2f
Law Talkin' Guy (@/l-t-g.bsky.social): 1: Stop talking about legal issues related to IP you control without talking to a lawyer.
2: Hire an IP lawyer, one with expertise in trademark and international law. (Given the large genre-fan/IP lawyer overlap I bet you can find one to do the work pro bono.)
3: Do what your lawyer says.
Three simple steps, which may not solve all your problems but which, I promise you, will prevent you from making your existing problems worse.
The Okayest DM: As a lawyer my first thing to tell Standlee would be "stop talking about legal issues". My second would be "stop trying to defend McCarty". My third would be "maybe just stop talking at all."
Mike Dunford: If I was unfortunate enough to be their lawyer, I'd start with 3, but without the maybe.
And possibly arrange for his phone to have an unfortunate accident involving a steamroller.
The Okayest DM: Hire an IP lawyer to do your work.
Stop playing amateur hour with your legal issues.
My takeaway: McCarty caused more reputational damage to Worldcon, but Standlee may have caused more potential legal damage. I'm guessing that Standlee is gone because someone else at Worldcon actually recognized (unlike Standlee) that they don't know more than IP lawyers about trademark law, and that Kevin's public statements about things he doesn't understand was a liability. He deserved to go.
posted by creepygirl at 12:19 PM on January 31 [7 favorites]
The gist of it, as I understand it, is that Standlee was making statements about how Worldcon handles the Hugo trademark that could put the trademarks at risk if anyone were to challenge them.
Here's a bluesky thread where Kevin argues with a bunch of experienced IP lawyers about trademark:
https://bsky.app/profile/questauthority.bsky.social/post/3kjo7447poz2x
Highlights:
Kevin: So tell us who gets to take it away from them and how they could enforce such a ruling. In China, a country which famously obeys all laws regarding intellectual property. 🙄
Connor Lynch (IP attorney): Trademark law is territorial. If you want to sell your books in the United States, you're using a US trademark to do it.
companies that source goods that are don't meet fair trade stds don't get to use the "Fair Trade Certified" mark in the US
Connor Lynch: I haven't thought too hard about who might have standing to sue here, but if there's a dispute about the US mark it would be heard in the US.
Mike Dunford (IP attorney): As for standing to sue, here's a potential answer:
Anyone that WSFS threatens in the future regarding any use/misuse of the Hugo Award mark, to bring a dec j action asserting abandonment.
Connor Lynch: I was skeptical on first reading this that the mark might really have gone abandoned here, but seeing that the guy saying the IP holding org has no ability whatsoever to enforce quality control standards over licensees of the mark is an *officer of the IP holding org*... 🤯
Mike Dunford: Right? Also something something fiduciary but hey what the hell probably fine nobody to be a fiduciary to.
Kevin: I ask again: how could you take away the license from an organization based in China? And what do you do when they tell you to get stuffed?
Connor Lynch: Is this a real question? (1) Go retain counsel! (2) Provide your counsel the relevant documents, such as the trademark license agreement (3) Discuss with counsel what IP holdco, which owns the US trademark registration(s) (e.g., US TM Reg. 1287322) should send to terminate the TM license.
Kevin: How much do you think trying to bring such a case would cost? Do you really think that WSFS has that much money sitting around? Oh, I forgot; we must have tens of millions of dollars in our gigantic headquarters building.
Connor Lynch: The other thing I would do is not announce that the organization that owns the trademarks has no money to enforce its trademark rights and no intent to take any action whatsoever (including just sending letters!) to do so in any circumstances.
I'm not sure if this is the same bluesky thread (I don't understand bluesky), but multiple lawyers in this Bluesky thread begged him to shut up and talk to an IP lawyer.
https://bskyreader.xyz/thread/3kjlnt6aap424#post-3kjlvc66gtt2f
Law Talkin' Guy (@/l-t-g.bsky.social): 1: Stop talking about legal issues related to IP you control without talking to a lawyer.
2: Hire an IP lawyer, one with expertise in trademark and international law. (Given the large genre-fan/IP lawyer overlap I bet you can find one to do the work pro bono.)
3: Do what your lawyer says.
Three simple steps, which may not solve all your problems but which, I promise you, will prevent you from making your existing problems worse.
The Okayest DM: As a lawyer my first thing to tell Standlee would be "stop talking about legal issues". My second would be "stop trying to defend McCarty". My third would be "maybe just stop talking at all."
Mike Dunford: If I was unfortunate enough to be their lawyer, I'd start with 3, but without the maybe.
And possibly arrange for his phone to have an unfortunate accident involving a steamroller.
The Okayest DM: Hire an IP lawyer to do your work.
Stop playing amateur hour with your legal issues.
My takeaway: McCarty caused more reputational damage to Worldcon, but Standlee may have caused more potential legal damage. I'm guessing that Standlee is gone because someone else at Worldcon actually recognized (unlike Standlee) that they don't know more than IP lawyers about trademark law, and that Kevin's public statements about things he doesn't understand was a liability. He deserved to go.
posted by creepygirl at 12:19 PM on January 31 [7 favorites]
Thanks for that creepygirl. The whole thread is astonishing.
Given how Babel actually has an official translation published in China (odd target for censorship), I'm now wondering if everything is actually backwards - one of the corporate interests tried to stuff the ballot or otherwise exercise undue influence in favor of it so they could promote sales, then the committee seeing it, deemed it ineligible to prevent that.
posted by ndr at 12:08 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Given how Babel actually has an official translation published in China (odd target for censorship), I'm now wondering if everything is actually backwards - one of the corporate interests tried to stuff the ballot or otherwise exercise undue influence in favor of it so they could promote sales, then the committee seeing it, deemed it ineligible to prevent that.
posted by ndr at 12:08 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
OMG there's so much idiotic nonsense revealed about Worldcon and the Hugos down that bluesky rabbit hole. Some of the responses from paralegal Kathryn Tewson and lawyer Mike Dunsford are absolute gems, with Standlee repeatedly claiming he's smarter than any of the IP lawyers who are shouting at him "YOU ARE PUBLICLY ABANDONING THE WORLDCON TRADEMARK WITH EVERY POST YOU MAKE, DUMBASS!" So many fave comments, but this is the current front-runner, posted after Standlee says to the lawyers, "You obviously have never read any of the Mark Protection Committee's reports to the World Science Fiction Society. Not that this surprises me." but of course they had, in detail. Dunsford's reply:
One of the things that I've been cackling about for several days is just how much more squared away and organized the big furry cons are compared with the legendary Worldcon. In every. Single. Regard.
posted by mediareport at 3:39 AM on February 1 [3 favorites]
One of the things that I've been cackling about for several days is just how much more squared away and organized the big furry cons are compared with the legendary Worldcon. In every. Single. Regard.
posted by mediareport at 3:39 AM on February 1 [3 favorites]
Some of the responses from paralegal Kathryn Tewson
I believe you mean MeFi’s Own paralegal Kathryn Tewson…
posted by corb at 3:44 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
I believe you mean MeFi’s Own paralegal Kathryn Tewson…
posted by corb at 3:44 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
She's a total gem of an electronic person, and I'm certain an IRL person as well.
posted by mediareport at 3:46 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 3:46 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
Esquire article by Adam Morgan.
Former Worldcon committee member, quoted anonymously, says this is completely on-brand for McCarty:
“When I started seeing Dave McCarty’s responses, I was utterly unsurprised,” a former WorldCon committee member who asked to remain anonymous tells me. “That is very consistent with who he is, and how he’s treated other people. It’s incredibly disrespectful on every level.”
Former Worldcon committee members believe it was a screwup, not censorship.
However, multiple former WorldCon committee members who spoke with me on the condition of anonymity do not believe the Chinese government—nor the Chinese members of last year’s Hugo Awards administration—directly or indirectly censored the awards. Rather, they believe that one or more members of the executive committee mismanaged this year’s awards—and failed to explain why four popular works were deemed ineligible.
posted by creepygirl at 12:50 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Former Worldcon committee member, quoted anonymously, says this is completely on-brand for McCarty:
“When I started seeing Dave McCarty’s responses, I was utterly unsurprised,” a former WorldCon committee member who asked to remain anonymous tells me. “That is very consistent with who he is, and how he’s treated other people. It’s incredibly disrespectful on every level.”
Former Worldcon committee members believe it was a screwup, not censorship.
However, multiple former WorldCon committee members who spoke with me on the condition of anonymity do not believe the Chinese government—nor the Chinese members of last year’s Hugo Awards administration—directly or indirectly censored the awards. Rather, they believe that one or more members of the executive committee mismanaged this year’s awards—and failed to explain why four popular works were deemed ineligible.
posted by creepygirl at 12:50 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Anyway I’m liking Babel so far.
posted by Artw at 1:17 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:17 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
However, multiple former WorldCon committee members who spoke with me on the condition of anonymity do not believe the Chinese government—nor the Chinese members of last year’s Hugo Awards administration—directly or indirectly censored the awards. Rather, they believe that one or more members of the executive committee mismanaged this year’s awards—and failed to explain why four popular works were deemed ineligible.
I simply don't buy that the ineligibility rulings were accidental. You don't fall off a ladder or trip on a kerb and... strike works off a ballot. Especially not frontrunners.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:51 PM on February 4 [3 favorites]
I simply don't buy that the ineligibility rulings were accidental. You don't fall off a ladder or trip on a kerb and... strike works off a ballot. Especially not frontrunners.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:51 PM on February 4 [3 favorites]
right, either someone was pressured or someone was corrupted, as far as I can see.
posted by bq at 7:30 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
posted by bq at 7:30 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
This thread reminded me to go get my Glasgow supporting membership. I note that they had my information from Chengdu in their system, but had my first and last name switched. That's kind of funny in the "it's obvious exactly how that happened" sort of way.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 11:38 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
posted by vibratory manner of working at 11:38 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
Dave McCarty has given a 42 minute interview about all this. IMO it's loaded with (implied) corroboration of a self-censorship explanation, though that's what I'd assumed already.
IIRC, a few other things to listen for include an assertion that everything to do with judging works ineligible was correct according to the WSFS Constitution (at the end, he repeats this and says there's a rule that gives the Hugo admin "discretion," which I didn't find using that term, but I'd speculate he's saying 3.8.2 gives a Worldcon Committee latitude to do whatever they like regarding eligibility?), an admission that the stats were released months later than usual to minimize the fallout, and a statement that he's also aware of two errors with data in the stats (at least one explained by a defect in a SQL statement used to generate them).
As a personal reaction, I found this interview pretty frustrating to listen to. Lots of reasons, including that I couldn't help thinking about how resigning was an option rather than go through with all this, but to do that, you'd have to believe something about it was wrong to do.
posted by Wobbuffet at 11:52 PM on February 4 [4 favorites]
IIRC, a few other things to listen for include an assertion that everything to do with judging works ineligible was correct according to the WSFS Constitution (at the end, he repeats this and says there's a rule that gives the Hugo admin "discretion," which I didn't find using that term, but I'd speculate he's saying 3.8.2 gives a Worldcon Committee latitude to do whatever they like regarding eligibility?), an admission that the stats were released months later than usual to minimize the fallout, and a statement that he's also aware of two errors with data in the stats (at least one explained by a defect in a SQL statement used to generate them).
As a personal reaction, I found this interview pretty frustrating to listen to. Lots of reasons, including that I couldn't help thinking about how resigning was an option rather than go through with all this, but to do that, you'd have to believe something about it was wrong to do.
posted by Wobbuffet at 11:52 PM on February 4 [4 favorites]
I won’t be able to listen to this until later. But I’ve seen allegations that Dave bragged about having planning trips to China paid for, and receiving enough gifts that he had to buy an extra suitcase to bring home. At that point, self-censorship becomes soft corruption.
posted by bq at 7:39 AM on February 5 [5 favorites]
posted by bq at 7:39 AM on February 5 [5 favorites]
Chris Barkley has linked to a transcript.
FWIW, I'll ask this here too: Does anyone have a guess which rule of the WSFS Constitution it is that Dave McCarty thinks grants the Hugo admin total discretion over eligibility?
I see 3.8.2 (“The Worldcon Committee shall determine the eligibility of nominees …”), but I don’t see a clause granting the “discretion” he mentions. If it does happen to be 3.8.2 he’s relying on, I would only read that as an assignment of responsibility for carrying out 3.1 and 3.2.1 among others. Reading it as total discretion seems to break 3.2.1, which establishes the general fact of what will be eligible unless otherwise specified. To that point, I’d agree 3.8.2 grants the discretion to determine which among 3.2.1 and other rules applies, but taking it as total discretion makes all other eligibility rules including 3.2.1 superfluous, inoperative, etc.–simply guidelines.
That does sound like what he’s saying at the end of the interview (from the transcript: “But if I wanted to be dickish about it, you know, point to the rule that says it’s, it’s the rule that says the administrator has discretion because that’s that’s the rule. The administrator has discretion and and and, you know. The it’s part of our discretionary power to say what isn’t isn’t, isn’t eligible”). But that’s not typically how rules interpretation is supposed to work: an ambiguous clause shouldn’t yield an absurd outcome that obviates all the other rules.
posted by Wobbuffet at 8:26 AM on February 5 [2 favorites]
FWIW, I'll ask this here too: Does anyone have a guess which rule of the WSFS Constitution it is that Dave McCarty thinks grants the Hugo admin total discretion over eligibility?
I see 3.8.2 (“The Worldcon Committee shall determine the eligibility of nominees …”), but I don’t see a clause granting the “discretion” he mentions. If it does happen to be 3.8.2 he’s relying on, I would only read that as an assignment of responsibility for carrying out 3.1 and 3.2.1 among others. Reading it as total discretion seems to break 3.2.1, which establishes the general fact of what will be eligible unless otherwise specified. To that point, I’d agree 3.8.2 grants the discretion to determine which among 3.2.1 and other rules applies, but taking it as total discretion makes all other eligibility rules including 3.2.1 superfluous, inoperative, etc.–simply guidelines.
That does sound like what he’s saying at the end of the interview (from the transcript: “But if I wanted to be dickish about it, you know, point to the rule that says it’s, it’s the rule that says the administrator has discretion because that’s that’s the rule. The administrator has discretion and and and, you know. The it’s part of our discretionary power to say what isn’t isn’t, isn’t eligible”). But that’s not typically how rules interpretation is supposed to work: an ambiguous clause shouldn’t yield an absurd outcome that obviates all the other rules.
posted by Wobbuffet at 8:26 AM on February 5 [2 favorites]
The transcript is ah, kind of buggy, as an FYI: "So remember when I. Said that, that, that, that, that, that I that, that, that the the the." Um....what is this? I'm having a hard time following it, clearly it's some kind of bad automation translation.
Who packed the awards and did such a shitty job of packing them that every one of them was very broken?
(Disclaimer: my job involves dealing with China and mail and China is THE WORST AT MAIL.)
"Oh yeah, I'm totally looking for Paul right now so he can have the opportunity to rant at me." O RLY? Paul will sound off soon saying he never saw Dave, right?
I don't get the combination of "China Is Very Different" and yet, nothing happened that was any different because of China? So Dave himself decided to dump certain people out of the running? He's not constrained but he's kind of constrained so he doesn't offend anyone in China? So he decided to stall on releasing the results to delay the inevitable flipouts? He's a Very Good Tech Person but he's just overloaded? There weren't translation issues but there were translation issues?
And finally, he can decide to rule out whatever he wants and won't say why. This fucking guy.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:13 AM on February 5 [3 favorites]
Who packed the awards and did such a shitty job of packing them that every one of them was very broken?
(Disclaimer: my job involves dealing with China and mail and China is THE WORST AT MAIL.)
"Oh yeah, I'm totally looking for Paul right now so he can have the opportunity to rant at me." O RLY? Paul will sound off soon saying he never saw Dave, right?
I don't get the combination of "China Is Very Different" and yet, nothing happened that was any different because of China? So Dave himself decided to dump certain people out of the running? He's not constrained but he's kind of constrained so he doesn't offend anyone in China? So he decided to stall on releasing the results to delay the inevitable flipouts? He's a Very Good Tech Person but he's just overloaded? There weren't translation issues but there were translation issues?
And finally, he can decide to rule out whatever he wants and won't say why. This fucking guy.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:13 AM on February 5 [3 favorites]
I had to turn this off when he said 'that's the Japa - the Chinese mindset'.
posted by bq at 9:30 AM on February 5 [2 favorites]
posted by bq at 9:30 AM on February 5 [2 favorites]
Preemptive compliant censorship by games of whispers or whatever the fuck this was still censorship, FWIW.
posted by Artw at 9:37 AM on February 5 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:37 AM on February 5 [2 favorites]
Yup, Paul wrote in the comments that gee, somehow he never got to talk to Dave: "I was readily available at the con, passed him several times and vice versa. I was not hard to find"
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:13 AM on February 5 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:13 AM on February 5 [1 favorite]
From the transcript:
Dave McCarty
Again, we come back to. How I can say things here? If there wasn't a Chinese audience? OK, and how we could say things in China if there wasn't a Western audience? There are different answers that we could give in both locales that would sufficiently work in both locales. However, those answers are anathema to the opposite. Alright so so I am constrained like like that's that the the the the the what we've said is the limit of what I can say because if I say anything more that would be more satisfying to folks here it would cause great offense in China.
...
" I can't give a private answer that might be more satisfying because that's [going] to be public and that will cause a reaction and... and... or I could give them the Chinese answer, which would make them angrier. You know that there there, there really are cultural differences between us and them".
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that McCarty and the committee 'exercised the discretion' (non-existent in the Woldcon Constitution) to rule certain works ineligible to avoid giving 'offence' in China. That is, they self-censored to avoid platforming authors they thought would not be held in favour by the Chinese government.
What an incredible asshole.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:08 PM on February 5 [7 favorites]
Dave McCarty
Again, we come back to. How I can say things here? If there wasn't a Chinese audience? OK, and how we could say things in China if there wasn't a Western audience? There are different answers that we could give in both locales that would sufficiently work in both locales. However, those answers are anathema to the opposite. Alright so so I am constrained like like that's that the the the the the what we've said is the limit of what I can say because if I say anything more that would be more satisfying to folks here it would cause great offense in China.
...
" I can't give a private answer that might be more satisfying because that's [going] to be public and that will cause a reaction and... and... or I could give them the Chinese answer, which would make them angrier. You know that there there, there really are cultural differences between us and them".
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that McCarty and the committee 'exercised the discretion' (non-existent in the Woldcon Constitution) to rule certain works ineligible to avoid giving 'offence' in China. That is, they self-censored to avoid platforming authors they thought would not be held in favour by the Chinese government.
What an incredible asshole.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:08 PM on February 5 [7 favorites]
“The 2023 Hugo Awards: A Report on Censorship and Exclusion,” Chris M. Barkley and Jason Sanford, 14 February 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 7:56 PM on February 14 [13 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 7:56 PM on February 14 [13 favorites]
Yeah, thanks for the link ob1quixote.
It's a pretty damning report: the North American administrators, of their own free will, assembled dossiers to review the political backgrounds of various nominees, and chose to strike some of them from the ballot.
I hope that the winners and losers all get formal apologies from WSFS. This is incredibly shameful.
posted by suelac at 8:14 PM on February 14 [12 favorites]
It's a pretty damning report: the North American administrators, of their own free will, assembled dossiers to review the political backgrounds of various nominees, and chose to strike some of them from the ballot.
I hope that the winners and losers all get formal apologies from WSFS. This is incredibly shameful.
posted by suelac at 8:14 PM on February 14 [12 favorites]
“The 2023 Hugo Awards: A Report on Censorship and Exclusion,” Chris M. Barkley and Jason Sanford, 14 February 2024
In summary: holy shit. The leaks have begun, and like, if you wrote a satirical story like this about censorship, people would call it heavy-handed and implausible.
posted by Wobbuffet at 8:16 PM on February 14 [7 favorites]
In summary: holy shit. The leaks have begun, and like, if you wrote a satirical story like this about censorship, people would call it heavy-handed and implausible.
posted by Wobbuffet at 8:16 PM on February 14 [7 favorites]
Jesus fuck. That's SO much worse than I thought it might be.
posted by sotonohito at 8:54 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 8:54 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
The 2023 Hugo Awards: A Report on Censorship and Exclusion,” Chris M. Barkley and Jason Sanford, 14 February 2024
Thank you for this, I have been on tenterhooks and it is good to have an answer, even if the the answer is what we all thought it was:
So I say again, what a pack of incredible assholes. Noting that Lacey eventually tried to do the right thing.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:57 PM on February 14 [9 favorites]
Thank you for this, I have been on tenterhooks and it is good to have an answer, even if the the answer is what we all thought it was:
Emails and files released by one of the administrators of the 2023 Hugo Awards indicate that authors and works deemed “not eligible” for the awards were removed due to political considerations. In particular, administrators of the awards from the United States and Canada researched political concerns related to Hugo-eligible authors and works and discussed removing certain ones from the ballot for those reasons, revealing they were active participants in the censorship that took place.Churning through the leaked emails from Diane Lacey, McCarty et al went full McCarthy, compiled dossiers on various authors and then decided to self censor. It's clear from this emails that this was led by McCarty:
5 June 2023: McCarty - "...as we are happening in China and the *law* we operate under are different...we need to highlight anything of a sensitive political nature in the work. It's not necessary to read everything, but if the work focuses on Chin, taiwan, tibet or other topics that may be in issue *in* China...that needs to be highlighted so that we can determine if it is safe to put it on the ballot f if the law will require us to make an administrative decision about it"[side note, Jesus H Christ WTF]
5 June 2023: Kat Jones raised issued with Babel - "Babel has a lot about China. I haven't read it, and am not up on Chinese politics, so cannot say whether it would be viewed as "negatives of China". Emphasis added.
7 June 2023: Diane Lacey raised issues with the Iron Giant, by Xiran Jay Zhou: "The Iron Giant is described as a reimagining of the rise of the Chinese Empress Wu Zetian. Including it because I don't know if that would be a negative in China." Emphasis added.These people didn't even read the books they were censoring. They didn't know enough to know what they even 'needed' to censor. But they censored anyway.
So I say again, what a pack of incredible assholes. Noting that Lacey eventually tried to do the right thing.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:57 PM on February 14 [9 favorites]
Is Kat Jones seriously the admin for 2024 Glasgow Worldcon??? I wonder if that’s why Glasgow didn’t come out with a strong, immediate, and unequivocal condemnation.
posted by oh__lol at 9:17 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
posted by oh__lol at 9:17 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
Somehow it got worse.
posted by Artw at 9:24 PM on February 14 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:24 PM on February 14 [8 favorites]
Honestly everything should have stopped at that first “Hugo Research” email. Everyone should have just flat out said “no, we cannot do this, if these are really the constraints of doing the Hugos in this country then we should not do the Hugos in this country”.
That everyone apparently just pressed on is really quite shocking.
posted by Artw at 9:27 PM on February 14 [8 favorites]
That everyone apparently just pressed on is really quite shocking.
posted by Artw at 9:27 PM on February 14 [8 favorites]
Is Kat Jones seriously the admin for 2024 Glasgow Worldcon??? I wonder if that’s why Glasgow didn’t come out with a strong, immediate, and unequivocal condemnation.
Yeah, she has to go. There's seemingly just no awareness or acceptance that she or the others did anything wrong. But of course she's 'shocked' that the evidence came out.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:31 PM on February 14 [8 favorites]
Yeah, she has to go. There's seemingly just no awareness or acceptance that she or the others did anything wrong. But of course she's 'shocked' that the evidence came out.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:31 PM on February 14 [8 favorites]
Yes, I also would like to say ‘fuck you very much’ to Kat Jones:
“ an emailed statement in response to a request for comment, Jones said she was concerned that the “confidential Hugo Award eligibility research work product that was ‘leaked’” may be incomplete or modified, and that she was “shocked that this extremely extremely confidential material was shared in the first place.”
She needs to resign or be removed immediately.
posted by bq at 10:16 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
“ an emailed statement in response to a request for comment, Jones said she was concerned that the “confidential Hugo Award eligibility research work product that was ‘leaked’” may be incomplete or modified, and that she was “shocked that this extremely extremely confidential material was shared in the first place.”
She needs to resign or be removed immediately.
posted by bq at 10:16 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
This is nauseating. I’m grimly satisfied that my analysis of McCarty’s weasel words turned out to be correct.
Uuuuuuugh. I understand how people get sucked into this sort of thing. But at the same time, I would never do this. I’m not just saying that, I know I wouldn’t because I’m a tactless and unsubtle motherfucker and have in the past stuck my foot in it by my uninvited knee-jerk vocalized judgements.
Just - ugh.
posted by bq at 10:31 PM on February 14
Uuuuuuugh. I understand how people get sucked into this sort of thing. But at the same time, I would never do this. I’m not just saying that, I know I wouldn’t because I’m a tactless and unsubtle motherfucker and have in the past stuck my foot in it by my uninvited knee-jerk vocalized judgements.
Just - ugh.
posted by bq at 10:31 PM on February 14
Damn. The Hugos (primarily Dave?) pre-sabotaged the Hugos before China could. Wow.
They really just need to do something about this if Dave, their employee, fucked it up.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:05 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
They really just need to do something about this if Dave, their employee, fucked it up.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:05 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
Nobody involved in this is an "employee" because there's no employer to do the employing.
There's not really even much of a "they" most of the time, since the only enduring part of the Hugo Awards is the award itself and the corporation entrusted with maintaining its trademarks.
Dave done fucked up, no question, but there wasn't anyone to fire him that wasn't part of the Chengdu committee.
posted by ChrisR at 12:12 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
There's not really even much of a "they" most of the time, since the only enduring part of the Hugo Awards is the award itself and the corporation entrusted with maintaining its trademarks.
Dave done fucked up, no question, but there wasn't anyone to fire him that wasn't part of the Chengdu committee.
posted by ChrisR at 12:12 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
> These people didn't even read the books they were censoring. They didn't know enough to know what they even 'needed' to censor. But they censored anyway.
By my reading of the reporting, I think the western admins compiled the dossiers without making explicit censor / do not censor recommendations, just highlighting what they thought might be relevant. This was then sent to the Chengdu Worldcon Hugo committee to deal with however they saw fit. So we don't technically know who made the call to exclude certain works in the end, only that the western Hugo admins participated in this process without calling foul. Bad enough.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 12:21 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
By my reading of the reporting, I think the western admins compiled the dossiers without making explicit censor / do not censor recommendations, just highlighting what they thought might be relevant. This was then sent to the Chengdu Worldcon Hugo committee to deal with however they saw fit. So we don't technically know who made the call to exclude certain works in the end, only that the western Hugo admins participated in this process without calling foul. Bad enough.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 12:21 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
That said, Dave McCarty remains the central figure, and the documents don't include whatever communication he had outside of this group thread. So we don't knows how far his involvement went.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 12:24 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by vibratory manner of working at 12:24 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
I'm wondering if anyone in here is interested in apologizing for calling me naive or a tankie now that I've been proved entirely correct tbh.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:34 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:34 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Although it is clear where the immediate blame lies, it is fair to note that the report does not exonerate either the Chinese Government or the local business interests that heavily funded the facilities for the event. To quote from the report:
While the emails from the Hugo administrators don’t reference overall Hugo Awards committee decisions or any specific orders from the Chinese government, a post reported to be from a Sichuan government website discusses work done to censor works related to last year’s Worldcon.
In the post, the Propaganda Department of the Sichuan Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China stated that “Three special groups reviewed the content of 1,512 works in five categories, including cultural and creative, literary, and artistic, that were shortlisted in the preliminary examination of the Chengdu World Science Fiction Convention, conducting strict checks on works suspected of being related to politics and ethnicity and religion, and putting forward proposals for the disposal of 12 controversial works related to LGBT issues.”
The post was later deleted.
posted by Major Clanger at 1:09 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
While the emails from the Hugo administrators don’t reference overall Hugo Awards committee decisions or any specific orders from the Chinese government, a post reported to be from a Sichuan government website discusses work done to censor works related to last year’s Worldcon.
In the post, the Propaganda Department of the Sichuan Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China stated that “Three special groups reviewed the content of 1,512 works in five categories, including cultural and creative, literary, and artistic, that were shortlisted in the preliminary examination of the Chengdu World Science Fiction Convention, conducting strict checks on works suspected of being related to politics and ethnicity and religion, and putting forward proposals for the disposal of 12 controversial works related to LGBT issues.”
The post was later deleted.
posted by Major Clanger at 1:09 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
This is terrible, and, yes, the complicated system of running of the Hugos vs. how the cons are run makes it slippery to issue calls for resignations, etc. There's a reason the term SMOF exists, and it's not just (or solely) a value-neutral term or a little joke. Nancy Lebovitz's comment above is worth a reread.
BlueSky and the other socials are rife with commentary today, as one might expect. It's also interesting to see the comments that were presumably limited previously to group chats or other private communication channels. Many people knew, well in advance, that hijinks were afoot and chose to stay far away (figuratively and geographically) from WorldCon.
As always, Mary Robinette Kowal has smart things to say.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:12 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
BlueSky and the other socials are rife with commentary today, as one might expect. It's also interesting to see the comments that were presumably limited previously to group chats or other private communication channels. Many people knew, well in advance, that hijinks were afoot and chose to stay far away (figuratively and geographically) from WorldCon.
As always, Mary Robinette Kowal has smart things to say.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:12 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
I’ve seen multiple people comment that the 2023 Hugo award winners should not be rescinded because ‘they deserved their awards’ but I’m at a loss to say how any winner of this gained process deserved anything except in a patronizing ‘everyone is worthy’ type way. I have to say I certainly would feel like I deserved an award won in this process.
posted by bq at 6:43 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
posted by bq at 6:43 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Kowal points out that, in addition to being the one who wrote the code that calculated the results for this awards (he refused to use any of the code used for prior awards), McCarty apparently retained the ability to see who voted for what.
Regardless of what kind of pressure the ConCom was under from political or business interests (anyone else note that $1B comment about business deals in Chengdu during the com?) -- McCarty appears to have been the primary actor and decision-maker.
So effing dirty, all the way down.
posted by suelac at 7:57 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
Regardless of what kind of pressure the ConCom was under from political or business interests (anyone else note that $1B comment about business deals in Chengdu during the com?) -- McCarty appears to have been the primary actor and decision-maker.
So effing dirty, all the way down.
posted by suelac at 7:57 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
I feel like that report and its supporting documents deserve a separate post, not least because this one expires in a few days.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:20 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:20 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
Here is the blog post I was waiting for, from jscalzi. Again, predictably thoughtful.
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:32 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:32 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
I don't have time, due to work, so the field is open. for someone else to compose a new post (please do).
posted by bq at 10:03 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by bq at 10:03 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
« Older Winter weather having you thinking about Spring?... | Bizarre Fossils Are Neither Plant Nor Animal, But... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by aspo at 6:43 PM on January 21 [29 favorites]