Proof that the Hugo Awards were censored
February 15, 2024 10:35 AM Subscribe
The 2023 Hugo Awards: A Report on Censorship and Exclusion by Jason Sanford and Chris M. Barkley. The latter received from Diane Lacey copies of e-mails that were exchanged between her and Kat Jones and Dave McCarty, fellow volunteer administrators of the 2023 Hugo Awards at the Chengdu Worldcon, showing that the three of them made dossiers of Hugo Award nominees deemed to be potentially troubling to local business interests and authorities. Jones, the 2024 Hugo Administrator, has resigned from her position, after releasing a statement. Diane Lacey has apologized for her part. There have been many responses to these revelations, including by Cora Buhlert, Camestros Felapton and MeFi's Own John Scalzi.
Oh, and I forgot to link to the previous post.
posted by Kattullus at 10:39 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by Kattullus at 10:39 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Ah well, I called others inept and incompetent, so it makes sense that I messed up the post. The phrase "dossiers of Hugo Award nominees deemed to be potentially troubling" was supposed to link to this spreadsheet, which Lacey leaked to Barkley.
posted by Kattullus at 10:45 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 10:45 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Turns out that state censorship actually relies on self censorship... It's part of the design. Make examples of a few prominent cases, and then self censorship does the rest of the job for you.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:48 AM on February 15 [21 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 10:48 AM on February 15 [21 favorites]
It is amazing to me that people got that first email, requesting they highlight “anything of a sensitive political nature in the work”, and it didn’t immediately set fire alarms ringing.
There are basically two approaches to that request that are valid:
1) return nothing. Refuse to help the process of self censorship and hope everything passes through without incident
2) make the largest stink possible, blow everything up and call the whole thing off.
Instead… they just meekly went along with it? Not just one person but multiple people just turning Stasi to keep things running along?
posted by Artw at 10:52 AM on February 15 [30 favorites]
There are basically two approaches to that request that are valid:
1) return nothing. Refuse to help the process of self censorship and hope everything passes through without incident
2) make the largest stink possible, blow everything up and call the whole thing off.
Instead… they just meekly went along with it? Not just one person but multiple people just turning Stasi to keep things running along?
posted by Artw at 10:52 AM on February 15 [30 favorites]
None of the Chinese members of the administration team were listed as recipients in any of the emails examined for this report, only administrators who were from Western countries.
*slow whistle* This detail keeps rotating in my head. Given how pre-emptive much of the censorship appears to have been, how on earth did they think suspicion wouldn't immediately fall on the heads of the Chinese members of the admin team?
posted by sciatrix at 10:59 AM on February 15 [14 favorites]
*slow whistle* This detail keeps rotating in my head. Given how pre-emptive much of the censorship appears to have been, how on earth did they think suspicion wouldn't immediately fall on the heads of the Chinese members of the admin team?
posted by sciatrix at 10:59 AM on February 15 [14 favorites]
That doesn't surprise me that people would just keep going along with it.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:59 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:59 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
So the major supposition from the comments on the last post - that the admins decided to secretly self-censor in order to get out ahead of any issue with the CCP - turned out to be true? The best authoritarians just get others to do the work for them, I guess.
posted by thecjm at 11:00 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 11:00 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
Understand that I signed up fully aware that there were going to be issues. I am not that naïve regarding the Chinese political system, but I wanted the Hugos to happen, and not have them completely crash and burn.
It also turns out that state censorship relies on good people with good intentions who just want to do what they can to make sure everything goes off without a hitch despite the presence of state censorship.
I'm sure the system is even designed so that in the moment people think they're not giving the state all that it wants. "They want us to do X but we're going to draw the line at doing Y". Except that it's not immediately obvious that not doing X isn't an act of rebellion having already done Y.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:01 AM on February 15 [10 favorites]
It also turns out that state censorship relies on good people with good intentions who just want to do what they can to make sure everything goes off without a hitch despite the presence of state censorship.
I'm sure the system is even designed so that in the moment people think they're not giving the state all that it wants. "They want us to do X but we're going to draw the line at doing Y". Except that it's not immediately obvious that not doing X isn't an act of rebellion having already done Y.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:01 AM on February 15 [10 favorites]
All so miserable, pointless, and subtly racist in itself. What I want to hear is that the excluded works will be eligible in a later year.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:09 AM on February 15 [9 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 11:09 AM on February 15 [9 favorites]
I'm sure the system is even designed so that in the moment people think they're not giving the state all that it wants.
My impression from the Drum Tower podcast is that the reverse is true: by keeping regulations vague and unclear, they can get people to self-censor more than any law could explicitly prohibit. I'm not fully sure what constrains them, other than perhaps the ability to greatly censor without looking from the outside like you censor that much?
posted by pwnguin at 11:14 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
My impression from the Drum Tower podcast is that the reverse is true: by keeping regulations vague and unclear, they can get people to self-censor more than any law could explicitly prohibit. I'm not fully sure what constrains them, other than perhaps the ability to greatly censor without looking from the outside like you censor that much?
posted by pwnguin at 11:14 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
I feel awful for the Chinese fandom. From the report, commentary from Pablo Vazquez:
posted by Nelson at 11:16 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
They [Chinese fans] don’t seem to fear official reprisal (the CPC seems to want to find who’s responsible for embarrassing them on the world stage actually) but rather ostracization from their community or its outright destruction. If I were to hazard a guess, the way we blew up this affair in the international media has now put this fandom in very serious trouble. Previously, it was one of the few major avenues of free speech left in China. Now, after all this, the continuation of that freedom seems highly unlikelyIt's just baffling that so far as we know, the clumsy censorship was coming mostly from Western con organizers. I hope we learn more about what guided their decisions. I think we don't really know still if Chinese organizers or government officials were involved at some point but it's clear from this reporting the Westerners sure handled things poorly.
posted by Nelson at 11:16 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
“Investment deals valued at approximately $1.09 billion were signed during the 81st World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) held in Chengdu.” .. What remains unknown at this time is what was the extent of the involvement of the Chinese government or the business interests that surrounded the development of the Science Fiction Museum, if the business deals that emerged from the convention were orchestrated in conjunction with the convention organizers
It's been decades since I did fandom, but I never got the sense of Worldcon as a place where billion-dollar deals went down. What's the story here?
posted by Sauce Trough at 11:39 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
It's been decades since I did fandom, but I never got the sense of Worldcon as a place where billion-dollar deals went down. What's the story here?
posted by Sauce Trough at 11:39 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
The King doesn't even have to ask if anyone will rid him of some turbulent priest when folks like the con committee pre-emptively storm the chapel.
posted by tclark at 11:41 AM on February 15 [12 favorites]
posted by tclark at 11:41 AM on February 15 [12 favorites]
Kershaw called it "working towards the Führer".
posted by aramaic at 11:42 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
posted by aramaic at 11:42 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
People are picking up on McCrary saying that this was business as usual for him, and starting to wonder what other shenanigans he's been involved with in past WorldCons. Especially with comments like Meg Frank's about the 2014 WorldCon floating around.
posted by Spike Glee at 11:42 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
posted by Spike Glee at 11:42 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
From Chuck Tingle on Twitter:
posted by mhum at 11:46 AM on February 15 [22 favorites]
i am sorry buds but it has to be said: lots of talk about the 2023 hugo awards being fraudulent because of actions of leader dave mccarty. this is true. but if we are going to be REALLY honest there is a difficult truth to accept, ANY past hugos dave ran are likely fraudulentI went back to look at some of McCarty's defenses and it seems that more than once he explained that whatever unilateral and unexplained decisions he (and whoever else was involved) made regarding disqualifying nominations were perfectly legal and in line with the rules (whatever those may be). Not that the decisions were good or necessary. Simply that they were allowed to make those decisions, so how dare anyone question them.
posted by mhum at 11:46 AM on February 15 [22 favorites]
Let's have a sci-fi writing awards ceremony in a country that routinely censors all kinds of literature, what could possibly go wrong?
Yes, China is a very big market but is it worth selling your soul to Satan?
posted by tommasz at 11:49 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
Yes, China is a very big market but is it worth selling your soul to Satan?
posted by tommasz at 11:49 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
If you ever find yourself compiling a dossier of someone's political views or lifestyle to help some authority figure decide whether to repress them, please stop and ask yourself what the hell you're doing. You might tell yourself you're just doing your job and someone else is making the bad decisions ... but that's not being neutral, it's collaboration. And more and more of us are going to find ourselves in these kinds of situations over the next few years.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 11:50 AM on February 15 [39 favorites]
posted by Gerald Bostock at 11:50 AM on February 15 [39 favorites]
The only way I see these awards recover is if they hand them off completely to an accounting firm, with absolutely no input or involvement from Worldcon permitted. McCarty's role in this was no surprise to people involved in previous Worldcons, but he still was given the position of Hugo administrator for Chengdu. Then the Worldcon insiders told us that the Glasgow Hugos were in good hands with Kat Jones as administrator. That was clearly not true. Worldcon and its (lack of) system of governance is not up to the task of restoring credibilty to the Hugos.
posted by creepygirl at 11:58 AM on February 15 [7 favorites]
posted by creepygirl at 11:58 AM on February 15 [7 favorites]
In the comments of the jscalzi post, the person writing the tabulation software for the next few cons chimed in to say they were planning on making it as transparent as possible.
But that's not a real solution. If the Hugos want to be a big, worldwide event, they need professionals running things like nominations and voting tabulation, if not the cons themselves.
posted by thecjm at 12:08 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
But that's not a real solution. If the Hugos want to be a big, worldwide event, they need professionals running things like nominations and voting tabulation, if not the cons themselves.
posted by thecjm at 12:08 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
Lacey apologized which is good, but as she said in her apology:
We were told to vet nominees for work focusing on China, Taiwan, Tibet, or other topics that may be an issue in China and, to my shame, I did so.
I know life comes at you fast, and it can be hard in the moment to grasp the implications of what you are being told to do in a situation where everyone around is acting like it's normal, but none-the-less, that's pretty appalling behavior.
If you find yourself writing an email that says of a work of literature with queer/non-binary themes "I don't know how that would play in China (I suspect less than well)" then maybe you are doing something wrong.
posted by cron at 12:15 PM on February 15 [25 favorites]
We were told to vet nominees for work focusing on China, Taiwan, Tibet, or other topics that may be an issue in China and, to my shame, I did so.
I know life comes at you fast, and it can be hard in the moment to grasp the implications of what you are being told to do in a situation where everyone around is acting like it's normal, but none-the-less, that's pretty appalling behavior.
If you find yourself writing an email that says of a work of literature with queer/non-binary themes "I don't know how that would play in China (I suspect less than well)" then maybe you are doing something wrong.
posted by cron at 12:15 PM on February 15 [25 favorites]
One thing from Camestros Felapton's response has been preying on my mind, namely this:
The thought that Chinese writers got denied the honor of being Hugo nominees at their own Worldcon to ensure international attention is, frankly, sickening. Chinese fandom, and the Chinese science fiction and fantasy community at large, were fucked over so thoroughly.
posted by Kattullus at 12:15 PM on February 15 [21 favorites]
I believe Best Novel, Best Novella and Best Series were rigged to ensure that the finalist list ONLY had English-language nominees to ensure that a Chinese work did not win those categories. I assume this was done to ensure the 2023 Hugo Awards would get international coverage.If it's true that Chinese novels were removed from the list of nominees by Western admins to aid some local business people, that would be one of the most shocking revelations of all. Lacey said that this was because there was slating going on, but if she got that information from McCarty or people close to him, there's no good reason to believe that was the case for all of them.
The thought that Chinese writers got denied the honor of being Hugo nominees at their own Worldcon to ensure international attention is, frankly, sickening. Chinese fandom, and the Chinese science fiction and fantasy community at large, were fucked over so thoroughly.
posted by Kattullus at 12:15 PM on February 15 [21 favorites]
I used to be a voracious reader of science fiction, but as life grew busier I am down to maybe a half-dozen novels a year, 10 in a good year. And I have come to rely on the Hugos as a guide for finding my next fun read. Where do I go now? Are there other science fiction awards or ways of sorting recent titles?
posted by LarryC at 12:21 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by LarryC at 12:21 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
I get the sense that there’s a weird narrative going around that the North American admins pre-emptively jumped in and did all the self-censorship themselves without the Chengdu team instigating anything. That’s likely erroneous, given the hints we’ve seen from La Zi and other Chinese organizers—there’s drama going on behind the scenes on the Chinese side.
But I also don’t want the government or anything to come down like a ton of bricks on the Chinese team, when it’s clear that the NA team can and will shoulder the blame. And so they should—Chinese locals working in China might be bound to a certain set of rules and expectations, but the NA team had other options (though maybe they felt like they didn’t, if they wanted Worldcon to go forward). Maybe separating Worldcon and the Hugos going forward would give that team the ability to exercise their other options.
posted by oh__lol at 12:21 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
But I also don’t want the government or anything to come down like a ton of bricks on the Chinese team, when it’s clear that the NA team can and will shoulder the blame. And so they should—Chinese locals working in China might be bound to a certain set of rules and expectations, but the NA team had other options (though maybe they felt like they didn’t, if they wanted Worldcon to go forward). Maybe separating Worldcon and the Hugos going forward would give that team the ability to exercise their other options.
posted by oh__lol at 12:21 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
thecjm, as said person, you might also kindly include the rest of what I said:
posted by ChrisR at 12:21 PM on February 15 [20 favorites]
I know very well that software transparency is only part of the story, but as I am the one writing the Hugo nomination and voting software for the next 2-3 Worldcons, I want to say that at least from that side it’ll be as transparent as possible. I want people to be able to trust the code that does this, as a part of being able to trust the process.The way you phrased that implied a degree of "code is law" to what I said that I explicitly did not put in there, and in fact did my damnedest not to imply on any level.
posted by ChrisR at 12:21 PM on February 15 [20 favorites]
but I wanted the Hugos to happen, and not have them completely crash and burn.
I got news for ya buddy.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:23 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
I got news for ya buddy.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:23 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
Are there other science fiction awards or ways of sorting recent titles?
The Clarke Award is a juried award that picks some really interesting stuff, and if you don't mind a long list to sort through, the Locus Recommended Reading List is reliably very good. The Ursula K. Le Guin Prize is very new, and given to a work of "imaginative fiction" rather than science fiction per se, but I like their choices so far.
There's also the Nebula, which is fine (but, I think, not that interesting).
posted by Jeanne at 12:30 PM on February 15 [12 favorites]
The Clarke Award is a juried award that picks some really interesting stuff, and if you don't mind a long list to sort through, the Locus Recommended Reading List is reliably very good. The Ursula K. Le Guin Prize is very new, and given to a work of "imaginative fiction" rather than science fiction per se, but I like their choices so far.
There's also the Nebula, which is fine (but, I think, not that interesting).
posted by Jeanne at 12:30 PM on February 15 [12 favorites]
Yes, China is a very big market but is it worth selling your soul to Satan?
When in China, I believe Satan strongly…suggests…you do.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:31 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
When in China, I believe Satan strongly…suggests…you do.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:31 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Turns out that state censorship actually relies on self censorship... It's part of the design.
Again, there is zero evidence that even the Chinese members of the fucking concom, much less the Chinese government, were involved in any of this. The entire thing was a white westerner telling a bunch of other white westerners to "vet" finalists in a weirdly racist and sinophobic way! Including works (like Babel) already approved for mainland Chinese translation and publication!
(Yes, I'm aware of the post purporting to be from a Sichuan government office. That one specifically referred to LGBT-friendly works, and plenty of those ended up on the fucking ballot.)
Of course there is actual state censorship in China, and i'm sure Chinese folks really do comply in advance/self-censor when required. But none of that happened here! This wasn't self-censorship by anyone with actual knowledge of conditions on the ground! It was McCarty being a racist shithead! You can't just speculate on what "would" have happened as an excuse to be sinophobic!
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:37 PM on February 15 [18 favorites]
Again, there is zero evidence that even the Chinese members of the fucking concom, much less the Chinese government, were involved in any of this. The entire thing was a white westerner telling a bunch of other white westerners to "vet" finalists in a weirdly racist and sinophobic way! Including works (like Babel) already approved for mainland Chinese translation and publication!
(Yes, I'm aware of the post purporting to be from a Sichuan government office. That one specifically referred to LGBT-friendly works, and plenty of those ended up on the fucking ballot.)
Of course there is actual state censorship in China, and i'm sure Chinese folks really do comply in advance/self-censor when required. But none of that happened here! This wasn't self-censorship by anyone with actual knowledge of conditions on the ground! It was McCarty being a racist shithead! You can't just speculate on what "would" have happened as an excuse to be sinophobic!
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:37 PM on February 15 [18 favorites]
The Worldcon organizational structure seems quite adeptly designed to allow people to do 1) whatever the hell they want each year, and 2) get away with it.
If the purpose of a system is what it does, and I strongly believe that to be the case, then Worldcon's purpose is to allow an extremely narrow and socially inbred cadre of largely American cishet white male decision makers to lean heavily on the scales to ensure the right people win the award.
Pretty shit, really. That good works by women, queers and PoC have been shortlisted and won the award seems to be an accidental byproduct or perhaps even shortcoming of the system rather than by design.
There must be accountability and consequences for bad faith actors, and Worldcon has none.
Fix it, or it's fucked.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:48 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
If the purpose of a system is what it does, and I strongly believe that to be the case, then Worldcon's purpose is to allow an extremely narrow and socially inbred cadre of largely American cishet white male decision makers to lean heavily on the scales to ensure the right people win the award.
Pretty shit, really. That good works by women, queers and PoC have been shortlisted and won the award seems to be an accidental byproduct or perhaps even shortcoming of the system rather than by design.
There must be accountability and consequences for bad faith actors, and Worldcon has none.
Fix it, or it's fucked.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:48 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
I lived in 23-person cooperative housing in college twenty five years ago and our organization had more accountability procedures in it than the Hugos/Worldcon, as far as I can see.
posted by bq at 12:55 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
posted by bq at 12:55 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
Amy Hawkins (The Guardian, 2/15/2024), "Authors 'excluded from Hugo awards over China concerns,'" e.g.:
Another of the writers affected was Paul Weimer, who was excluded from the fan writer category. One of the several points raised about him in the emails is that he had previously travelled to Tibet. But Weimer said he had only been to Nepal, not Tibet. “It’s not even competent political censorship – it’s haphazard bullshit,” he said.posted by Wobbuffet at 12:55 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
Historian and SFF author Ada Palmer wrote a barnburner post about censorship in January that I strongly, strongly recommend. It addresses the point several MeFites have made about people fearful of state censorship self-censoring (and in this case, censoring others).
As I told my students today, don't sell your soul right away. Make the bastards come for it.
posted by humbug at 12:56 PM on February 15 [18 favorites]
As I told my students today, don't sell your soul right away. Make the bastards come for it.
posted by humbug at 12:56 PM on February 15 [18 favorites]
This is really weird for me to watch because, although I am not into the convention fandom at all, not even as a Hugo voter, I know people involved on both sides. I don't want to say more than that because I don't want to out my friend who was involved with the group who made all the bad decisions. (And yes, looks like they fucked up based on the evidence I've seen, even if they did what they did with the best of intentions.)
I do hope the Hugos can re-earn some of the trust they've blown here, and I'm glad the folks involved in Chengdu are all out of the next Worldcon. But some of the commentary online (not here) has been wild conspiracy theorizing about what went on and when you know some of the people involved, it gives you a real moment to hear the internet doing what it does about people you know. Like, you know, my friend fucked up, but I'm pretty sure orbital mind control lasers were not actually involved.
I'm going to be thinking about this the next time I have a strong desire to open my mouth about the internet scandal du jour.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 12:57 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
I do hope the Hugos can re-earn some of the trust they've blown here, and I'm glad the folks involved in Chengdu are all out of the next Worldcon. But some of the commentary online (not here) has been wild conspiracy theorizing about what went on and when you know some of the people involved, it gives you a real moment to hear the internet doing what it does about people you know. Like, you know, my friend fucked up, but I'm pretty sure orbital mind control lasers were not actually involved.
I'm going to be thinking about this the next time I have a strong desire to open my mouth about the internet scandal du jour.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 12:57 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
"Lacey said that this was because there was slating going on, but if she got that information from McCarty or people close to him, there's no good reason to believe that was the case for all of them."
It doesn't matter if there was slating or not; this issue has already been hashed out in the Hugo community, and the agreement was that the solution was not to disqualify ballots for agreeing (even when there was good reason to think they were part of a malicious effort), but to revise the voting process to reduce the outsized weight a slate vote would have compared to a non-slate vote in the nomination stage. The issue was not that people were following other people's recommendations, it was that malicious actors were using the mathematics of an open vote, with hundreds or thousands of potential nominees, to block other, more widely popular works from appearing on the shortlist. Thus, EPH.
posted by tavella at 1:01 PM on February 15 [11 favorites]
It doesn't matter if there was slating or not; this issue has already been hashed out in the Hugo community, and the agreement was that the solution was not to disqualify ballots for agreeing (even when there was good reason to think they were part of a malicious effort), but to revise the voting process to reduce the outsized weight a slate vote would have compared to a non-slate vote in the nomination stage. The issue was not that people were following other people's recommendations, it was that malicious actors were using the mathematics of an open vote, with hundreds or thousands of potential nominees, to block other, more widely popular works from appearing on the shortlist. Thus, EPH.
posted by tavella at 1:01 PM on February 15 [11 favorites]
Just wanted to add the Babel was (favorably) reviewed in Lingthusiasm 80
posted by BobTheScientist at 1:21 PM on February 15
posted by BobTheScientist at 1:21 PM on February 15
Again, there is zero evidence that even the Chinese members of the fucking concom, much less the Chinese government, were involved in any of this. The entire thing was a white westerner telling a bunch of other white westerners to "vet" finalists in a weirdly racist and sinophobic way! Including works (like Babel) already approved for mainland Chinese translation and publication!
And McCarty had every opportunity to say something like "We were given guidelines to follow by government officials" or even "I'm not at liberty to discuss the reasons without consulting legal representation", but he didn't because I suspect he cannot produce any evidence of that.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:27 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
And McCarty had every opportunity to say something like "We were given guidelines to follow by government officials" or even "I'm not at liberty to discuss the reasons without consulting legal representation", but he didn't because I suspect he cannot produce any evidence of that.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:27 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
From one of Kat Jones' emails in the email tranche:
Maybe any fan writer concerns can be mitigated by asking them to curate their voter packet materials with our Chinese friends' safety in mind?
posted by Sauce Trough at 1:37 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Maybe any fan writer concerns can be mitigated by asking them to curate their voter packet materials with our Chinese friends' safety in mind?
posted by Sauce Trough at 1:37 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Are there other science fiction awards or ways of sorting recent titles?
I highly recommend the Ignyte Awards, which have been going since 2020 and by centering diversity in their approach, pull a slice of outstanding SFF works that are often under-represented.
posted by sgranade at 1:42 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
I highly recommend the Ignyte Awards, which have been going since 2020 and by centering diversity in their approach, pull a slice of outstanding SFF works that are often under-represented.
posted by sgranade at 1:42 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
So, if there were Chinese organizers involved at some approver level, why did they leave Babel out when, Babel is available from a Beijing press and fairly popular in China? If it's getting published by a mainland press in China, it would be more of a feather in the ol' cap if it won a Hugo than anything else, I'd think. Its overt message is about Western imperialism, for that matter, and it has a bunch of Mandarin in it, which is neat and if anything probably good for Western fans becoming interested in China.
I used to be a voracious reader of science fiction, but as life grew busier I am down to maybe a half-dozen novels a year, 10 in a good year. And I have come to rely on the Hugos as a guide for finding my next fun read. Where do I go now? Are there other science fiction awards or ways of sorting recent titles?
Honestly, I suggest finding a couple of websites or blogs whose taste is roughly similar to yours and just keeping an eye on their reviews. I get almost all my SF recommendations from Abigail Nussbaum's blog Asking The Wrong Questions because she likes more offbeat books - she thought very highly of Goliath, by Tochi Onyebuchi, which is in line with her general sensibility.
I used to keep up with the reviews at Strange Horizons, another great favorite, when I had more time. Tor and Clarkesworld do a bit more of the big mainstream novels.
posted by Frowner at 1:50 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
I used to be a voracious reader of science fiction, but as life grew busier I am down to maybe a half-dozen novels a year, 10 in a good year. And I have come to rely on the Hugos as a guide for finding my next fun read. Where do I go now? Are there other science fiction awards or ways of sorting recent titles?
Honestly, I suggest finding a couple of websites or blogs whose taste is roughly similar to yours and just keeping an eye on their reviews. I get almost all my SF recommendations from Abigail Nussbaum's blog Asking The Wrong Questions because she likes more offbeat books - she thought very highly of Goliath, by Tochi Onyebuchi, which is in line with her general sensibility.
I used to keep up with the reviews at Strange Horizons, another great favorite, when I had more time. Tor and Clarkesworld do a bit more of the big mainstream novels.
posted by Frowner at 1:50 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
The way you phrased that implied a degree of "code is law" to what I said that I explicitly did not put in there, and in fact did my damnedest not to imply on any level.
Thanks for replying, ChrisR. I'm sorry if I wasn't as clear as I should have been with my comment. I don't even know what "code is law" means in this context.
The argument I was trying to make was that if something like Worldcon wants to be taken seriously after this scandal, the tabulation system shouldn't be coming from one developer, no matter how talented and trustworthy. It should be coming from an accounting or auditing firm.
posted by thecjm at 2:01 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Thanks for replying, ChrisR. I'm sorry if I wasn't as clear as I should have been with my comment. I don't even know what "code is law" means in this context.
The argument I was trying to make was that if something like Worldcon wants to be taken seriously after this scandal, the tabulation system shouldn't be coming from one developer, no matter how talented and trustworthy. It should be coming from an accounting or auditing firm.
posted by thecjm at 2:01 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
by keeping regulations vague and unclear, they can get people to self-censor more than any law could explicitly prohibit
See also "don't say gay" and children's book banning rules in many right-wing US states.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 2:01 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
See also "don't say gay" and children's book banning rules in many right-wing US states.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 2:01 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
We were told to vet nominees for work focusing on China, Taiwan, Tibet, or other topics that may be an issue in China and, to my shame, I did so.
Is there any context in Lacey's comments to know who told them to vet the nominees? Was it McCarty?
posted by thecjm at 2:02 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
The argument I was trying to make was that if something like Worldcon wants to be taken seriously after this scandal, the tabulation system shouldn't be coming from one developer, no matter how talented and trustworthy. It should be coming from an accounting or auditing firm.
What's the budget of the Hugos? And how much does it cost to retain a trusted accounting / auditing firm for the ~9-month cycle of nominations through awards?
posted by Sauce Trough at 2:17 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
What's the budget of the Hugos? And how much does it cost to retain a trusted accounting / auditing firm for the ~9-month cycle of nominations through awards?
posted by Sauce Trough at 2:17 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
The budget of the Hugo Awards varies per year. The only entity that exists from year to year is the Worldcon Intellectual Property LLC that owns the trademarks, but otherwise has no authority over anything in the Worldcon, including the Hugo Awards ceremony or the selection process. The WSFS constitution sets what those powers are, and they are currently quite limited.
WSFS could mandate the auditing firm as part of running the Hugo Awards, but I suspect that doing so would mark the end of the award, as no committee could guarantee the budget to do so.
posted by ChrisR at 2:22 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
WSFS could mandate the auditing firm as part of running the Hugo Awards, but I suspect that doing so would mark the end of the award, as no committee could guarantee the budget to do so.
posted by ChrisR at 2:22 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
I am more and more convinced that the reason that Sandman didn't make either the Short Form or Long Form dramatic presentation shortlist is that McCarty was so busy convincing his co-staffers to go along with his Trust Me We Need To Censor The Shortlists For The Local Fans' Own Good schtick that he misapplied the rules about not putting a work into two award categories and forgot to put it into either.
(The nomination figures do not quite support that, but have to be viewed with extreme suspicion given all we now know.)
posted by Major Clanger at 2:23 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
(The nomination figures do not quite support that, but have to be viewed with extreme suspicion given all we now know.)
posted by Major Clanger at 2:23 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Honestly I think the Hugos have outlived their usefulness. Scifi/Fantasy has broadened so much that having a single set of awards is just pointless, and the public vote just encourages block voting and naked campaigning.
posted by AndrewStephens at 2:24 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
posted by AndrewStephens at 2:24 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
If McCarty had been acting all noble and honorable this whole time, he'd have told ya.
posted by ryanrs at 2:24 PM on February 15
posted by ryanrs at 2:24 PM on February 15
A Chinese fan on File770 has weighed in in a couple of consecutive comments stating pretty clearly that he thinks government censorship sucks but wasn't the issue here. Now, of course, you can assume they're a poor benighted creature with no idea what Freedom is really like, but they are pretty mad about people doing exactly that:
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:27 PM on February 15 [19 favorites]
I am a Chinese science fiction fan and I have read all of the article and I have to say that it is filled with stereotypes and even imaginations about Chinese politics. I have reason to suspect that it is your groundless creation that puts Chinese science fiction and world science fiction exchange in a dangerous position. I will refute some of the stereotypes mentioned in the article one by one.I am going to keep harping on this: the current available evidence does not suggest any fucking involvement whatsoever by Chinese censors, and insisting that it must really truly be the case regardless of the evidence we do have is fucking Sinophobic.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:27 PM on February 15 [19 favorites]
Yeah, what adrienneleigh is saying above.
This has a very strong whiff of "what the government and party's wishes may well have been" a la the Big Lebowski: "And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean, which you loved so well."
And also what humbug said: even if at some point the Chinese government would have interfered with or otherwise censored the awards, make them come for it. Don't do their job for them. McCarty in particular but also everyone else involved seem to have some really smells-like-white-savior bullshit that needs explaining post haste.
posted by tclark at 2:33 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
This has a very strong whiff of "what the government and party's wishes may well have been" a la the Big Lebowski: "And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean, which you loved so well."
And also what humbug said: even if at some point the Chinese government would have interfered with or otherwise censored the awards, make them come for it. Don't do their job for them. McCarty in particular but also everyone else involved seem to have some really smells-like-white-savior bullshit that needs explaining post haste.
posted by tclark at 2:33 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
So, if there were Chinese organizers involved at some approver level, why did they leave Babel out when, Babel is available from a Beijing press and fairly popular in China? If it's getting published by a mainland press in China, it would be more of a feather in the ol' cap if it won a Hugo than anything else, I'd think.
Hell, as far as I can tell, the actual Chinese government appears to mostly be embarrassed and furious about the whole thing. The suppression of Babel makes no sense from a government censor position for all the reasons you list here! But it does make sense from the perspective of weirdly racist Western concom members working in a foreign nation and trying to pre-emptively avoid all possibility of controversy.
Consider below:
On June 6, Kat Jones wrote an email to the administration group titled “Best Novel potential issues.” In the email, Jones raised concerns about the novels Babel, or the Necessity of Violence by R. F. Kuang and The Daughter of Doctor Moreau by Silvia Moreno-Garcia. Jones wrote that 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’” while adding that The Daughter of Doctor Moreau talked “about importing hacienda workers from China. I have not read the book, and do not know whether this would be considered ‘negative.’”
The Daughter of Doctor Moreau was not removed from consideration.
Given the bewildered commentary from a number of Chinese SFF fans and commenters, I really think that the simplest explanation here is probably racism on the part of Westerners racing to do what they "think" the PRC censors might want.
posted by sciatrix at 2:40 PM on February 15 [12 favorites]
Hell, as far as I can tell, the actual Chinese government appears to mostly be embarrassed and furious about the whole thing. The suppression of Babel makes no sense from a government censor position for all the reasons you list here! But it does make sense from the perspective of weirdly racist Western concom members working in a foreign nation and trying to pre-emptively avoid all possibility of controversy.
Consider below:
On June 6, Kat Jones wrote an email to the administration group titled “Best Novel potential issues.” In the email, Jones raised concerns about the novels Babel, or the Necessity of Violence by R. F. Kuang and The Daughter of Doctor Moreau by Silvia Moreno-Garcia. Jones wrote that 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’” while adding that The Daughter of Doctor Moreau talked “about importing hacienda workers from China. I have not read the book, and do not know whether this would be considered ‘negative.’”
The Daughter of Doctor Moreau was not removed from consideration.
Given the bewildered commentary from a number of Chinese SFF fans and commenters, I really think that the simplest explanation here is probably racism on the part of Westerners racing to do what they "think" the PRC censors might want.
posted by sciatrix at 2:40 PM on February 15 [12 favorites]
Well, yes.
But that’s also something that PRC has highly encouraged in people who do business with them over the course of decades. Doesn’t really help to pretend that isn’t a factor.
posted by Artw at 2:46 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
But that’s also something that PRC has highly encouraged in people who do business with them over the course of decades. Doesn’t really help to pretend that isn’t a factor.
posted by Artw at 2:46 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
You know, it's hard to pay even the slightest attention to SF in the last decade and not see just how important Chinese SF is, and the impact it's having worldwide. It was really cool for the fandom there to have this event (for reasons well addressed in the last post), and now this has happened. I'm sure there are many stories yet to be told about what went down, but I can't help but think of the many photos I've seen of Neil Clarke, among others, hanging out with bunches of off-the-chain-excited Chinese fans. They finally got their con, and this happened. It really sucks.
Honestly I think the Hugos have outlived their usefulness.
Major awards are incredibly valuable for helping booksellers and librarians make decisions about what to buy and what to push, and very often for readers looking to get into a new area. Smaller, daring, and new awards are super cool, and I like to see what's getting those awards, but these are useful tools. MetaFilter is packed with 9th dan SFF blackbelts who have read it all, who have well-developed tastes and don't need reading guideposts, and that is great, but most people aren't that.
And, you know, it's also nice to have as much armature in place to support genre literature in the face of monstrous-by-comparison genre films, games, and other media that capture much more public attention. There is a timeline where most major bookstores go under, Amazon's book-buying utility dwindles even further, and it becomes even harder to identify "good things to read." Lots of tea leaves out there are good to read, but there are bunch of features that are standard to artistic & literary communities. Longtime awards are one of them.
posted by cupcakeninja at 2:48 PM on February 15 [17 favorites]
Honestly I think the Hugos have outlived their usefulness.
Major awards are incredibly valuable for helping booksellers and librarians make decisions about what to buy and what to push, and very often for readers looking to get into a new area. Smaller, daring, and new awards are super cool, and I like to see what's getting those awards, but these are useful tools. MetaFilter is packed with 9th dan SFF blackbelts who have read it all, who have well-developed tastes and don't need reading guideposts, and that is great, but most people aren't that.
And, you know, it's also nice to have as much armature in place to support genre literature in the face of monstrous-by-comparison genre films, games, and other media that capture much more public attention. There is a timeline where most major bookstores go under, Amazon's book-buying utility dwindles even further, and it becomes even harder to identify "good things to read." Lots of tea leaves out there are good to read, but there are bunch of features that are standard to artistic & literary communities. Longtime awards are one of them.
posted by cupcakeninja at 2:48 PM on February 15 [17 favorites]
SL Huang writes (on bsky):
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:24 PM on February 15 [33 favorites]
(There's a whole thread over there.)
As diaspora, I cannot tell you what it feels like to see my name, work, and politics --
- were noted in a secret dossier
- where my work & sentiments were identified as concerning
- by *Americans*
- and then used to harm a colleague and associate.
You took the thing we fear, and you made it truth.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:24 PM on February 15 [33 favorites]
Is there any context in Lacey's comments to know who told them to vet the nominees? Was it McCarty?
Yes, McCarty told Lacey and Jones to vet the nominees. That's very clear from Lacey's leaked emails.
It's not clear whether anyone told McCarty to do it, but it's not really relevant if the Chinese Government or their proxies did do that (and there is no evidence either way). It was McCarty's responsibility to administer the awards. The betrayal, and the blame, is his.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:45 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
Yes, McCarty told Lacey and Jones to vet the nominees. That's very clear from Lacey's leaked emails.
It's not clear whether anyone told McCarty to do it, but it's not really relevant if the Chinese Government or their proxies did do that (and there is no evidence either way). It was McCarty's responsibility to administer the awards. The betrayal, and the blame, is his.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:45 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
I am a Chinese science fiction fan and I have read all of the article and I have to say that it is filled with stereotypes and even imaginations about Chinese politics.
I get that this fan is upset, but there is nothing in the Barkley/Sanford report that makes any claims about actions by the Chinese government.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:53 PM on February 15
I get that this fan is upset, but there is nothing in the Barkley/Sanford report that makes any claims about actions by the Chinese government.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:53 PM on February 15
His thoughts were red thoughts: given that most of the things he mentioned in his comments were said in other comments, not the article itself, i think that is most likely to be a result of mistranslation or ESL.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:04 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:04 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
This is nauseating, and I don’t mean disgusting, I mean I feel physically nauseous when I think about this. It’s just too much with the US sliding toward fascism to find people in this position throwing themselves onto the censorship wagon. I must have thought on a subconscious level that science fiction fans would be better and it makes me feel ill that I was so wrong.
posted by bq at 4:12 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
posted by bq at 4:12 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
The Barkley/Sanford report has hit the Guardian. Gizmodo. Locus.
McCarty's name is mud. Good.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:20 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
McCarty's name is mud. Good.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:20 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Another post on file770 from a Chinese-speaking fan with knowledge of the situation in China.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:27 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:27 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
there is nothing in the Barkley/Sanford report that makes any claims about actions by the Chinese government
Sanford is a little more carefully worded, but Barkley's conclusion leans heavily on the assumption of government interference. He says, "Everything that did happen could have been avoided if the government of China, their associated business interests and those involved in the running of the Worldcon had not tried to “do the right thing”, putting equal blame on all parties. Immediately following he contrasts "western standards" with "the People’s Republic of China, and... other totalitarian nations"; he describes the criteria for exclusion as "being undesirable in the view of the the Hugo Award admins which had the effect of being the proxies [of the] Chinese government"; and concludes "what remains unknown at this time is what was the extent of the involvement of the Chinese government ... the complete truth may never be known". In my opinion, this works to shift responsibility away from the people for whom we have actual evidence of malfeasance and onto the nebulous idea of Chinese censorship.
adrienneleigh, thanks for your comments.
In the comment linked above, superpanda says they "have been consistently surprised at the lack of Chinese people in this written investigation." I agree that this is a failure in the report, especially considering how much of this scandal appears to be caused by McCarty and his team projecting their ignorance and biases about China onto various eligible works. They were ostensibly working with Chinese fans; why were none of them invited to discuss issues on which, surely, they would be most expert and most impacted? Likewise, although all Hugo voters and fans are affected, the Chengdu team (as well as Chinese national and diaspora fans by extension) has been the target of racist & sinophobic rhetoric from Western fans since they won the bid; it's a shame that their input has once again been left to the side.
posted by radiogreentea at 6:43 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
Sanford is a little more carefully worded, but Barkley's conclusion leans heavily on the assumption of government interference. He says, "Everything that did happen could have been avoided if the government of China, their associated business interests and those involved in the running of the Worldcon had not tried to “do the right thing”, putting equal blame on all parties. Immediately following he contrasts "western standards" with "the People’s Republic of China, and... other totalitarian nations"; he describes the criteria for exclusion as "being undesirable in the view of the the Hugo Award admins which had the effect of being the proxies [of the] Chinese government"; and concludes "what remains unknown at this time is what was the extent of the involvement of the Chinese government ... the complete truth may never be known". In my opinion, this works to shift responsibility away from the people for whom we have actual evidence of malfeasance and onto the nebulous idea of Chinese censorship.
adrienneleigh, thanks for your comments.
In the comment linked above, superpanda says they "have been consistently surprised at the lack of Chinese people in this written investigation." I agree that this is a failure in the report, especially considering how much of this scandal appears to be caused by McCarty and his team projecting their ignorance and biases about China onto various eligible works. They were ostensibly working with Chinese fans; why were none of them invited to discuss issues on which, surely, they would be most expert and most impacted? Likewise, although all Hugo voters and fans are affected, the Chengdu team (as well as Chinese national and diaspora fans by extension) has been the target of racist & sinophobic rhetoric from Western fans since they won the bid; it's a shame that their input has once again been left to the side.
posted by radiogreentea at 6:43 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
In the comment linked above, superpanda says they "have been consistently surprised at the lack of Chinese people in this written investigation." I agree that this is a failure in the report
Fair. But the Chinese members of the Chengdu team have had plenty of opportunity to say something, or issue a statement. They chose to let McCarty speak for the team. They haven't issued their own statements since the uproar. That's their choice.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:52 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Fair. But the Chinese members of the Chengdu team have had plenty of opportunity to say something, or issue a statement. They chose to let McCarty speak for the team. They haven't issued their own statements since the uproar. That's their choice.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:52 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Calling reasonable inferences about likely PRC influence “Sinophobia” is similar to calling criticism of Israel’s government “anti-semitism”. Governments with long, repressive histories don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt, and they are not representative of enthnicities.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 7:51 PM on February 15 [19 favorites]
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 7:51 PM on February 15 [19 favorites]
Governments with long, repressive histories don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt, and they are not representative of ethnicities.
China censors literature. Both at a government level, and by encouraging business-level censorship or self-censorship. For example:
Redacted Fantasy: China’s Dystopian Censorship of Online Fiction, Lacuna, November 2023
The Art of Telling Forbidden Stories in China, NYT, August 2023
A million-word novel got censored before it was even shared. Now Chinese users want answers. MIT Review, 2022 - censorship by a word processing platform rather than directly by the government.
It is not unreasonable to suspect government interference in the Hugos - China has longstanding form in this regard. But there remains no evidence of it at present.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:22 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
China censors literature. Both at a government level, and by encouraging business-level censorship or self-censorship. For example:
Redacted Fantasy: China’s Dystopian Censorship of Online Fiction, Lacuna, November 2023
The Art of Telling Forbidden Stories in China, NYT, August 2023
A million-word novel got censored before it was even shared. Now Chinese users want answers. MIT Review, 2022 - censorship by a word processing platform rather than directly by the government.
It is not unreasonable to suspect government interference in the Hugos - China has longstanding form in this regard. But there remains no evidence of it at present.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:22 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
If you stand by the river long enough, almost all the Hugo's float by.
posted by clavdivs at 8:32 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 8:32 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
I'm not deeply invested in the Hugos and their validity, but it seems like if they want to have any hope of relevance going forward, any Hugo McCarty has been associated with should have to be investigated. Probably won't happy...and I mean the Hugos probably won't stay relevant much longer.
posted by wooh at 8:49 PM on February 15
posted by wooh at 8:49 PM on February 15
Calling reasonable inferences about likely PRC influence “Sinophobia” is similar to calling criticism of Israel’s government “anti-semitism”.
What a lot of you are calling "reasonable inferences" i call "making up evidence". We don't have to do that with Israel, because they're constantly being genocidal on camera!
The fact remains that the best available evidence is that McCarty did this on his own initiative.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:05 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
What a lot of you are calling "reasonable inferences" i call "making up evidence". We don't have to do that with Israel, because they're constantly being genocidal on camera!
The fact remains that the best available evidence is that McCarty did this on his own initiative.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:05 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
I'm sure there was some indirect pressure, somewhere, if only the fact that McCarty clearly made "friends" with a lot of business bigwigs! But the censorship itself is so clownshoes, racist and paternalistic that it's impossible to come to any conclusion other than that McCarty, at the very least, significantly exceeded whatever "guidance" he thought he had.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:12 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:12 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
McCarty responded on June 5 at 7:18 pm saying “At the moment, the best guidance I have is ‘mentions of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, negatives of China’. I will try to get better guidance when I have a chance to dig into this deeper with the Chinese folks on the committee.”
posted by eye of newt at 10:40 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
posted by eye of newt at 10:40 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
I mean… I sort of assumed it worked SOMETHING like this, I’m just aghast at how when presented with a boot or the idea of a boot the guy launched himself at it mouth open like a basking shark. And then a bunch of people swam along in his wake.
I can very much buy that had he not made this special effort nobody in Chengdu would have given a shit about Babel.
posted by Artw at 11:01 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
I can very much buy that had he not made this special effort nobody in Chengdu would have given a shit about Babel.
posted by Artw at 11:01 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
dig into this deeper with the Chinese folks on the committee.
Well that's part of it. If, if, small pressure was brought to bear. subtle word, a disapproving look, doesn't matter because in the final analysis these people wrote the list and lists tell you quite a lot about the people who make them. of course the reverse of this, like a lot of things in life, is money.
notice how he emphasized that everyone should be checking a little box. ya.
posted by clavdivs at 11:44 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Well that's part of it. If, if, small pressure was brought to bear. subtle word, a disapproving look, doesn't matter because in the final analysis these people wrote the list and lists tell you quite a lot about the people who make them. of course the reverse of this, like a lot of things in life, is money.
notice how he emphasized that everyone should be checking a little box. ya.
posted by clavdivs at 11:44 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
I thought that this comment on File 770 by a Chinese fan who goes by Yusa, which I don't think has been highlighted in this thread, was very interesting:
posted by Kattullus at 1:10 AM on February 16 [10 favorites]
Some insights from the perspective of a Chinese SF fan:Also, while Neil Gaiman hasn't blogged or posted a megathread about all this, he's commented quite a lot on Bluesky. Here are the three most pertinent ones.
Firstly, the censorship standards adopted by the Hugo committee are ridiculous even by Chinese standards. Babel is on sale in China, and Xiran Zhao is portrayed as an advocate of Chinese culture by state media.
Secondly, weird stuff happening on the Chinese side doesn’t seem to be related to political reasons. A novelette by the same author of the winning one was deemed not elegible. However, it was published by a different agency. The winning one was published on Galaxy’s Edge, sponsored by Baguangfenwenhua, which was one of the hosts of the event, while the one deemed not elegible was published by SFWorld. The novel ‘Color the World’ was also published by SFWorld. I have a conspiracy theory that weird stuff on the Chinese side are due to commercial considerations of the hosts, namely, Chengdu Economic Daily and Baguangfenwenhua. Strangely, SFWorld did not co-host the event despite being one of the oldest SF magazines in China.
Thirdly, the Chengdu WorldCon was met with controversy on Chinese social media from the beginning of 2023, including but not limited to changing the venues as an excuse to build new local facilities (now known as the SF museum), changing of sponsors, and the best novelette award being given to a boring novel by a somewhat obscure writer. However, from my observations, many Chinese fans aren’t that interested in the Hugo Awards, they simply view WorldCon as a chance to meet their favourite writers and to have fun. They comment a few words on relevant news, and that’s it.
Fourthly, censorship in China works in quite an intricate yet messy fashion. What I can say as a Chinese citizen is that criticism of the Chengdu WorldCon is NOT directed at the Chinese central government and therefore NOT a subject of censorship due to political reasons. The apparent selective deletion of posts may be due to PR reasons. (Relevant companies may choose to pay a huge sum to social media companies to delete negative info)
Disclaimer: I’m not engaged with any ‘SF community’ that I’m aware of, my English sucks, and I haven’t read any SF news lately. I apologize if my views are somewhat flawed.
The questions of who censored the Hugos and why appear to have been answered. (Except for the Sandman disappearance. That would appear just to have been Dave McCarty abusing power.) [link]Finally, this made the BBC radio's arts program yesterday, and though it was apparently a fairly superficial and short segment, this story is escalating.
[He quoted Elsie York, who said: "They removed a book that is on sale in China. So the Chinese government didn’t censor Babel and McCarty & co did. 🤷♀️🤷♀️"] Exactly. (As an author whose books are popular in China I was astonished to discover that I was now persona non grata. It's almost a relief to know that it was all in their minds.) [link]
[Replying to a comments by Popehat, "It’s amazing to me that this hasn’t already generated litigation." and Will 'scifantasy' Frank, "Nobody has the pockets."] I have the pockets, and could probably convince Warner TV and Netflix that their show was fraudulently denied a place on an award ballot it had a good chance of winning. I just don't know how a civil suit against anyone would make any of this mess better. I'd rather see if the system can fix itself. [link]
posted by Kattullus at 1:10 AM on February 16 [10 favorites]
clavdivs: small pressure was brought to bear. subtle word, a disapproving look
The weird thing is that it seems like that a lot of those small pressures, subtle words and disapproving looks only existed in Dave McCarty's head. I'm beginning to suspect that someone, say a sponsor, hinted to McCarty that perhaps it would be good if a certain author would be included on the nomination list and in his head McCarty went all:
The weird thing is that it seems like that a lot of those small pressures, subtle words and disapproving looks only existed in Dave McCarty's head. I'm beginning to suspect that someone, say a sponsor, hinted to McCarty that perhaps it would be good if a certain author would be included on the nomination list and in his head McCarty went all:
Regulators. We regulate any stealin' of his property. We’re damn good too. But you can’t be any geek off the street. You gotta be handy with the steel, if you know what I mean. Earn your keep. Regulators, mount up!posted by Kattullus at 1:26 AM on February 16 [6 favorites]
It was a clear white moon, a clear black sky
Dave MC was on the streets tryin' to deny
Some award nominees so I can get some pie
Rollin' in my ride, chillin' with me and my
Just hit the west side of the PRC
On a mission tryna fix Mr. Hugo G
Seen a box full of votes gonna need to tweak
All you geeks don't know what's prizeworthy
I've been following this story on and off as a long-time SFF literature fan on the outside of North American fan culture looking in.
At this point it still seems very much unclear (and possibly unknowable) how much and what kind of external pressure was applied to the North American organisers, and I am very sceptical of any theories about this that don't originate from people with detailed, direct and recent experience of conditions inside China. I've seen a lot of speculation which makes assumptions that I believe to be uninformed or naïve. Do I have my own suspicions? Sure, but they're very much in flux as new information emerges.
What I think is pretty clear is that multiple people, with minimal prompting, enthusiastically and thoroughly participated in compiling political dossiers on other people within their community, to comply with the wishes and address the concerns (real or perceived) of a foreign power, and I think it's been underplayed how disturbing this is. They may have done this because of an award, and the obvious negative outcome is the unfair disqualification of certain people from receiving this award, but the less obvious outcome is that these dossiers now exist and can be used for other things in future, because these people so helpfully compiled them.
It's easy to dismiss this data as harmless and unimportant because we assume that it was compiled from public sources, and anyone who wanted this information could have compiled it themselves at any time. This is bullshit. First of all, if you refuse to do something unethical for someone else, it's never certain that they would have done the same thing anyway themselves. They may have done a more cursory job, or made more mistakes, or never done the thing at all because something more important required their time and resources.
Second, it's impossible to tell from the leaked emails how exactly the information in the dossiers was found. What was found through a google search with the most obvious keywords that anyone could reproduce? What was found through a google search with more sophisticated keywords that required domain knowledge? What was found through targeted searches of specific websites known to the searchers because of domain knowledge? What was found through information seen in private online community channels, or heard in private conversations?
This is a massive betrayal, which feels very, very similar to someone reporting on their friends, colleagues or neighbours using information they are uniquely positioned to gather. It's horrifying that nobody involved in this stopped to wonder if they were, in fact, the baddies, and how easily they went along with it should be a wake-up call to a lot of people.
posted by confluency at 3:32 AM on February 16 [20 favorites]
At this point it still seems very much unclear (and possibly unknowable) how much and what kind of external pressure was applied to the North American organisers, and I am very sceptical of any theories about this that don't originate from people with detailed, direct and recent experience of conditions inside China. I've seen a lot of speculation which makes assumptions that I believe to be uninformed or naïve. Do I have my own suspicions? Sure, but they're very much in flux as new information emerges.
What I think is pretty clear is that multiple people, with minimal prompting, enthusiastically and thoroughly participated in compiling political dossiers on other people within their community, to comply with the wishes and address the concerns (real or perceived) of a foreign power, and I think it's been underplayed how disturbing this is. They may have done this because of an award, and the obvious negative outcome is the unfair disqualification of certain people from receiving this award, but the less obvious outcome is that these dossiers now exist and can be used for other things in future, because these people so helpfully compiled them.
It's easy to dismiss this data as harmless and unimportant because we assume that it was compiled from public sources, and anyone who wanted this information could have compiled it themselves at any time. This is bullshit. First of all, if you refuse to do something unethical for someone else, it's never certain that they would have done the same thing anyway themselves. They may have done a more cursory job, or made more mistakes, or never done the thing at all because something more important required their time and resources.
Second, it's impossible to tell from the leaked emails how exactly the information in the dossiers was found. What was found through a google search with the most obvious keywords that anyone could reproduce? What was found through a google search with more sophisticated keywords that required domain knowledge? What was found through targeted searches of specific websites known to the searchers because of domain knowledge? What was found through information seen in private online community channels, or heard in private conversations?
This is a massive betrayal, which feels very, very similar to someone reporting on their friends, colleagues or neighbours using information they are uniquely positioned to gather. It's horrifying that nobody involved in this stopped to wonder if they were, in fact, the baddies, and how easily they went along with it should be a wake-up call to a lot of people.
posted by confluency at 3:32 AM on February 16 [20 favorites]
What astonishes me is not the mendacity or the high-handedness, it's the incompetence. Way back in the original post on the subject, there was a lot of conjecture that the utterly hamhanded way the votes were rigged and the cagey non-denials were indicative of all tihs being done at the behest of the government, and that the big greasy handprints left all over the place were a way of signalling that this was all done under duress. And frankly, that felt like a better explanation than that, apparently, all the Westerners involved with Worldcon... decided to do a stupid thing on their own initiative in the most clumsy way possible? Like, at every stage of this process, they've done things badly. The original results were already causing questions. They delayed the results of the data for as long as possible and when they released it the numbers didn't work at all. They issued obviously crafted statements neither denying nor admitting anything.
Every single step feels thrown together at the last minute, and if they honestly believed in the necessity of doing this sort of thing, they should have been prepared. If you're going to rig a vote away from an extremely popular choice (particularly Babel in this case, although other things were also getting noted immediately), expect people to notice. Have your lies and explanations ready in advance. Massage the vote totals months ahead of time so you can release them in a timely fashion. Get your shit together, people.
posted by jackbishop at 6:34 AM on February 16 [8 favorites]
Every single step feels thrown together at the last minute, and if they honestly believed in the necessity of doing this sort of thing, they should have been prepared. If you're going to rig a vote away from an extremely popular choice (particularly Babel in this case, although other things were also getting noted immediately), expect people to notice. Have your lies and explanations ready in advance. Massage the vote totals months ahead of time so you can release them in a timely fashion. Get your shit together, people.
posted by jackbishop at 6:34 AM on February 16 [8 favorites]
It's horrifying that nobody involved in this stopped to wonder if they were, in fact, the baddies, and how easily they went along with it should be a wake-up call to a lot of people.
Yeah, the friends of the Chengdu committee people now have a very clear demonstration of just how fast and thoroughly their pals will betray them when the authoritarians take over in their country. Just a trifle chilling.
posted by tavella at 7:46 AM on February 16 [9 favorites]
Yeah, the friends of the Chengdu committee people now have a very clear demonstration of just how fast and thoroughly their pals will betray them when the authoritarians take over in their country. Just a trifle chilling.
posted by tavella at 7:46 AM on February 16 [9 favorites]
I think there was in fact some bulllshit here. If you’re admitting “I have no idea whether the Chinese government will want to censor this, because I haven’t read it and know nothing about Chinese censorship”, then maybe that’s…a good indication you shouldn’t be handling an investigation into whether or not things are likely to be censored?
posted by corb at 7:46 AM on February 16 [9 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:46 AM on February 16 [9 favorites]
Babel’s primary theme, I would say, is anti-colonialism, so….none of this made much sense.
Here’s a fun new racist twist: https://bsky.app/profile/vajra.me/post/3kliutx45au2a
posted by bq at 8:01 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
Here’s a fun new racist twist: https://bsky.app/profile/vajra.me/post/3kliutx45au2a
posted by bq at 8:01 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
Vajra Chandraseka's post that bq linked to which makes the connection between the disqualified Chinese works and SF World's recommendations lines up with Yusa's speculation that I posted earlier in the thread.
It seems that a big part of this absolute clusterfuck was that the magazine which sponsored the Chengdu Worldcon wanted to exclude their competitor.
That said, my mind still boggles at the fact that somehow that led to McCarty, Jones and Lacey forming a political censorship committee.
posted by Kattullus at 9:14 AM on February 16 [9 favorites]
It seems that a big part of this absolute clusterfuck was that the magazine which sponsored the Chengdu Worldcon wanted to exclude their competitor.
That said, my mind still boggles at the fact that somehow that led to McCarty, Jones and Lacey forming a political censorship committee.
posted by Kattullus at 9:14 AM on February 16 [9 favorites]
Here’s a fun new racist twist...Oh, yes. Remember back when bad actors openly used slates to flood the nominations with their choices, and voting proceeded with the nominees as they stood (and a lot of No Awards awarded), because obviously you can't just unilaterally decide to invalidate nominations even when everyone can see the gaming of the system, and it took two years of meticulous debate about statistics and fairness followed by voting to modify the rules to diminish the effect of slates?
Some Guy, 2023: "Welp, this looks like a slate to me; I reckon I'll just throw these nominations away."
Seriously, what?
This retroactively explains a lot about the makeup of the nominations.
posted by confluency at 9:44 AM on February 16 [12 favorites]
I guess the thing that takes me most aback is the idea that the perpetrators thought that what they were doing was a good and righteous thing, and that when the dust had settled on the retrospective, they would have been applauded for their right- and forward-thinking actions.
Instead of, well, realizing that they were on course for a status of eternal pariah.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:48 AM on February 16 [4 favorites]
Instead of, well, realizing that they were on course for a status of eternal pariah.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:48 AM on February 16 [4 favorites]
Yeah I would like a clearer explanation of WTF went on there because that is something that is meant to be realty with by the post puppies mathematical model, not just noping the entries. WTF?
posted by Artw at 9:49 AM on February 16 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:49 AM on February 16 [2 favorites]
> confluency: "It's easy to dismiss this data as harmless and unimportant because we assume that it was compiled from public sources, and anyone who wanted this information could have compiled it themselves at any time."
I would also point out that these dossiers have at least one piece of incorrect information embedded in them, the author who they said visited Tibet when in fact he hadn't.
posted by mhum at 10:04 AM on February 16 [4 favorites]
I would also point out that these dossiers have at least one piece of incorrect information embedded in them, the author who they said visited Tibet when in fact he hadn't.
posted by mhum at 10:04 AM on February 16 [4 favorites]
They also ignored another author who had been to Tibet, who was passed right through, won, and nothing happened.
Which really does suggest they could have just not done any volunteer stasi-ing and everything would have been fine.
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on February 16 [11 favorites]
Which really does suggest they could have just not done any volunteer stasi-ing and everything would have been fine.
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on February 16 [11 favorites]
Next year's Hugos need to at a minimum get an award into the hands of every person who was done wrong this year.
posted by mediareport at 10:53 AM on February 16
posted by mediareport at 10:53 AM on February 16
I don't think it's a priori a bad thing to be aware that the convention was taking place in a particular political climate and to conduct relevant research to uncover possible points of contention.
The research, if the leadership had been worthy of the task put on them, could have easily been used for good. Figure out any potential points of friction, pushback, or interference from the government, and put in additional research ahead of time in order to get ahead of any issues. Try to figure out if any of the guest speakers or award recipients might have safety concerns because of their statements regarding China. Create plans of action and contingencies to ensure people were safe, the awards and voting process free of influence, and so on. Whatever.
I'd expect ethical leadership to do the same thing if the convention were held in, say, Texas or Utah, or some other US state working overtime to make large groups of people literally, physically, and legally unsafe. The major difference is that ethical leadership would come up with ethical plans of action and communication with that information instead of... this mess.
For example, if there was a free library or book swap at the convention, and there were laws against non-parents or guardians providing books with LGBTQ characters or themes to minors, I'd expect ethical leadership to be aware of this and be prepared to make a massive PR nightmare for the state if some whackadoo tried to call the police on the activity. Or for them to provide explicit and clear guidance to the attendees about exactly what dumb law had been passed, how the organization explicitly didn't agree with it, and how to be safe while the convention was operating under an oppressive political regime (such as Utah or Texas).
Not sure if the above is wrongheaded or not. Personal dossiers kept on individuals = not great. Conducting a thorough and structured investigation into the likely points of contention with an oppressive regime = due diligence when the organization isn't headed by a corrupt and spineless individual. I could see how the researchers involved would think they were doing the latter (ethical), while actually contributing to the former (unethical).
posted by Number Used Once at 11:08 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
The research, if the leadership had been worthy of the task put on them, could have easily been used for good. Figure out any potential points of friction, pushback, or interference from the government, and put in additional research ahead of time in order to get ahead of any issues. Try to figure out if any of the guest speakers or award recipients might have safety concerns because of their statements regarding China. Create plans of action and contingencies to ensure people were safe, the awards and voting process free of influence, and so on. Whatever.
I'd expect ethical leadership to do the same thing if the convention were held in, say, Texas or Utah, or some other US state working overtime to make large groups of people literally, physically, and legally unsafe. The major difference is that ethical leadership would come up with ethical plans of action and communication with that information instead of... this mess.
For example, if there was a free library or book swap at the convention, and there were laws against non-parents or guardians providing books with LGBTQ characters or themes to minors, I'd expect ethical leadership to be aware of this and be prepared to make a massive PR nightmare for the state if some whackadoo tried to call the police on the activity. Or for them to provide explicit and clear guidance to the attendees about exactly what dumb law had been passed, how the organization explicitly didn't agree with it, and how to be safe while the convention was operating under an oppressive political regime (such as Utah or Texas).
Not sure if the above is wrongheaded or not. Personal dossiers kept on individuals = not great. Conducting a thorough and structured investigation into the likely points of contention with an oppressive regime = due diligence when the organization isn't headed by a corrupt and spineless individual. I could see how the researchers involved would think they were doing the latter (ethical), while actually contributing to the former (unethical).
posted by Number Used Once at 11:08 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
I do not comprehend how the Hugos work, in general. Lord knows I've read up on it over the years and I'm aware of E Pluribus Hugo and whatnot, but the 2 years to ratify changes, the separate Worldcons run everything, we can't do anything about this now, blah de blah, doesn't sound great, especially now. But if we keep having huge messes with the Hugos periodically, is the current system of how they run things a good idea? Two years to change things and this whole "one guy runs the votes how he feels like it" aren't great. As whoever mentioned, having an independent group running things like they do the Oscars sounds possibly better than this.
And frankly, I wouldn't mind some kind of special "we got screwed" award for folks this year either, though that would probably cause even more arguments/drama and potentially could be a loooooooong list of the screwed, per that SF World slate thing.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:09 AM on February 16
And frankly, I wouldn't mind some kind of special "we got screwed" award for folks this year either, though that would probably cause even more arguments/drama and potentially could be a loooooooong list of the screwed, per that SF World slate thing.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:09 AM on February 16
Here's a Chinese post about tally analysis following Sanford & Barkley's report, but it mainly focused on the Chinese works that appeared on the top of the original ballots, but subsequently lost their high rankings. Those were backed by publishing houses Qidian (起点) and SF World (科幻世界), and many votes for those works were invalidated due to collusion/slate reasons. I'm getting the sense that Chinese skullduggery was mostly motivated by commercial reasons.
The post also contains this nugget: '中国作品和人物想必是由雨果奖团队的中国成员负责审查的，成都市扫黄打非办显然也作了一些工作。' -- ie. there was indeed censorship done by the (local) Chinese government, but they only concerned themselves with Chinese works, not foreign language ones.
posted by of strange foe at 11:14 AM on February 16 [6 favorites]
The post also contains this nugget: '中国作品和人物想必是由雨果奖团队的中国成员负责审查的，成都市扫黄打非办显然也作了一些工作。' -- ie. there was indeed censorship done by the (local) Chinese government, but they only concerned themselves with Chinese works, not foreign language ones.
posted by of strange foe at 11:14 AM on February 16 [6 favorites]
I don't think it's a priori a bad thing to be aware that the convention was taking place in a particular political climate and to conduct relevant research to uncover possible points of contention.
The research, if the leadership had been worthy of the task put on them, could have easily been used for good. Figure out any potential points of friction, pushback, or interference from the government, and put in additional research ahead of time in order to get ahead of any issues. Try to figure out if any of the guest speakers or award recipients might have safety concerns because of their statements regarding China. Create plans of action and contingencies to ensure people were safe, the awards and voting process free of influence, and so on. Whatever.
Here’s what the email says:
Hey folks. This is us, the group of folks that are validating the Hugo finalists.
I am still finishing validating the canonicalization, so only about half the categories are ready to start, but the other half should be ready by Monday evening or Tuesday morning.
I am creating a spreadsheet showing the top 10 items in each category. I would like *all* of the top 10 items (in English) checked for each category by at least 2 different people. The spreadsheet will have two locations to fill in who validated the item and if it passed or had an issue that needs discussion.
In addition to the regular technical review, as we are happening in China and the “laws” we are 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 China, Taiwan, Tibet, or other topics that may be an issue *in* China… that needs to be highlighted so that we can determine if it is safe to put it on the ballot of if the law will require us to make an administrative decision about it.
posted by Artw at 11:18 AM on February 16 [2 favorites]
The research, if the leadership had been worthy of the task put on them, could have easily been used for good. Figure out any potential points of friction, pushback, or interference from the government, and put in additional research ahead of time in order to get ahead of any issues. Try to figure out if any of the guest speakers or award recipients might have safety concerns because of their statements regarding China. Create plans of action and contingencies to ensure people were safe, the awards and voting process free of influence, and so on. Whatever.
Here’s what the email says:
Hey folks. This is us, the group of folks that are validating the Hugo finalists.
I am still finishing validating the canonicalization, so only about half the categories are ready to start, but the other half should be ready by Monday evening or Tuesday morning.
I am creating a spreadsheet showing the top 10 items in each category. I would like *all* of the top 10 items (in English) checked for each category by at least 2 different people. The spreadsheet will have two locations to fill in who validated the item and if it passed or had an issue that needs discussion.
In addition to the regular technical review, as we are happening in China and the “laws” we are 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 China, Taiwan, Tibet, or other topics that may be an issue *in* China… that needs to be highlighted so that we can determine if it is safe to put it on the ballot of if the law will require us to make an administrative decision about it.
posted by Artw at 11:18 AM on February 16 [2 favorites]
> that needs to be highlighted so that we can determine if it is safe to put it on the ballot of if the law will require us to make an administrative decision about it.
I hadn't read that email, and your point is well taken. The ask was explicitly, "do research to see if we need to censor our ballot."
I still have a modicum of sympathy towards researchers who believed "the law" was requiring the research instead of McCarty acting on his own. It's really, really hard sometimes to notice that this thing you're being told is normal and fine is actually a moment requiring reflection, awareness, ethics, and a backbone. In their place, I might have thought that any removals made by administrative fiat would be clearly communicated and explained, and that might have made me miss the real impact of what I was doing.
The important moral decisions are always much clearer in hindsight. If nothing else, from a personal perspective at least, this mess might help me avoid making a similar mistake in the future.
posted by Number Used Once at 11:39 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
I hadn't read that email, and your point is well taken. The ask was explicitly, "do research to see if we need to censor our ballot."
I still have a modicum of sympathy towards researchers who believed "the law" was requiring the research instead of McCarty acting on his own. It's really, really hard sometimes to notice that this thing you're being told is normal and fine is actually a moment requiring reflection, awareness, ethics, and a backbone. In their place, I might have thought that any removals made by administrative fiat would be clearly communicated and explained, and that might have made me miss the real impact of what I was doing.
The important moral decisions are always much clearer in hindsight. If nothing else, from a personal perspective at least, this mess might help me avoid making a similar mistake in the future.
posted by Number Used Once at 11:39 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
What I've learned so far is that the Hugos are big enough to make/break people's careers, but not big enough to hire a forensic accounting firm for a month.
posted by thecjm at 11:40 AM on February 16 [10 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 11:40 AM on February 16 [10 favorites]
Also, from what I've learned from the SMOFs' public statements, fans are supposed to keep paying money to vote in the Hugos, without Worldcon lifting a finger to make any changes to combat censorship and vote rigging.
posted by creepygirl at 12:05 PM on February 16 [3 favorites]
posted by creepygirl at 12:05 PM on February 16 [3 favorites]
I do not comprehend how the Hugos work, in general ... But if we keep having huge messes with the Hugos periodically, is the current system of how they run things a good idea? ... having an independent group running things like they do the Oscars sounds possibly better than this
One version of a centralization proposal was drafted by Kevin Standlee, who carried water for Dave McCarty right away, weeks ago, essentially saying well of course this was going to happen "no matter what [WSFS] governing documents say." In light of what everyone sees now, I really just don't think much of a centralization proposal. The overlap betwen Chengdu staff and the Mark Protection Committee remains notable. I'm sure they're all people who've put an enormous amount of time and energy into the success of the Hugos and who must be very upset by all this. But personally I'd rather see the Hugos stick with a process that has an off-chance of encouraging more new people to get involved as well.
Plus there's already a great, well-established, centralized awards process anyone can join in and vote on: the Locus Awards. Babel won the Locus Award for Best Fantasy Novel in 2023. Historically, Locus Awards for Best SF Novel and Best Fantasy Novel track the Hugos pretty well. Every year, they put on a ceremony you can attend--memberships for which include a 6-month subscription to the magazine. And strictly speaking, the actual polling is more open than the Hugos--anyone can vote--although votes for subscribers count 2x as much as non-subscribers. Since a digital subscription is about the same price as a Worldcon supporting membership, that doesn't seem bad, and it gets you a magazine full of SF/F news, reviews, interviews, etc.
IMO SF/F fans who have the chance should still enjoy Worldcon for all the reasons in this recent AskMe, but I can't remember there being a bad time to support Locus either. As Jeanne mentioned above, their recommended reading list of the best SF/F of 2023 came out just like two weeks ago, and voting for the award is open too. Click for a voting link, give them your email, fill out a survey (in which demographics, etc., are optional), and then fill out a ballot, which has write-in options.
posted by Wobbuffet at 12:17 PM on February 16 [10 favorites]
One version of a centralization proposal was drafted by Kevin Standlee, who carried water for Dave McCarty right away, weeks ago, essentially saying well of course this was going to happen "no matter what [WSFS] governing documents say." In light of what everyone sees now, I really just don't think much of a centralization proposal. The overlap betwen Chengdu staff and the Mark Protection Committee remains notable. I'm sure they're all people who've put an enormous amount of time and energy into the success of the Hugos and who must be very upset by all this. But personally I'd rather see the Hugos stick with a process that has an off-chance of encouraging more new people to get involved as well.
Plus there's already a great, well-established, centralized awards process anyone can join in and vote on: the Locus Awards. Babel won the Locus Award for Best Fantasy Novel in 2023. Historically, Locus Awards for Best SF Novel and Best Fantasy Novel track the Hugos pretty well. Every year, they put on a ceremony you can attend--memberships for which include a 6-month subscription to the magazine. And strictly speaking, the actual polling is more open than the Hugos--anyone can vote--although votes for subscribers count 2x as much as non-subscribers. Since a digital subscription is about the same price as a Worldcon supporting membership, that doesn't seem bad, and it gets you a magazine full of SF/F news, reviews, interviews, etc.
IMO SF/F fans who have the chance should still enjoy Worldcon for all the reasons in this recent AskMe, but I can't remember there being a bad time to support Locus either. As Jeanne mentioned above, their recommended reading list of the best SF/F of 2023 came out just like two weeks ago, and voting for the award is open too. Click for a voting link, give them your email, fill out a survey (in which demographics, etc., are optional), and then fill out a ballot, which has write-in options.
posted by Wobbuffet at 12:17 PM on February 16 [10 favorites]
Ursula Vernon/T Kingfisher: So in further Hugo news—yes, it just keeps going—if you put the leaked spreadsheet next to the list of nominees, it looks like pretty much nobody in the big fiction categories should even have been on the ballot. They should almost all have been Chinese authors.
posted by Artw at 12:28 PM on February 16 [14 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:28 PM on February 16 [14 favorites]
thecjm: What I've learned so far is that the Hugos are big enough to make/break people's careers, but not big enough to hire a forensic accounting firm for a month.
This is not as contradictory as you may think. This article about the death of the midlist is from nearly twenty years ago, and as I understand it from friends in publishing and writing circles (especially sf and fantasy) the situation is only getting worse. Winning, or even being shortlisted for, a well-known award can be the break an author needs to go from small press or self-publication to a book contract. And in a field like sf, that can include an award run by amateurs on a minimal budget, if it nonetheless carries a measure of prestige. The Hugos have been around since 1953, and even a shortlisting gets you into several decades' worth of very good company.
So, there's no disconnect between the Hugos both being very significant for writers and their being run on what looks like a shoestring. I know what forensic accountants charge (I instruct them in legal disputes) and you are looking at well north of 10K (pounds, but I assume the same would be true of dollars) for the sort of work you're describing. I suppose Worldcon could seek sponsorship for the Hugos but that hasn't gone so well in the past.
posted by Major Clanger at 1:09 PM on February 16 [6 favorites]
This is not as contradictory as you may think. This article about the death of the midlist is from nearly twenty years ago, and as I understand it from friends in publishing and writing circles (especially sf and fantasy) the situation is only getting worse. Winning, or even being shortlisted for, a well-known award can be the break an author needs to go from small press or self-publication to a book contract. And in a field like sf, that can include an award run by amateurs on a minimal budget, if it nonetheless carries a measure of prestige. The Hugos have been around since 1953, and even a shortlisting gets you into several decades' worth of very good company.
So, there's no disconnect between the Hugos both being very significant for writers and their being run on what looks like a shoestring. I know what forensic accountants charge (I instruct them in legal disputes) and you are looking at well north of 10K (pounds, but I assume the same would be true of dollars) for the sort of work you're describing. I suppose Worldcon could seek sponsorship for the Hugos but that hasn't gone so well in the past.
posted by Major Clanger at 1:09 PM on February 16 [6 favorites]
By the way, among the Chinese works nominated, I have heard good things about "We Live in Nanjing"(我们生活在南京) by 天瑞说符。
posted by of strange foe at 2:37 PM on February 16 [3 favorites]
posted by of strange foe at 2:37 PM on February 16 [3 favorites]
There is a sameness to this sort of thing, whether it's a group of fans running a convention, or a major political party engineering the theft of rights from 50% of the population. People who have been undertaking bad action in secret and are then exposed all seem to respond in the same sequence: deny it happened, deny they did it, denounce those who claimed it happened, and when evidence comes out that it did happen they pivot instantly to outrage that someone would dare to violate the sacrosanct veil of secrecy that was supposed to cover up their bad actions.
The Republicans on the Supreme Court followed the same pattern when their plot to overturn Roe was exposed. Nixon followed the same pattern when Watergate was exposed.
So it doesn't surprise me that the Worldcon SMOFs are upset mainly in that they got caught, and that some very bad person told the peons what was really going on. Don't we know they were doing it for our own good and that the secrecy was for OUR benefit, not theirs?
posted by sotonohito at 7:50 PM on February 16 [4 favorites]
The Republicans on the Supreme Court followed the same pattern when their plot to overturn Roe was exposed. Nixon followed the same pattern when Watergate was exposed.
So it doesn't surprise me that the Worldcon SMOFs are upset mainly in that they got caught, and that some very bad person told the peons what was really going on. Don't we know they were doing it for our own good and that the secrecy was for OUR benefit, not theirs?
posted by sotonohito at 7:50 PM on February 16 [4 favorites]
someone would dare to violate the sacrosanct veil of secrecy that was supposed to cover up their bad actions.
I told myself I wasn't going to say anything, but I do have something to say about this, which is that the folks involved in the Hugo awards got doxxed and harassed by the Sad and Rabid Puppies some years back. When I read about people being worried about leaks and redacting information, that was what I assumed they were talking about. (I have not talked with my friend about the content of the expose since it came out, just about other personal things, including concern for their safety.)
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:38 PM on February 16 [2 favorites]
I told myself I wasn't going to say anything, but I do have something to say about this, which is that the folks involved in the Hugo awards got doxxed and harassed by the Sad and Rabid Puppies some years back. When I read about people being worried about leaks and redacting information, that was what I assumed they were talking about. (I have not talked with my friend about the content of the expose since it came out, just about other personal things, including concern for their safety.)
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:38 PM on February 16 [2 favorites]
When I read about people being worried about leaks and redacting information, that was what I assumed they were talking about. (I have not talked with my friend about the content of the expose since it came out, just about other personal things, including concern for their safety.)
Jones basically began her statement with this: “I am really shocked that this extremely extremely confidential material was shared in the first place.”
Not, “I’m sorry I participated in political censorship and colluded in keeping it secret”, but “it’s so unfair that my wrongdoing was brought to light”.
She’s right to want her contact details redacted, and they were. But she can get utterly, totally fucked.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:54 PM on February 16 [11 favorites]
Jones basically began her statement with this: “I am really shocked that this extremely extremely confidential material was shared in the first place.”
Not, “I’m sorry I participated in political censorship and colluded in keeping it secret”, but “it’s so unfair that my wrongdoing was brought to light”.
She’s right to want her contact details redacted, and they were. But she can get utterly, totally fucked.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:54 PM on February 16 [11 favorites]
I'm not sure what to make of um, this. In other news from Camestros: "Every analysis I've been doing of the 2023 awards I've repeated with the 2017 to 2022 data (all the EPH years). At least on the issue of possible vote tampering, it all looks good."
Ursula Vernon: "Finally, if you are one of the…sigh…multiple people now who have decided that I should be making a grand gesture with the rocket to prove I’m not secretly pleased by my win—sorry to disappoint, but I haven’t got it. Guess who was in charge of shipping and distribution. Go on, guess."
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:48 AM on February 17 [9 favorites]
Ursula Vernon: "Finally, if you are one of the…sigh…multiple people now who have decided that I should be making a grand gesture with the rocket to prove I’m not secretly pleased by my win—sorry to disappoint, but I haven’t got it. Guess who was in charge of shipping and distribution. Go on, guess."
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:48 AM on February 17 [9 favorites]
Does anyone really believe McCarty destroyed all records of how people voted, and didn't keep a copy of that for himself?
posted by mediareport at 10:28 AM on February 17 [4 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 10:28 AM on February 17 [4 favorites]
Further updates from Ursula Vernon on bsky today, relaying analysis from JJ at File770: it's beginning to look like Dave McCarty literally copied and pasted the names of several English frontrunners over the actual Chinese authors at the top of the spreadsheet, assigning their numbers to the English candidates and reassigning or deleting the actual votes for those English candidates.
No proof yet and there may never be any unless McCarty breaks his silence, but apparently it fits with the recently leaked spreadsheet and makes the (extremely sketchy) distribution numbers make a lot more sense.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:30 PM on February 17 [8 favorites]
No proof yet and there may never be any unless McCarty breaks his silence, but apparently it fits with the recently leaked spreadsheet and makes the (extremely sketchy) distribution numbers make a lot more sense.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:30 PM on February 17 [8 favorites]
I thought I couldn't get angrier about this than I already was… and then I read the thread Two unicycles and some duct tape linked to. Holy goddamn fuck.
posted by Kattullus at 2:06 PM on February 17 [1 favorite]
posted by Kattullus at 2:06 PM on February 17 [1 favorite]
"Are you ready for more? Sure, of course you are. It’s a trainwreck, no one can look away."
This sums it up for me. I can't stop refreshing and wondering what new fresh hell Dave McCarty has inflicted on everyone after years of presumably normal(????) service, or if anything will be done about it. I assume not, and what can you do to him now and he'll probably never speak again, but still.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:47 PM on February 17 [1 favorite]
This sums it up for me. I can't stop refreshing and wondering what new fresh hell Dave McCarty has inflicted on everyone after years of presumably normal(????) service, or if anything will be done about it. I assume not, and what can you do to him now and he'll probably never speak again, but still.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:47 PM on February 17 [1 favorite]
Samantha Mills, 02/17/2024, "'Rabbit Test' unwins the Hugo" (via her announcement on Bluesky):
posted by Wobbuffet at 5:30 PM on February 17 [7 favorites]
... I have to consider my award ill-gained.Mills on Metafilter previously.
I spent this morning logging into my various accounts and taking “Hugo” out of my bio. There are almost certainly going to be places it was printed that I miss, so my apologies for that. Here’s the most embarrassing one: my novel already went to the printer and it has “Hugo winner” on the cover. Fucking mortifying! It’s a holiday weekend and I don’t like to nag people on their days off, so on Tuesday I’ll send a very awkward email to my agent and editor summarizing the situation (if either of you see this beforehand… heyyyy teaaaam…. ;_;) and figure out the logistics of removing “Hugo winner” from the ebook and future printings. The first print run will be a limited edition novelty, I suppose?
posted by Wobbuffet at 5:30 PM on February 17 [7 favorites]
Does anyone really believe McCarty destroyed all records of how people voted, and didn't keep a copy of that for himself?
Do I believe that a lying sack of shit who incompetently rigged a vote also attempted to destroy the evidence that he rigged the vote? Yes. Yes, I do. Why on earth would he keep a copy? How would that benefit him?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:03 PM on February 17 [3 favorites]
Do I believe that a lying sack of shit who incompetently rigged a vote also attempted to destroy the evidence that he rigged the vote? Yes. Yes, I do. Why on earth would he keep a copy? How would that benefit him?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:03 PM on February 17 [3 favorites]
Dave McCarty next time he shows up at a fan event
posted by bq at 7:37 PM on February 17 [1 favorite]
posted by bq at 7:37 PM on February 17 [1 favorite]
Translator Yilin Wang (whose struggle to get the British Museum to credit her I posted about last year) has written a Bluesky thread about the blogpost by an editor of the magazine Science Fiction World which McCarty referred to as a “slate”. The whole thread is worth reading, but let me excerpt her translation:
posted by Kattullus at 12:45 PM on February 18 [9 favorites]
During previous years, the Hugo Awards were always dominated by speculative fiction from the Anglosphere. Recently, as more attendees from non-Anglophone regions become members of WorldCon, more non-English science fiction works now have a chance at being considered.This was then followed by a list of recommendations of Chinese-language and English-language works, most of whom were published by Science Fiction World. I agree with Yilin Wang, this doesn’t seem like a “slate” in the way most people think of it. And even so, EPH is designed to limit the efficacy of slate voting.
The Hugos belong to people all over the world who love science fiction. Those people who have been devoted themselves to the development of science fiction are trying their best to help make the Hugo Awards more "globalized."
Are you hoping to see more Chinese science fiction writers featured at the WorldCon that is taking place in "China's sci-fi capital"? This is the first time that sci-fi works published only in Chinese, with no English translation, have become eligible to be nominated for a Hugo Award.
Given that many sci-fi fans overseas do not know Chinese, it's important that we raise our voices to show support! Having excellent Chinese science fiction get nominated for the Hugos will help them be read by readers worldwide.
(Of course, great works know no borders, and fans can also use this guide to vote for their favourite works of science fiction published internationally. You can select multiple works per category, after all.)
posted by Kattullus at 12:45 PM on February 18 [9 favorites]
The removal of the Chinese votes infuriates me even more than the enthusiastic Stasi-ing by the committee. It's not like there haven't been cases in the past of mistaken or dubious disqualification or qualification of works, it happens. But McCarty simply decided to throw away hundreds of votes because they didn't vote the way he thought they should. Yes, the shortlists would have been nearly entirely Chinese works and authors, and that would have been fine and in fact interesting! Yeah, maybe some of those memberships were sponsored, but I'd bet plenty of them were just regular people who follow science fiction through SFW.
posted by tavella at 1:02 PM on February 18 [12 favorites]
posted by tavella at 1:02 PM on February 18 [12 favorites]
the shortlists would have been nearly entirely Chinese works and authors, and that would have been fine and in fact interesting!
Jesus, 2023 could have gone down in scifi history as "Remember that year Western publishers were prodded to translate a ton of great Chinese scifi authors because Chinese fans voted to give Hugos to tons of nontranslated works? Wasn't that great for the field?"
But no. Again: Fuck Dave McCarty.
posted by mediareport at 4:45 PM on February 18 [11 favorites]
Jesus, 2023 could have gone down in scifi history as "Remember that year Western publishers were prodded to translate a ton of great Chinese scifi authors because Chinese fans voted to give Hugos to tons of nontranslated works? Wasn't that great for the field?"
But no. Again: Fuck Dave McCarty.
posted by mediareport at 4:45 PM on February 18 [11 favorites]
Why on earth would he keep a copy? How would that benefit him?
Well first off, he's a fucking idiot.
But also, it's really, really juicy gossip, and a power-hungry piece of shit like McCarty was almost certain to copy it down, share it with a few buddies, or something like that.
posted by mediareport at 4:47 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]
Well first off, he's a fucking idiot.
But also, it's really, really juicy gossip, and a power-hungry piece of shit like McCarty was almost certain to copy it down, share it with a few buddies, or something like that.
posted by mediareport at 4:47 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]
Good lord, look how mainstream U.S. outlets are framing this:
Neil Gaiman, Paul Weimer among writers excluded from Hugo Awards over fear of offending China: Report
A short article that gets wrong pretty much everything important we've learned about the disaster.
posted by mediareport at 5:28 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]
Neil Gaiman, Paul Weimer among writers excluded from Hugo Awards over fear of offending China: Report
A short article that gets wrong pretty much everything important we've learned about the disaster.
posted by mediareport at 5:28 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]
Meg Frank on Bluesky: Dave McCarty is emotionally abusive, generally manipulative, and has sexually harassed myself and numerous others. I’ve spoken openly about this and made CoC complaints when possible.
He is not a missing stair, he is a creepy handyman who has been using his previous community service as a shield.
Which supports the whispers and hints I've been seeing on various Hugo-related Bluesky threads that indicate there something else going on with McCarty. This would be that.
posted by suelac at 9:48 AM on February 19 [10 favorites]
He is not a missing stair, he is a creepy handyman who has been using his previous community service as a shield.
Which supports the whispers and hints I've been seeing on various Hugo-related Bluesky threads that indicate there something else going on with McCarty. This would be that.
posted by suelac at 9:48 AM on February 19 [10 favorites]
Xiran Jay Zhao says on Bluesky that they've been "contacted by the US government about this" and also "The literal US Congress all up in my inbox."
Cheryl Morgan has posted a statement on her resignation from the Hugo Award Marketing Committee, at one point saying:
posted by Wobbuffet at 9:18 PM on February 19 [1 favorite]
Cheryl Morgan has posted a statement on her resignation from the Hugo Award Marketing Committee, at one point saying:
6. I resigned from the Hugo Award Marketing Committee, primarily because I no longer wish to be held responsible for (including being subject to legal and reputational risk for) the actions of organisations of which I am not a member and over which I have no influence.I don't, like, expect either of these details to go further, but they're already surprising to me even as follow-ups.
posted by Wobbuffet at 9:18 PM on February 19 [1 favorite]
I find bluesky confounding, so I can't find this. I recall that Cheryl was actually listening to the intellectual property lawyers during the Kevin Standlee trademark brouhaha, as well as some other liability concerns lawyers raised re: Worldcon and seemed genuinely concerned by what she was hearing. Unlike Kevin Standlee, who believed that he was smarter than the lawyers on the thread, and also would not stop saying things that would make it harder to defend the trademark if it were ever challenged.
Currently on the HAMC board per File770: Kevin Standlee.
(If you're thinking, "Didn't he resign already?" like I did, he resigned as chair of the Worldcon Intellectual Property Board of Directors. The Hugo Award Marketing Committee is a different WSFS committee.)
posted by creepygirl at 9:59 PM on February 19 [4 favorites]
Currently on the HAMC board per File770: Kevin Standlee.
(If you're thinking, "Didn't he resign already?" like I did, he resigned as chair of the Worldcon Intellectual Property Board of Directors. The Hugo Award Marketing Committee is a different WSFS committee.)
posted by creepygirl at 9:59 PM on February 19 [4 favorites]
Mod note: One removed; calling for violence or the murder or death of someone, even as a joke. FAQ.
posted by taz (staff) at 10:12 PM on February 19 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 10:12 PM on February 19 [1 favorite]
Currently on the HAMC board per File770: Kevin Standlee.
Yeah, I noticed him giving three paragraphs of background on Cheryl Morgan's resignation. I think resigning to mitigate damage to her own reputation is a real statement too--like, I think she did nothing wrong, and the fact that resigning is at least understandable and probably wise says a lot.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:31 PM on February 19 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I noticed him giving three paragraphs of background on Cheryl Morgan's resignation. I think resigning to mitigate damage to her own reputation is a real statement too--like, I think she did nothing wrong, and the fact that resigning is at least understandable and probably wise says a lot.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:31 PM on February 19 [5 favorites]
... in the never-ending flood of news about the Chengdu Worldcon, it was apparently missed by the organizers that one of the sponsors was on a United States sanctions list.
Not sure what that means for the organizers, but one of the writers who was possibly illegitimately struck from the nominations list claims they have been contacted by Congressional staff about the issue.
Yet another summary page of the entire affair.
posted by suelac at 1:16 PM on February 20 [7 favorites]
Not sure what that means for the organizers, but one of the writers who was possibly illegitimately struck from the nominations list claims they have been contacted by Congressional staff about the issue.
Yet another summary page of the entire affair.
posted by suelac at 1:16 PM on February 20 [7 favorites]
This is like one of those onions where you keep peeling off one layer after another, and they're all rotten.
There is a chance that there might also be some light tax fraud?
posted by suelac at 8:03 PM on February 20 [2 favorites]
There is a chance that there might also be some light tax fraud?
posted by suelac at 8:03 PM on February 20 [2 favorites]
Welp, once it gets into TAX FRAUD, that's it. The Hugos may really be doomed if it gets into legal trouble.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:14 PM on February 20 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:14 PM on February 20 [2 favorites]
What Congress told Xiran.
Abigail Nussbaum: The 2023 Hugo Awards: Somehow, It Got Worse
"Okay, new hypothetical issue just presented. The provision of airfare, hotel rooms and other hospitalities by Chinese sponsors to a US citizen, in light of the actions of the person receiving them, might be considered Bribes under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act"
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:13 PM on February 20 [3 favorites]
Abigail Nussbaum: The 2023 Hugo Awards: Somehow, It Got Worse
"Okay, new hypothetical issue just presented. The provision of airfare, hotel rooms and other hospitalities by Chinese sponsors to a US citizen, in light of the actions of the person receiving them, might be considered Bribes under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act"
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:13 PM on February 20 [3 favorites]
The only silver lining to the discovery of the dumped 'slate' votes, it sounds like a future Worldcon could now put together "Best Disappeared [Fiction] of 2023" categories without revisiting any of the works that made the 2023 ballot.
Assuming the organization survives the government scrutiny that seems to be coming its way now. Good grief, what a mess.
posted by mersen at 10:38 AM on February 21 [2 favorites]
Assuming the organization survives the government scrutiny that seems to be coming its way now. Good grief, what a mess.
posted by mersen at 10:38 AM on February 21 [2 favorites]
Adrian Tchaikovsky, who won the Best Series 2023 Hugo for his Children of Time sequence (previously), has issued a statement disavowing his award.
"The second, in what seems to be a mass disenfranchisement of Chinese voters, means that the composition of the shortlists, as they were presented to be voted on, was entirely unreliable, with an unknown number of Chinese nominees denied their chance at contending.
Based on this information, I cannot consider myself a Hugo winner and will not be citing the 2023 award result in my biographical details, or on this site.
The Hugo awards have the potential to be a respected pillar of the international fan community. I would be delighted to be considered, honestly and on my own merits, for such an award in the future. I look forward to systemic changes so that future awards can be administered with an eye to clarity, equity and accountability."
(Disclosure: Adrian has been a friend of mine for years. His integrity is unimpeachable and I am not at all surprised by his decision, but I am terribly disappointed that the disgraceful behaviour of McCarty et al put him in this position.)
posted by Major Clanger at 1:48 PM on February 21 [21 favorites]
"The second, in what seems to be a mass disenfranchisement of Chinese voters, means that the composition of the shortlists, as they were presented to be voted on, was entirely unreliable, with an unknown number of Chinese nominees denied their chance at contending.
Based on this information, I cannot consider myself a Hugo winner and will not be citing the 2023 award result in my biographical details, or on this site.
The Hugo awards have the potential to be a respected pillar of the international fan community. I would be delighted to be considered, honestly and on my own merits, for such an award in the future. I look forward to systemic changes so that future awards can be administered with an eye to clarity, equity and accountability."
(Disclosure: Adrian has been a friend of mine for years. His integrity is unimpeachable and I am not at all surprised by his decision, but I am terribly disappointed that the disgraceful behaviour of McCarty et al put him in this position.)
posted by Major Clanger at 1:48 PM on February 21 [21 favorites]
For those who are curious about literary censorship in China, Peter Hessler's experience is worth a read. He lived and taught in China for many years (some of it, coincidentally, also in Chengdu) and IMO offers a much more thoughtful and balanced perspective than you'd get from the NYT.
It's astonishing how by both tampering with eligibility and outright throwing out votes because they were Chinese, McCarty has managed to piss off everybody.
posted by ndr at 6:55 PM on February 21 [4 favorites]
It's astonishing how by both tampering with eligibility and outright throwing out votes because they were Chinese, McCarty has managed to piss off everybody.
posted by ndr at 6:55 PM on February 21 [4 favorites]
Charting the Cliff: An Investigation Into the 2023 Hugo Nomination Statistics by Camestros Felapton and Heather Rose Jones. Here's the executive summary:
tl;dr numbers look fake as shit
posted by Kattullus at 12:55 AM on February 23 [9 favorites]
The nomination statistics for the 2023 Hugo Awards (conducted by the Chengdu Worldcon Committee) were released on January 20 2024. The release had been unusually delayed for several months. Once released, the document raised numerous questions among Worldcon members and Hugo Award finalists. Most notably, several potential finalists had been ruled ineligible for reasons not given in the document and which were not apparent to members of the wider public. This issue drew a large amount of public comment.Here's a direct link to the PDF of the full report.
However, in addition to the eligibility questions, many people raised questions about the statistics themselves which have numerous obvious errors and some implausible numbers.
This report contends that the nomination statistics provided cannot be treated as a reliable presentation of the actual nomination votes by members. The report will show that there are known errors in the listed names of nominees, inconsistencies in the vote totals, inaccuracies in the manner points were calculated in elimination rounds and highly atypical patterns of voting. In particular, there is evidence in the categories of Best Novel and Best Series of a very large number of highly similar votes for the main finalists in these categories, that these votes advantaged English-language works over Chinese-language works and that these votes do not resemble organic voting by members. The exact explanation of these votes is unknown.
tl;dr numbers look fake as shit
posted by Kattullus at 12:55 AM on February 23 [9 favorites]
Nicholas Whyte (2/24/2024), "The Hugos and me":
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:50 AM on February 24 [5 favorites]
I have now been appointed Hugo Administrator for Glasgow 2024: A Worldcon for our Futures, double-hatted with the role of Division Head for WSFS ... This is my comment on recent events, and my own commitment to future action.Via Bluesky.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:50 AM on February 24 [5 favorites]
The Hugo, Girl! podcast has made a statement on the 2023 awards:
posted by Wobbuffet at 1:11 PM on March 10 [4 favorites]
As such, we no longer consider the results trustworthy, and we are not comfortable identifying ourselves as Hugo Award winners ... For the foregoing reasons, we have decided to withdraw our recusal from Hugo eligibility, effective in 2025.I'd speculate the timing of the statement coincides with the 2024 nomination period having just ended so that they could note they were undoing their recusal without any mixed messaging having to do with nominations being under way. If so, that's really thoughtful, and regardless, it illustrates yet another way winners were put in a bind.
posted by Wobbuffet at 1:11 PM on March 10 [4 favorites]
« Older X-Men '97 Picking up where they left off | A financial-advice columnist falls for an... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I also want to echo what Sanford and Barkley said, that Lacey deserves praise rather than condemnation.
posted by Kattullus at 10:37 AM on February 15 [13 favorites]