Hugo Controversy

[pogopossum]

The New York Times posted an article re last year's Hugos. I won't post the link because it requires you to be a subscriber to gain access. You can probably find the story elsewhere.
The heading is,

"Some Authors Were Left Out of Awards Held in China. Leaked Emails Show Why."​

It seems that several Chinese and Chinese-American authors were left off the Hugo ballot as it was feared that their inclusion would offend the Chinese government, the host of the Worldcon, due to their implied or explicit criticism of China.
Reactions on the part of authors in question have been strong.
Dave McCarty, one of the administrators of the award and according to leaked memos, the initiator of the censorship, has resigned. One non-Chinese ethnic author was quoted.
John Scalzi, who was a finalist last year, said that the 2023 awards were “fraudulent,” and that he felt betrayed by the administrators.
“The Hugos, because they are a fan-given award, are the ones that are closest to the hearts of dyed-in-the-wool science fiction fans,” he said. “To have them compromised like this is a punch in the gut to a whole lot of people.”

 

[Pyan]

The ridiculous thing was that it wasn't Chinese censorship of the Hugo list - it was the members of the Hugo committee that thought that inclusion of some books may have offended China.

Here's a non-paywall link to the report: https://file770.com/the-2023-hugo-awards-a-report-on-censorship-and-exclusion/
Scalzi's blog entry in full: The 2023 Hugo Fraud and Where We Go From Here

Amazingly, Kat Jones, one of those involved, was on the 2024 Hugo committee for the Glasgow WorldCon - she's sinced resigned after the scandal came to light. The sooner the link between WorldCon and the Hugos is removed the better, IMHO.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There has been discussion about this on Facebook for a couple of weeks. In the Fantasy & Sci-Fi Salon, Jim Worrad has been posting links to articles as the controversy unfolds.

​

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Yeah

 

[Dave]

There seems to be some controversy at the Hugo Awards every year -

Hugo Awards controversy

I've seen a lot of mention of controversy and criticisms centered around this year's Hugo Awards - however, this seemed like a very interesting commentary on the Hugo's in general, and this year especially: http://worldsf.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/editorial-the-hugo-awards/

www.sffchronicles.com

Do they court controversy deliberately just to make themselves seem more relevant?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Perhaps in other years, but I can't imagine that anyone involved in this one wanted such notoriety.

 

[Pyan]

Do they court controversy deliberately just to make themselves seem more relevant?

I'd find that hard to believe in this case, though, as you say, there have been controversies before.. koff koff Sad Puppies koff..

"Two leaders of Worldcon Intellectual Property (WIP), the nonprofit that holds the service marks of the World Science Fiction Society, have reportedly stepped down from their posts following accusations of censorship in the voting process for the 2023 Hugo Awards.

In a January 30 statement, WIP officials announced that director Dave McCarty and board chair Kevin Standlee have both resigned from their positions. McCarty was also censured for "public comments that have led to harm of the goodwill and value of our marks and for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over." Standlee was "reprimanded" for "public comments that mistakenly led people to believe that we are not servicing our marks."

"In addition, WIP announced that two others, Chen Shi and Ben Yalow, were also censured for "actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon [they] presided over." The statement adds that there "may be other actions taken or to be taken that are not in this announcement." Yalow, who co-chaired the Chengdu Worldcon with Shi, is no longer listed on the 2024 Glasgow Worldcon committee and staff page."

As these people, plus Kat Jones, will never be trusted again in any WorldCon and Hugo award capacity, I doubt that the situation is any kind of publicity or relevance set-up. Basically, they way overstepped their authority and brief.

Quotes taken from Publishers Weekly which sets the reasons for the kerfuffle out well here.

 

[Dave]

Yes, I would agree, I was being facetious. No one would deliberately get themselves dismissed just to draw more publicity to the awards, but they do draw controversy to themselves almost every year, and despite what the old adage says, any publicity is not good publicity. The link is now broken in that 2013 thread, but this thread from 2021 shows a similar state of disarray among committee members just two year ago.

Hugo Nominees for 2021

2021 Hugo Awards Finalists BEST NOVEL Black Sun, Rebecca Roanhorse (Gallery / Saga Press) The City We Became, N.K. Jemisin (Orbit) Harrow the Ninth, Tamsyn Muir (Tor.com) Network Effect, Martha Wells (Tor.com) Piranesi, Susanna Clarke (Bloomsbury) The Relentless Moon, Mary Robinette...

www.sffchronicles.com

Loose cannons firing off out of control. A total disjoint between the decisions they make together and how those might be perceived more widely. They need to get a grip and to get their act together.

 

[Elckerlyc]

See also Charles Stross' blog about this mess.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

A total disjoint between the decisions they make together and how those might be perceived more widely.

I agree that this must be the case. Collective insanity, if they thought there would not be a reckoning.

 

[Pyan]

Possibly they thought that (a) no-one would find out, and (b) if anyone did, the committee's actions would be covered by the "hey, everyone, we can't annoy the Chinese authorities" argument.

At least there won't be anything similar in Glasgow, unless someone is nominated for a book that denigrates Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Partick Thistle or Irn-Bru...

 

[Droflet]

I sniff the scent of the politically correct in the air. Sigh.

 

[Pyan]

I sniff the scent of the politically correct in the air. Sigh.

But the thing is that the Chinese authorities have form when it comes to banning books, films and websites that they deem to be unacceptable to them.

The mistake the committee made was pre-empting such disapproval and laying themselves open to justifiable accusations of censorship. If they had just put forward all the potentially problematic books, one of two things would have happened: the Chinese authorities would have ignored them, so there would have been no problems, or the said authorities would have kicked up a fuss about them, in which case, all the committee had to do was to point the finger at the authorities, leaving themselves clear of any blame.

That's the puzzling thing: why do this, when just leaving the whole nomination question alone was a win-win situation for the committee?

 

[Swank]

But the thing is that the Chinese authorities have form when it comes to banning books, films and websites that they deem to be unacceptable to them.

The mistake the committee made was pre-empting such disapproval and laying themselves open to justifiable accusations of censorship. If they had just put forward all the potentially problematic books, one of two things would have happened: the Chinese authorities would have ignored them, so there would have been no problems, or the said authorities would have kicked up a fuss about them, in which case, all the committee had to do was to point the finger at the authorities, leaving themselves clear of any blame.

That's the puzzling thing: why do this, when just leaving the whole nomination question alone was a win-win situation for the committee?

Clearly the people involved thought the ramifications of embarrassing the Chinese by forcing them to appear to be the bad guys also had a downside.

Culturally, I don't think the officials of long totalitarian countries fully believe in independent and democratic institutions like Hugo nominations. In their minds, there is always an underlying authority that holds the real power and when that power 'allows' the nominations to include criticism of the state, that is viewed as a diplomatic signal of ill intent. And that may sound absurd to us, because we live in a system where the government really doesn't care what citizens believe, but people in successfully totalitarian states do not think that way.

There aren't good ways of dealing with this dissonance. China does not see the conflict because they don't believe our institutions actually exist in the way we say they do, just like we don't believe that communism is actually fair or Russian elections are real. And since the totalitarian leaders know that their institutions are false, they have no reason not to presume the same of ours.


There is no good answer, other than the West to stop pretending we don't "get it". The only functional solution is a press release long before that says "The following authors will not be up for consideration this year due to the discomfort of our hosts. Those authors will receive consideration next year, instead."

 

[Pyan]

Those authors will receive consideration next year, instead."

The problem with doing that this year is that it cheapens the awards for 2023 (if they're not already tainted): would they still have won if the barred books had been entered?
It's also not fair on the nominees for 2024: will they still be fairly judged or will there be a sympathy vote for the 2023 barrred books?

 

[Swank]

The problem with doing that this year is that it cheapens the awards for 2023 (if they're not already tainted): would they still have won if the barred books had been entered?
It's also not fair on the nominees for 2024: will they still be fairly judged or will there be a sympathy vote for the 2023 barrred books?

There is no excellent solution when dealing with dictators. I only suggested the honorable way.

 

[BAYLOR]

The ridiculous thing was that it wasn't Chinese censorship of the Hugo list - it was the members of the Hugo committee that thought that inclusion of some books may have offended China.

Here's a non-paywall link to the report: https://file770.com/the-2023-hugo-awards-a-report-on-censorship-and-exclusion/
Scalzi's blog entry in full: The 2023 Hugo Fraud and Where We Go From Here

Amazingly, Kat Jones, one of those involved, was on the 2024 Hugo committee for the Glasgow WorldCon - she's sinced resigned after the scandal came to light. The sooner the link between WorldCon and the Hugos is removed the better, IMHO.

Fear of offending ? As excuses go , its's both wrong headed and pathetic .

 

[paeng]

I thought political issues were not allowed in this board. I was told not to discuss them in the past.

 

[Pyan]

I thought political issues were not allowed in this board. I was told not to discuss them in the past.

I think the feeling is that there are only peripheral political issues involved, and that the thread is discussing the possible self-inflicted damage done to the validity and integrity of the Hugo award system.
I would have preferred you to have used the Report system if you're unhappy about the content of the thread. However, I'll suspend it and consult with my collegues on the Moderation Team.