893
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Leaked emails show organizers of the prestigious Hugo Awards vetted writers’ work and comments with regard to China, where last year’s awards were held.

Organizers of the Hugo Awards, one of the most prominent literary awards in science fiction, excluded multiple authors from shortlists last year over concerns their work or public comments could be offensive to China, leaked emails show.

Questions had been raised as to why writers including Neil Gaiman, R.F. Kuang, Xiran Jay Zhao and Paul Weimer had been deemed ineligible as finalists despite earning enough votes according to information published last month by awards organizers. Emails released this week revealed that they were concerned about how some authors might be perceived in China, where the Hugo Awards were held last year for the first time.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 186 points 10 months ago

Wow, what a great argument to never host anything in China, ever.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 98 points 10 months ago

These events keep getting held in places like China and Saudi Arabia, where the organizers know they are going to have to make major concessions to those governments, because the organizers care far more about money than they do the event. At least that's my theory.

[-] throw4w4y5@sh.itjust.works 27 points 10 months ago

using money to project their influence and values overseas, sport-washing and peddling fossil fuels…

[-] Wrrzag@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago

It's a better argument to not trust the awards admin with anything from now in, given that they did that independently and removed a ton of Chinese authors from the ballots.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 10 months ago

This isn't the first time the Hugo has been subject to controversy, about a decade ago most of the awards went to "no award" and the nominees got "asterisk awards" because a group openly coordinated to nominate a slate of works (which they claimed others were doing less publicly in the past). The voting rules were changed over this one.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 181 points 10 months ago

What the fuck, Hugo? Why hold it in a country that has no human rights?

[-] teft@lemmy.world 151 points 10 months ago

I'm $ure the deci$ion was completely unbia$ed.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

Oh reall¥?

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 96 points 10 months ago

The Hugos have always been a clusterfuck. Explaining all the nuance is beyond a single comment (I can't even find a good writeup) but it boils down to the voting committee largely being opt/buy-in. If you buy a membership to the World Science Fiction Society, you get to vote on where WorldCon will be held which means you are voting on where The Hugos will be held. You ALSO get to vote in the Hugos themselves

Yes, that sounds really shitty but it is also why the Hugos are a lot more prestigious than a Goodreads award. People need to give enough of a shit which, historically, has resulted in more people who actually have read multiple entrants.

Of course, a couple years back we had the "sad puppies" incident where a bunch of racist incels basically voted as a bloc to shut down people of color and non CISHET male voices.

And... a lot of signs point toward "China" having gamed the system again. Whether that is a focused effort by the CCP or just passionate Chinese SFF fans is up for debate*.

As for excluding authors? I very much assume that is just a function of operating in China. The CCP cracking down on the event would not end well for anyone involved.

Personally? I think this is yet another indication that the Hugos, like most "old guard" SFF, can fuck off. It was just a few years back that George R R Martin rambled and talked about the good old days while butchering every single "ethnic" name on the ballot. I think the issue of "who gets to vote" is still a major issue but I also think there is absolutely zero reason that an event about celebrating forward thinking should restrict itself to an in-person gala. That shit should be going above and beyond vtubers and focusing on new voices who might have a day job because being "a full time author" is increasingly impossible for any newbies.

*: Because China actually has a ridiculously strong SFF community. In large part because there are authors who are very much pushing the boundaries of what they can and can't say to actually tell interesting and thought provoking stories in the way SFF has always been able to.

[-] alphafalcon@feddit.de 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Decent writeup by Charles Stross:

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2024/01/worldcon-in-the-news.html

The mode of operation of WorldCon/the Hugos seems interesting as in "May you live in interesting times"

Edit: fixed auto-co-wrecked spelling of Charles Stross

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Indeed. Quite decent.

See, Chinese fandom is relatively isolated from western fandom. And the convention committee didn't realize that there was this thing called the WSFS Constitution which set out rules for stuff they had to do. I gather they didn't even realize they were responsible for organizing the nomination and voting process for the Hugo awards, commissioning the award design, and organizing an awards ceremony, until about 12 months before the convention (which is short notice for two rounds of voting. commissioning a competition between artists to design the Hugo award base for that year, and so on). So everything ran months too late, and they had to delay the convention, and most of the students who'd pitched in to buy those bids could no longer attend because of bad timing, and worse ... they began picking up an international buzz, which in turn drew the attention of the local Communist Party, in the middle of the authoritarian clamp-down that's been intensifying for the past couple of years. (Remember, it takes a decade to organize a successful worldcon from initial team-building to running the event. And who imagined our existing world of 2023 back in 2013?)

The organizers appear to have panicked.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

lolyikes

The fallout from Chengdu has probably sunk several other future worldcon bids—and it's not as if there are a lot of teams competing for the privilege of working themselves to death: Glasgow and Seattle (2024 and 2025) both won their bidding by default because they had experienced, existing worldcon teams and nobody else could be bothered turning up. So the Ugandan worldcon bid has collapsed (and good riddance, many fans would vote NO WORLDCON in preference to a worldcon in a nation that recently passed a law making homosexuality a capital offense). The Saudi Arabian bid also withered on the vine, but took longer to finally die. They shifted their venue to Cairo in a desperate attempt to overcome Prince Bone-saw's negative PR optics, but it hit the buffers when the Egyptian authorities refused to give them the necessary permits. Then there's the Tel Aviv bid. Tel Aviv fans are lovely people, but I can't see an Israeli worldcon being possible in the foreseeable future (too many genocide cooties right now). Don't ask about Kiev (before February 2022 they were considering bidding for the Eurocon). And in the USA, the prognosis for successful Texas and Florida worldcon bids are poor (book banning does not go down well with SF fans).

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Weird that the Hugos wouldn't have excluded John Ringo and crew for being literal fascists, unless they open their slackened jaws for... Not even criticizing China? Depicting mecha Wu Zetian?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 6 points 10 months ago

I did not know any of that. I always just figured Hugo award books would at least be good, and that was about as far as my thinking went.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 36 points 10 months ago

The worst thing is that the organization censored things that even the CCP doesn't - several of the excluded books are freely sold in China. Self-censorship is a hell of a drug.

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] 5in1k@lemm.ee 136 points 10 months ago

Fuck China and their censorship, the Hugos should be ashamed to bow down to it. Literally the genre that calls their nonsense out.

[-] maness300@lemmy.world 41 points 10 months ago

It's bigger than "China and their censorship."

The problem, as always, is maximizing profit. As long as people put profit before everything else, whoever has the most money is going to control what happens.

[-] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago

Fwiw, this is not a case of China stepping in and censoring anything about the awards. Rather, it's a case of the Hugo administration in the West self-censoring their nominees because they feared China might step in if they didn't get ahead of the curve.

Of course, that doesn't really change the situation, but we shouldnt get the story twisted here. The blame falls on the administrators who were so afraid of a threat that they imagined that they caved to non-existent demands, rather than the Chinese (at least for direct fault, since you could argue the Chinese government's policies indirectly led to this situation and I wouldn't fight you on that).

[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 16 points 10 months ago

Your point would be more reasonable if we didn't have a precedent of things like that happening with them before. I'm not saying the administration isn't to blame, as well. But acting like they shouldn't be concerned about repercussions is disingenuous, at best.

[-] ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 10 months ago

How do we know that? It might well have been part of the agreement to host the awards, a direct or indirect request not to allow certain authors, books, or topics deemed offensive to the CCP.

[-] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

file770 article written by two journalists who reviewed the committee's emails after one of said committee leaked them to atone for her role in the controversy.

Feel free to read the whole thing. It doesn't take long. If you prefer primary sources, the work-product they refer to is linked within the report. The conclusions the authors draw seems sound based on the evidence. Sure it's possible that the CCP meddled "off-the-record", but to assume that in contrast to what the evidence states seems like hunting for a Boogeyman to confirm our prejudices.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 130 points 10 months ago

Way to lose all credibility in one event

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I mean, that depends.

There was a campaign from 2013 to 2017 by rightwingers to game the Hugos by buying non-attending memberships to worldcon and nominating works they deemed to be sufficiently non-woke. Thing is, there's one nominee they couldn't game: "none of these."

So most of the time where the only nominees were gamed, membership voted that there was to be no award in that category that year. The exceptions were authors that likely would have been nominated anyway due to name recognition, like Neil Gaiman.

The award can maintain its integrity despite the committee's lack thereof if Worldcon members vote for no award to be given in the categories leadership fucked with.

[-] khannie@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

That's a great example and entirely valid.

On the flip side though I can't imagine many countries where awards would be vetted simply because it might upset the host. It's a terrible idea IMO and does take away from whoever actually won this year. They'll be left to question whether they won fairly because a competitor was excluded for China's benefit.

I think this specific example does damage the integrity of the awards.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Hocus pocus, Hugo's a joke to us

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 112 points 10 months ago

I really used to think highly of the Hugo Awards. Now I just see them as an empty scheme to make rich people richer. The Hugo awards should not be taken seriously at this point.

[-] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 52 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No awards should if they're connected to industry insiders.

I'm legitimately flabbergasted every single year by the sheer number of people who think shit like the Oscars or the Emmy's mean anything given the degree of bullshit that goes on behind the scenes, and some of it out in the open.

They're industry circle jerks for marketing and giving favors to friends. It's insane we give them any credit at all. But if the Game Awards have proven anything, it's that the only thing you need to make an award show "legitimate" is a lot of money to market it enough year after year.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bad_alloc@feddit.de 37 points 10 months ago

Xiran Jay Zhao is posting about this on their Instagram a lot, which gives an insight into this from the POV of a Chinese person.

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

Organizers also flagged comments that authors, including Barkley and Sanford, had made about the merits of holding the awards in Chengdu and whether they signed or shared the open letter.

Even if you don’t criticize China explicitly in your works, you are still subject to the Chinese social credit score for everything you say online.

Science fiction is supposed to be about looking to the future in creative ways. Stifling creativity for state interests is repugnant.

[-] morriscox@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago

Well, there's going a lot of credibility going poof.

[-] mellowheat@suppo.fi 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ask lemmygrad why this happened, they'll have a ~~theory~~ absolute factual reason why China was right to do this.

[-] uis@lemm.ee 14 points 10 months ago

They say China's and American's capitalism with beastly grin is to blame

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

The Hugos has been targeted for political manipulation for at least a decade now. Go back and look up who the "Sad Puppies" were, as an activist organization trying to influence nominees/winners.

I don't think its unfair to say these awards have become dogshit over time, thanks to the way they've been manipulated by outside agitators to push this or that political message. I think its a stretch to say the problem is "capitalism" per se, but it is absolutely about conflating economic success with legitimacy of message. Hugo awards are a marketing tool for authors and boosted sales mean higher profiles which means more money for the next round of novels.

This creates some real perverse incentives when it comes to submissions/awards, particularly when "China Good/Bad!" readings of certain novels become this cause du jour for activists with little actual interest in the literature itself.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Tankies can justify anything

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

from the excellent antipope article posted earlier:

A commenter just drew my attention to this news item on China.org.cn, dated October 23rd, 2023, right after the worldcon. It begins:

Investment deals valued at approximately $1.09 billion were signed during the 81st World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) held in Chengdu, Sichuan province, last week at its inaugural industrial development summit, marking significant progress in the advancement of sci-fi development in China.

The deals included 21 sci-fi industry projects involving companies that produce films, parks, and immersive sci-fi experiences ..."

That's a metric fuckton of moolah in play, and it would totally account for the fan-run convention folks being discreetly elbowed out of the way and the entire event being stage-managed as a backdrop for a major industrial event to bootstrap creative industries (film, TV, and games) in Chengdu. And—looking for the most charitable interpretation here—the hapless western WSFS people being carried along for the ride to provide a veneer of worldcon-ness to what was basically Chinese venture capital hijacking the event and then sanitizing it politically.

Follow the money.

[-] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

"she was dimly aware of somebody screaming, and after a few moments realised the sound was coming from her" - Neil Gaiman; every book.

[-] gloss@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 10 months ago

I've only read a couple of his books but don't remember this specific trope. Can you give notations?

And even if you dislike this trope and think it's lame does that mean he should be booted out of the Hugo awards?

[-] nyctre@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The more popular an artist, the louder the haters /shrug

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah, he does like to play around with the sometimes confusing, fragmentary, and disorienting nature of subjective experience, especially during traumatic events, doesn't he

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

Someone's never read Sandman.

[-] whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Since most industries treat their awards ceremonies as no more respectable than industry galas + appointing lists of insider-approved "most notable content" awards, I treat them that way! IE I got back into sci fi this year after a hiatus of many years. I looked over the Hugos from the last ten years to find some interesting titles to get me started. While I wasn't disappointed in the slightest by any of them, I could also tell there's no way these were actually the best of the best sci-fi from the last 10 years.

And, you know, if the people throwing the gala are smart, they'll understand it as an advertising event for the whole industry, so the dog and pony show counts, unfortunately. They can, and many do, shit out lists of recent notable titles put together by editors for advertising purposes, but who checks those? Who cares? But holding an award ceremony with judges, that's something you can get media coverage of. There are pictures to take, controversies to be had, etc. The more unique and interesting it is, and the more credible the dog and pony show, the more excited people get about it.

You can't sustain that angle of an awards ceremony if it's obviously just wheeling and dealing. But since it's all just wheeling and dealing these days, what can you do but throw out the baby with the bathwater? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

Obviously the organisers didn't want to piss off Winnie the Pooh lest he takes away their honey.

[-] ExfilBravo@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Fuck the CCP "yeah you know me".

[-] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 10 months ago

So stupid question, but beyond the fact that the Hugo awards were held in China, why should they care what Chinese government thinks? I mean hell, I’m an American and I don’t give crap what my government thinks half the time.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
893 points (98.9% liked)

News

23664 readers
3560 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS