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.

  • StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      There was about a billion in production contracts signed during the Worldcon in China, money talks. The organizers didn’t want to disrupt this by being principled, so they didn’t.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    just another awards show to not take seriously, what else is new. nobody should believe in “credibility” any more.

  • whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 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)_/¯

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I’d agree. Redshirts and Three Body Problem was my Rubicon moment when the Hugos became irrelevant.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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.

    • fedroxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      China doesn’t have human rights? Interesting. Lived there for some time and I’d definitely say they’re doing better than my home country of the US.

      • Coreidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Did you forget about tiananmen square? Hong Kong protests? I think you did. Or you’re a boot licker.

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t even know where to start with this it’s so nonsensical. Sure there are rights in China but to compare it favourably to the US smells so bad I find it hard to believe anyone could genuinely believe it.

        I’ve spent about 6 months in both countries over the course of my life (I’m old) and China is far, far more oppressed than the US. The population there are entirely cowed, can’t express themselves freely on social media, until recently couldn’t even decide the number of children they could have, can’t protest in numbers, can’t send end to end encrypted messages, can’t access the full internet, can’t use a VPN without risk of being prosecuted and on and on and on.

        Sure the US has it’s flaws but trying to say China is doing better from a rights perspective is just bananas.

      • baseless_discourse@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        You can say “death” on youtube videos in the U.S. … Please find a popular bilibili video uses 死 (actual character for “death”) in the subtitle, instead of 亖 (pronouned the same, but means “four”).

        U.S. definitely is not a country that respects basic human rights, but at least they don’t need repos like these to speak on the internet: https://github.com/houbb/sensitive-word/ . You can find the sensitive words here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/houbb/sensitive-word/master/src/main/resources/dict.txt

        Most of these are sexual words, but it is not hard to find basically anything related to politics is a sensitive word. And searching for 中国, you will find words like 中国孤儿院 (chinese orphanage), 中国民主 (Chinese democracy), 中国特色 (Chinese specialty), 中国石油腰斩 (Chinese oil stock lowered 50%), and many many more.

        • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          YouTube censors thousands of words, including ones relating to death, so that may not be the best point of comparison.

          And before you say, “they don’t censor them they just demonetize them!” that’s functionally the same thing in a capitalist society.

          Censorship is more than just outright deletion, suppression and control can also be censorship. You lack a lot of freedom of speech in both platforms, it just plays out differently.

          (Also YouTube does outright delete a lot of content for pretty suspicious reasons so don’t get too excited even then.)

          • khannie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            And before you say, “they don’t censor them they just demonetize them!” that’s functionally the same thing in a capitalist society.

            Sorry but this is absolutely false. Lots and lots of people post videos to YouTube without a profit motive, myself included.

      • mellowheat@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago
        1. Freedom of Speech and Expression

        2. Freedom of Press

        3. Freedom of Religion

        4. Right to Peaceful Assembly

        5. Right to Fair Trial

        Aren’t all of these rights quite a lot weaker in China? None of this is a problem of course if you keep your head down or be a bootlicker, but not having to lick boots is pretty much the motivation for human rights.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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.

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 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.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I mean, they almost always are. You just have to understand that, much like with the Oscars (?), it is the SFF (mostly SFF writers) community voting on themselves. And, memes aside, good movies usually win at the Oscars. Sure they favor period pieces and character studies but those are generally well acted and directed. They may just not be “entertaining” to the masses.

          That said, ever since Martin decided he should talk about how great a bunch of transphobes and racists were while butchering the names of up and coming authors because he couldn’t be bothered to read a pronunciation guide, a lot of great authors have started doing their own “awards” blog posts. Which are always nice.

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        What’s some good “new guard” SF you’d recommend? I don’t read much anymore but I randomly stumbled upon and really enjoyed Megan O’Keefe’s Protectorate trilogy which is a typical space opera but with a female protagonist and openly queer characters and a couple interesting twists (unlike the Three Body Problem whose plot was as pretentious as it was bland and did not live up to even a hundredth the hype but I digress).

        • Thrashy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          The ironic thing about parent comment is that for as much as it bashes the Hugos for being part of the “old guard,” they’ve actually been very good about surfacing and including queer- and minority- centric stories and works by authors with identities that have historically been excluded from the discussion. Arkady Martine won Best Novel in 2020 and 2022 with two entries in a series featuring a lesbian main character, with imperialism’s effects on those who are colonized as a major driver of the plot. Between 2016 and 2018 N.K. Jemisin swept the Best Novel award for successive entries of her Broken Earth trilogy, which revolved around themes of racism, environmental cataclysm, and slavery. The year before that the winner of Best Novel was Cixin Liu’s Three Body Problem which was the first time a work originally published in Chinese won, and then the year before that Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Justice won, which created a massive uproar amongst the more reactionary types in SF fandom for positing a civilization where the only recognized gender was female (this is super unfair to the book, through, because there’s so much more going on thematically beyond that one small world-building choice!).

          In fact, the way that the Hugo voting has swung noticeably towards exploring issues of imperialism, colonialism, and identity is what prompted the Sad Puppies campaign that OP mentions. What he doesn’t mention is that the Hugo voters overwhelmingly rejected that campaign, and the organization made changes to prevent any future attempts. That part of what makes what happened with the 2023 Hugos so surprising and appalling – it’s completely out of character with the recent history of the awards and the organization to meekly knuckle under and self-censor for fear of angering Chinese authorities, when it’s been so bold in standing up to outside influences so recently. I expect that steps will be taken to prevent a repeat occurrence.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            That part of what makes what happened with the 2023 Hugos so surprising and appalling – it’s completely out of character with the recent history of the awards and the organization to meekly knuckle under and self-censor for fear of angering Chinese authorities, when it’s been so bold in standing up to outside influences so recently.

            Has there been a change in organizational staff to account for this?

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                I was actually asking about when the 2023 administrator started her position (was she there for a long time or newbie), in relation to when the event in China happened, but your information is actually good to know too, so thank you.

                I had not been following this at all, so I was just wondering if new management came in and then this happened immediately, or was it old existing management that for whatever reason changed their mindset to allow something like that to happen later on.

                • Thrashy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Ah, my bad… There’s a core of people attached to Worldcon Intellectual Property who are supposed to support the hosting convention’s committee. This included Dave McCarty (who was removed from his position within WIP back in January as this situation evolved), and it seems like he pulled together a support team of experienced hands when it became clear that the Chengdu committee had not realized the extent of their responsibilities and couldn’t assemble a local Hugo committee capable of handling everything in the time available. So while it would be convenient to say “hey, the local committee is ultimately responsible for the way the Hugoa are run!” that’s only sort of true at the best-run of cons, and certainly not true in the case of Chengdu.

                  People who’ve been doing this for a long time and should have known better ran scared from the Chinese government’s censorship bureaucracy, for shortsighted and poorly justified reasons. The good news, such as it is, is that as that has been revealed the folks responsible have been removed from their positions, but it’s still disappointing to find out about. I worked with Dave McCarty in the runup to a previous Worldcon and I would have expected better of him.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 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.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 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?

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          ringo and the sad puppies were only “acknowledged” because of the mass backlash. Otherwise, it was business as usual.

          That is why I think the issue is less the works and more the venue. Because having a racist piece of shit present is one thing. People get mad. They move on because they need the blurb to get another printing from their publisher. But if the CCP gets angry? People start disappearing faster than Jack Ma.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Same way Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the labor party: Only those with paid memberships can vote on stuff (e.g. where the awards will be presented in the future). China paid for enough new memberships to flood the vote with people that voted to hold it in China.

      • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Weird comparison. I don’t think the least Tory-lite leader of the Labour Party in the last 30 years was voted in as a Chinese conspiracy, as you are implying.

        • randon31415@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          No, China didn’t have anything to do with Corbyn. Just, right before he took control of the party, the party leaders tried to vote him out. There are over 10 million labor voters, but at the time there were only 100,000 paid labor memberships, who were responsible for voting in the party leader. Corbyn got 50,000 (out of the 10 million) new paying members on the rolls and went over night from being on the edge of being expelled to becoming the party leader.

          Same thing happened here: a very large group (all scifi readers) assuming that paying members would have ideals proportional to the larger group - but that smaller group can be manipulated through a large influx of single issue voters.

          • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Firstly, I’m not really sure where you are getting your figures. There were 200,000 paid members under the previous leader and it went up to 600,000 just before he was elected.

            Secondly, it seems like you’re attributing this sharp increase to a third party nefarious action. I would assume that it were simply a larger portion of those 10m voters deciding to register membership in order to vote in a leader more in tune with their party values.

            I take the point that a small group only needing paid membership to vote is open to manipulation. However, I don’t really see a comparison between these two events.

            • randon31415@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              I misremembered the number of members - looks like it went up much more drastically than I recalled. And I never said that either were “nefarious actions”, just that a huge influx of new voters with different opinions can alter outcomes.

  • fne8w2ah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

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

  • 5in1k@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 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.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 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.

        You’re making an assumption that verbal conversations, ‘off the record’, didn’t happened beforehand.

    • Wrrzag@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      China didn’t have anything to do with it. They censored books that were already translated and selling in china, and Chinese authors.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        China = Censorship.

        It’s impossible to believe that a pro-China author might have been censored at a western organized and operated media event. There’s no way that a wildly popular domestically written and published and Galaxy Award winning sci-fi novel “We Live In Nanjing” got left off the list because it was too pro-China!

        No. If novels and authors were excluded from the list - if R. F. Kuang and Jiang Bo didn’t make the list - it must be due to the villainous Chinese censors doing Evil China Stuff, and not a bunch of elderly Euro-Americans felt like trimming the pool back to an almost exclusively western and white author pool.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 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.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 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.