- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
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.
What the fuck, Hugo? Why hold it in a country that has no human rights?
I’m $ure the deci$ion was completely unbia$ed.
Oh reall¥?
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.
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
Indeed. Quite decent.
lolyikes
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?
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.
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.
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.
This is probably the most helpful comment for me. I enjoy reading scifi and I’ve often used the Hugos as a barometer. Not anymore. Time to start checking blogs of good authors
Any recommendations?
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).
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.
Not sure why you are painting me as some intentionally misleading anti-hugo monster (or why you are caping for the Hugos) but… okay. You probably missed the part where I pointed out it is still a prestigious outlet that carries a lot of weight and even that the buy-in voting is a necessary evil. But hey, I am sure you missed that part while you decided to paint me as some mustache twirling villain.
Yes. More people of color and fewer cishet stories have been spotlighted. In large part because that is where SFF has gone. The very nature of SFF is to explore fantasy worlds through the lens of social issues. Always has been. And that is why the sad puppies “movement” became a thing. Because you basically had “This is the world as it is becoming” versus “Yeah, but what if strong men were still the heroes”. It was a symptom of the ever increasing conflicts that manifested as Gamergate in the video game space and the alt-right in “politics proper” as it were.
And yes. Jemisin swept in 2018. In 2020 we had George R R Martin shitting on the “ethnic” names while making it a point to talk about all the great transphobes and bigots who came before. Which continues to be the Hugo’s problem. Because they can’t control how the people vote. But they can make sure to highlight that it is still an old guard institution.
Amd, much like with the Oscars needing to give a rapist who fled the country a standing ovation every chance they get, any author who wants to have a career needs to grin and bear it because that translates to publisher deals and money.
And that is why I encourage people to actually go to the blogs of their favorite authors (because many have them these days) and read what they are recommending. It doesn’t have the same weight but it is also a way to sift through the bullshit without the vibe of “We aren’t racist. See, we gave an award to the black chick”
Has there been a change in organizational staff to account for this?
Given that the news only just broke and organizational business has to be voted on at the next convention, it’s a bit soon to look for big moves – but Glasgow 2024 did make a statement that their Hugo Administrator who was involved in the 2023 awards was removed from her position.
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.
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.
Thank you for your time/ explanation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough.
deleted by creator
Oh man, how long before China has enough global power to censor what we watch in American cinema/TV? Or are we already at that point??? 😱
We kind of are? Although, it is mostly at the same level the US has been. Mainstream movies aren’t going to have things that will anger significant markets. Similarly, a decent number of the long living live service games have “china” versions that do stuff like get rid of skeletons and so forth.
It is obviously speculation, but a LOT of what went wrong with Rise of Skywalker has strong hints of being about the Chinese market.
Which… again, kind of mirrors how the US and its holy concepts are treated. Take a look at mainstream action movies from basically the 70s to the 10s. The enemy might be a rogue general or CIA operative but you’ll have a heroic US soldier/marine around to counter that out and show that the vast majority of the military are good people (and we still see the impact of that with people trying to reconcile the US military waiting to see how Jan 6 would shake out…). Same with how Democracy is good and amazing and only ever fails because of outright fraud rather than gerrymandering and stupidity/bigotry.
Just… the main difference is that you can still watch a movie about a squad of US Marines raping and murdering their way through a warzone in the US. Whereas that gets outright banned in China and can lead to a visit to the reeducation camps if the creator lives in China.
I’m not entirely clear on where you’re drawing the line here but American cinema has a rich history of promoting mistrust in the U.S. Government. Eagle Eye, Three Days of the Condor, All the President’s Men, Dr. Strangelove, and the Watchmen, all were mainstream movies produced in that 70s to 10s time period. Some or all of those depict institutionalized corruption on a level you’d probably not ever see coming from China.
I don’t think it is even a conscious effort most of the time. But it very much pervades US media. And a lot of it even boils down to the actual military propaganda like NCIS or Bradley Cooper’s The A-Team. It is the idea that we are Americans and we are exceptional and we truly value individualism and everyone should praise the NCOs who are going to fight the good fight and make sure they never do anything bad no matter what the evil officers tell them… so make sure to shoot that kid your Sergeant is telling you to because that fucker totally has it coming.
Mostly I am just trying to point out that we are already adjusting “global” media to placate major demogrpahics. The main difference, like I said, being that pissing off the US Government means republicans won’t watch your movie. Pissing off the CCP means you need to be careful any time you are flying in the Eastern hemisphere.
The crucial point is CIA op. The CIA had an oilfield contingency plan. That’s the organization, not just one corrupt individual. Definitely borders on institutional.
“He also states the cover-up was not only intended to camouflage the CREEP involvement, but also to hide “covert operations” involving “the entire U.S. intelligence community”, including the CIA and FBI.”
Sounds pretty institutional to me when two whole organizations are involved in corruption.
Okay, then institutionalized stupidity.
Oh come on, the Government had collateral damage galore in Vietnam. And the killing of war protesters. All institutionally orchestrated.
The NSA is an institution and they blew up those civilian targets. Nobody stopped that. That’s what triggered everything else.
But this is my main point here:
Yes, China is creating censorship of the worst form imaginable. And it is affecting what we Americans are able to see on cinema. All the downvoters on here see nothing wrong with this picture?
And “Vietnam was bad” is a fight the US had long since lost. It is very acceptable to say “things were bad” then and it has increasingly become one of those “See, we don’t fall for propaganda. Look how much we learned from the last time we entered a conflict we didn’t understand with goals that weren’t well articulated and rules of engagement that were the worst of all worlds”. And if it isn’t obvious: am I talking about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, or (Erastil protect us) Israel?
Yeah.
Again, this IS how the US does propaganda. We like to pretend we are all unique individuals with maximum agency because FREEDOM. And that is how we somehow decided that “a few bad apples” doesn’t ruin the bunch. And pretty much the basis for all the actual direct funded propaganda. Parts of the institutions are bad but the boots on the ground are heroes so you better fucking thank Chet Hanks for his service if you want some salmon.
And… again, you are kind of falling for it hook line and sinker. Don’t worry, I also didn’t realize how pervasive this was and even pointed out that stuff like the Call of Duty games were “shockingly not ‘rah rah america’ because the bad guys are US generals”. It really was the Bradley Cooper A-Team (which… I actually really liked) that made it obvious that… that is the point. The generals might make you do horrible stuff so you shouldn’t feel bad if you rape and murder a family because you can’t tell the difference between one set of brown people and another. But the men in the foxhole next to you and the NCOs who relay those orders are all good and heroic people who are just doing their best".
And once you realize that is the formula? It becomes REALLY obvious how much media is “propaganda” whether it is directly funded by the US military or just people emulating the folk tales they grew up on.
And it is VERY important to understand that. In the same way it is important to understand that not all pro-China spin is “And we only avoided war because general sexy china guy believed Amy Adams and chose to not escalate” or “China was kind enough to give a rocket to Childish Gambino and Boromir because they truly believe in science and humanity” and a lot of it really is the kind of stuff we saw in Rise of Skywalker.
Because, yes, I am sure at least a few of those stories are outright thought crimes as far as the CCP is concerned. But a lot of it is going to just be a case of, to use an American term, someone not thanking the troops before a set or being overly critical of the brave men and women of the mujaheddin. It won’t get someone outright banned, but it does lead to the discourse of “Well, they just get too political” which hurts the bottom line in other ways. It is just… because the CCP, “hurts the bottom line” really means “gets your whole event investigated by the CCP”.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
Freedom of Speech and Expression
Freedom of Press
Freedom of Religion
Right to Peaceful Assembly
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.
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 see that basically everything related to politics is a sensitive word, including names of politicians, current or past; political organization, position no matter they are pro or anti CCP; and political events, anywhere from massacre, protest, to just congressional meetings.
Many other words related to human right and economics. For example, 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%), 你乃人民 (you are the people) and many many more.
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.)
Sorry but this is absolutely false. Lots and lots of people post videos to YouTube without a profit motive, myself included.
Did you forget about tiananmen square? Hong Kong protests? I think you did. Or you’re a boot licker.
🪤