...the big Times, that is, or, as it styles itself, The New York
Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/books/booksupdate/hugo-awards- >china.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XE0.U8XL.awbCZKH-2D-D&smid=url-share
This link should be accessible outside the paywall, as I got it
by clicking on the Share button (and forgive me if you have to
copy-paste it in pieces). The article was published on the Times
website on Feb. 17, but I saw it only yesterday when it was put
into the print edition, as I read the digital mock-up of same.
...the big Times, that is, or, as it styles itself, The New York
Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/books/booksupdate/hugo-awards- china.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XE0.U8XL.awbCZKH-2D-D&smid=url-share
This link should be accessible outside the paywall, as I got it
by clicking on the Share button (and forgive me if you have to
copy-paste it in pieces). The article was published on the Times
website on Feb. 17, but I saw it only yesterday when it was put
into the print edition, as I read the digital mock-up of same.
On 2/22/2024 4:00 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
...the big Times, that is, or, as it styles itself, The New York
Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/books/booksupdate/hugo-awards-
china.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XE0.U8XL.awbCZKH-2D-D&smid=url-share
This link should be accessible outside the paywall, as I got it
by clicking on the Share button (and forgive me if you have to
copy-paste it in pieces). The article was published on the Times
website on Feb. 17, but I saw it only yesterday when it was put
into the print edition, as I read the digital mock-up of same.
Samantha Smith disavowed her 2023 Best Short Story Hugo for "Rabbit
Test" on February 17 -- >https://samtasticbooks.com/2024/02/17/rabbit-test-unwins-the-hugo/
Adrian Tchaikovsky disavowed his 2023 Best Series Hugo for the "Children
of Time" series on February 21 -- https://adriantchaikovsky.com/
As an aside, comparing the way the "vetting" of Hugo nominees was done
in Chengdu with the way it was done in other one-party states like East >German and the USSR (which has been thoroughly documented since
1990-1992), what stands out is how permissive and amateurish the Chengdu >system was.
Take the early 1920s, i.e. the relatively liberal years of the Soviet
regime, when the national censorship office had to deal with privately
owned publishers, Soviet authors openly publishing their books abroad
and having them re-imported, etc. During that period Soviet censors
regularly compiled lengthy dossiers on Russian-language publishers at
home and abroad as well as on emigre authors. They did it in-house and
sent the resulting "secret bulletins" to all members of the ruling
Politburo for review. Using non-Communist foreigners with no credentials
to do a superficial review of foreign authors? It would have gone over
like a lead balloon.
ethnic cleansing of
the Chinese candidates (which is why the finalists were so white
despite thriving Chinese SF publishing and large numbers of avid
Chinese SF fans)
Tomorrow I have a 4 hour meeting with my chinese counterparts to
look at ballot detail and determine if any ballots are to be
voided (which happens with frequency so that it's not *really*
that controversial if we determine we need to do it)
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. I assume shorter fiction was allowed to
have some Chinese works to ensure some Chinese wins for internal
media coverage. Similar actions took place sporadically through
other categories, including some down ballot categories.
In article <ur7rb1$3un4l$1@dont-email.me>,
Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> wrote:
[snip-snip]
As an aside, comparing the way the "vetting" of Hugo nominees was done
in Chengdu with the way it was done in other one-party states like East
German and the USSR (which has been thoroughly documented since
1990-1992), what stands out is how permissive and amateurish the Chengdu
system was.
Take the early 1920s, i.e. the relatively liberal years of the Soviet
regime, when the national censorship office had to deal with privately
owned publishers, Soviet authors openly publishing their books abroad
and having them re-imported, etc. During that period Soviet censors
regularly compiled lengthy dossiers on Russian-language publishers at
home and abroad as well as on emigre authors. They did it in-house and
sent the resulting "secret bulletins" to all members of the ruling
Politburo for review. Using non-Communist foreigners with no credentials
to do a superficial review of foreign authors? It would have gone over
like a lead balloon.
As someone pointed out on the social medias, the one entity that does
not seem to have had an active role in the fuck up was the actual
Chinese Communist Party. What we got was Westerners cosplaying state
censors.
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.
On 2/22/2024 9:40 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
[snip-snip]
ethnic cleansing of
the Chinese candidates (which is why the finalists were so white
despite thriving Chinese SF publishing and large numbers of avid
Chinese SF fans)
It's still unclear what happened with the Chinese nominees.
1. We have a "validation spreadsheet" which shows numerous Chinese works
at the top of many categories' lists. They did not appear on nomination
lists -- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhCwKLMydCto6HvXvcqjR553DqrhTfBu/view?usp=drive_link
2. We have Dave McCarthy's email sent on June 7, 2023 at 6:18pm (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_QqmsxQkACoYcxSx2LVqbxD39-DJI_gS/view), which says:
Tomorrow I have a 4 hour meeting with my chinese counterparts to
look at ballot detail and determine if any ballots are to be
voided (which happens with frequency so that it's not *really*
that controversial if we determine we need to do it)
3. We have Diane Lacey's letter, which mentions "collusion in a Chinese publication that had published a nominations list, a slate as it were,
and so those ballots were identified and eliminated." -- https://file770.com/diane-laceys-letter-about-the-2023-hugos/
We don't know what happened during the "4 hour meeting with [Dave
McCarty's] Chinese counterparts" which was supposed to "void" ballots,
but, given the composition of the Hugo administration committee:
Dave McCarty, Ben Yalow, Ann Marie Rudolph, Diane Lacey, Shi Chen, Joe
Yao, Tina Wang, Dongsheng Guo, Bo Pang (https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2023-hugo-awards/)
it seems likely that an agreement was reached between Western and
Chinese administrators.
Camestros Felapton hypothesizes (https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2024/02/16/hugo-2023-here-is-what-i-think-happened/) that:
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. I assume shorter fiction was allowed to
have some Chinese works to ensure some Chinese wins for internal
media coverage. Similar actions took place sporadically through
other categories, including some down ballot categories.
which is possible, but we won't know for sure until we learn more about
what happened during that meeting.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 168:57:39 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,551 |