879
submitted 7 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.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 186 points 7 months ago

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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 99 points 7 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 7 months ago

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

[-] Wrrzag@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 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 7 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.

[-] 5in1k@lemm.ee 143 points 7 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.

[-] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 38 points 7 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 19 points 7 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 14 points 7 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 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

but to assume that in contrast to what the evidence states seems like hunting for a Boogeyman to confirm our prejudices.

Sorry, that dog ain't going to hunt.

You realize the gaming industry went through something similar along these lines not so long ago? There's a repeated pattern of this happening.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 7 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 6 points 7 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 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 128 points 7 months ago

Way to lose all credibility in one event

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 36 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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 28 points 7 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 7 months ago

Hocus pocus, Hugo's a joke to us

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 113 points 7 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 54 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

"This is not a pipe"

[-] whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It's amazing how often people are told, en masse, to like something or give it credence simply because it's being marketed as something that they should like or trust, and they just sort of go along with it. Of course, if it didn't work, the advertising/marketing industry wouldn't be as big as it is...

[-] bad_alloc@feddit.de 37 points 7 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.

[-] mellowheat@suppo.fi 36 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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 15 points 7 months ago

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

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 7 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 7 months ago

Tankies can justify anything

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 35 points 7 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 7 months ago

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

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 27 points 7 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.

[-] whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 7 months ago

I could also tell there's no way these were actually the best of the best sci-fi from the last 10 years.

This is about the same timeframe since they changed their voting rules to put an end to an evil right wing white supremacist campaign that felt exactly that way. When said campaign actually got their picks nominated, every award they were nominated for went to no award.

[-] Thrashy@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The Hugos are a bit different in that voting for the shortlist and the awards is open to anybody who is a WSFS member and attended Worldcon (either digitally or in-person), and that includes a significant chunk of fandom and not just authors and industry folk. In some ways that gives them a bit more credibility than other industry awards because (in theory) there isn't that sort of payola you're suggesting in the background. On the other hand that opens them up to manipulation via slate voting campaigns a la Sad/Rabid Puppies, and the more prosaic case of an author with a big fan following winning with a middling entry just on the strength of popularity and name recognition (see Redshirts in 2013, or Nettle and Bone last year). That's been a problem in the past, but this level of blatant censorship and manipulation is new, and it's good that it's attracted the sort of attention and condemnation that it should.

Back when SF and fantasy fiction were more niche interests this maybe wouldn't have been such a big deal, but the genre has moved mainstream in a huge way in the last decade or two and the Hugos get significant media attention outside of fandom. Winning the Hugo can bring attention and prestige, and make for a significant sales bump for authors in a genre that still doesn't really sell enough to pay an author's bills in most cases. Authors in particular need the Hugos to be on the level, or it hurts their ability to get noticed in the larger publishing industry and make a career out of their passion.

[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

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

[-] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 14 points 7 months ago
[-] ExfilBravo@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

Fuck the CCP "yeah you know me".

[-] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 7 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 4 points 7 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.

[-] ricdeh@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Can someone tell me whether Cixin Liu's Three Body Problem series is stained by Chinese communist propaganda? Because I find the story very appealing, but am wary of the many awards that the series won in Communist Pseudo-China. Are there any undertones I missed?

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

I don't recall any overt tones. I think it is so highly awarded because it isn't anti-CCP, though I don't remember ever feeling like it took any time away saying it was good, either.

[-] ridago@programming.dev 5 points 7 months ago

You can tell the book is written from within China. It has some different perspectives to what you’d normally find in a “western” book, but not in a propaganda way. Worth the read

[-] Axiochus@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

I'd say that it's substantially about the cultural revolution and imo gives it an overall negative treatment that happens to align with the present transition away from hardcore Maoism in China. Cultures are not so monolithic as to be functions of their local propaganda. Much like, say, the US is producing a lot of good science fiction despite having an unhealthy love of capitalism.

[-] outerspace@lemmy.zip 5 points 7 months ago

Every Chinese person will be cautious about some topics but the book is fine.

[-] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

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

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

So indirect fear of Chinese reprisals is news, but the West directly censoring an exiled Chinese artist over his criticism of israel is "free speech'.

Exiled Chinese artist Ai Weiwei: 'Censorship in West exactly the same as Mao's China'

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 points 7 months ago

That webpage immediately tried to fingerprint me via DRM...

[-] Emmy@lemmy.nz 4 points 7 months ago

Book banning, this is what a chilling effect on free speech looks like.

If you ever have any doubts who the fascists are, look at who's banning books in school and elsewhere.

[-] peyotecosmico@programming.dev 4 points 7 months ago

Even if Science Fiction is more popular now it is still kinda a niche area, so disappointed to get one of the good sources do this

this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
879 points (100.0% liked)

News

22903 readers
3063 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.


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS