Great to see that the two Chengdu Hugo co-Administrators received equal levels of ostracism at the Glasgow Worldcon...

/s

#Worldcon #ChengduWorldcon #GlasgowWorldcon #HugoAward #HugoAwards

#Worldcon #ChengduWorldcon

Note also that the address of Chengdu SF Society is the same as Chengdu Business Daily:

https://cn.kompass.com/c/chengdu-national-business-daily-press-co-ltd/cn221184/

Chinese fans reported ages ago (in @File_770 comments IIRC) that the con was being organized from CBD offices, but good to have official confirmation.

For a fun game, see if you can count how many of the people on this page are Hugo finalists this year.

(Spoiler answer: 四)

John is middle, Alison is even sadder, and Liz is sorry. We have a bumper mailbag in Octothorpe 109, and we continue our discussion about accessibility in Eastercon before segueing into a discussion of money and privilege with respect to conventions. We also mention the latest news out of Chengdu. Massive thanks to Ulrika O'Brien for the gorgeous cover art this week! Listen here: https://octothorpe.podbean.com/e/109-but-also-a-worrying-one/

#ScienceFiction #Podcast #Eastercon #Eastercon2024 #ChengduWorldcon

Glasgow 2024 released the finalist list for the Hugo, Lodestar, and Astounding Awards, including some numbers as well as information on declined or disallowed nominations.

Xiran Jay Zhao is nominated for the Astounding Award, granted extended eligibility at the request of Dell Magazines. This addresses one of the individual fraudulent decisions of last year’s award administrators. It also addresses the question of whether Dell notices or cares what happens with the award (the answer is clearly yes, though as far as I know the company did not publicly wade into the Discourse; and evidently Dell has sufficient confidence in Glasgow to allow the award to remain within Worldcon’s purview).

Still unaddressed are the reams of discarded ballots from last year’s awards. This year’s finalists are dominated by Western/Anglophone works and authors, with some Chinese representation. I’ve no idea if that just reflects how the numbers work in the nominator pool, or if some Chinese fans simply didn’t nominate. (Or weren’t allowed to. The known bad actors are not involved with this year’s awards, but 2023 was too big an institutional failure to simply assume the best.) Whatever the case, it seems the debacle has scuppered the opportunity to encourage rapid and significant cross-pollination of geographically- and linguistically-separated fans.

Last year’s awards have gotten asterisks in different ways (including authors opting not to cite wins deemed tainted, or use them for marketing purposes, one of the more tangible benefits of winning a high profile award). This year’s Astounding and Lodestar finalists have attracted some questions about eligibility. So we’ll see how things shake out.

Aside from that, I don’t have much to say, as I’m not a Hugo voter. Except it is utterly awesome that the joy Bigolas Dickolas Wolfwood brought to the world is now memorialized by more than a spike in long tail sales of This Is How You Lose the Time War. And, by declining the nomination, Bigolas Dickolas maximizes the amusement value and sidesteps the does-this-belong-on-the-ballot Discourse. Well played, sir, well played.

https://aphowell.com/2024/03/30/follow-up-hugo-post/

#astoundingAward #astounding2024 #chengduWorldcon #glasgow2024 #hugoAward #lodestarAward #worldcon

In this episode, we talk through your letters of comment with diversions into Zodiac podcasts, poetry collections, and Scientology. We discuss the BSFA Awards shortlist and return to the Hugo Awards for another round of head-scratching and bewilderment. Listen here! https://octothorpe.podbean.com/e/105-scorching-hot-month-old-takes/

#HugoAwards #BSFA #BSFAawards #Worldcon #ChengduWorldcon #ScienceFiction #Podcasts

Vlog: More Aftermath from Chengdu Worldcon

https://countzeroor.com/2024/03/13/vlog-more-aftermath-from-chengdu-worldcon/

#News #ChengduWorldcon #HugoAwards #worldcon
#bot

The Report

More information continues to roll out about the 2023 Hugo Awards. Chris M. Barkley and Jason Sanford released a report (published on Genre Grapevine and File770), including internal emails, about what went on behind the scenes. I expect new revelations will continue to emerge, and I fully expect things will only become worse, more embarrassing, and more illustrative of toxic behavior.

Based on the report by Barkley and Sanford, a subset of Hugo Admins (Western members of the committee) conducted research into nominees, based on exceptionally vague criteria supplied by Dave McCarty.1 This research—including such things as nominees’ discussion of China, Tibet, and sexual orientation, and not simply technical details such as the publication date of nominated works—perhaps explains why certain individuals were deemed ineligible for the award. And it must be noted that the research is not simply outrageous but just plain embarrassing in its incompetence, and reveals an astounding lack of genre-specific and general knowledge.2 Absent evidence of non-Western admins’ input, the research reads as a racist caricature of potential Chinese government political objections.

But more importantly, the report also notes that a large number of ballots were simply discarded. There may have been concerns about slate voting (i.e. a lot of similar-looking ballots, typically as a result of people casting votes based on recommendation lists).3 It’s important to note that slate voting is a) allowed under the rules, b) has been allowed in the past, even when the votes have been cast in bad faith,4 and c) the Hugos use a mechanism specifically designed to cope with slate voting.5 Here, we have a case where Chinese ballots were treated with less respect than those of right wing culture warriors. And as a result, the Chinese nominees who should have made—and in some categories, dominated—the ballot were replaced with other works.

Bad Actors & Missing Information

Thusfar, it looks like Dave McCarty is the worst of the bad actors: he seems to be the one blithely discarding ballots, re-assigning votes or ballot positions to non-Chinese works,6 and running his own proprietary voting software.7 And while there have been attempts at apology or understanding—was he concerned, rightly or wrongly, for the safety of Chinese committee members? Was he being bribed, or did he perceive himself to be bribed?—it’s sort of beside the point. He didn’t act like someone concerned for others’ well-being.8 He certainly didn’t act in the best interest of the award, convention, or associated organizations. The entire 2023 nomination process appears to be fraudulent (and, given McCarty’s past work as an admin, it’s certainly reasonable to wonder about the validity of prior results).

But as much fun as folks are having villainizing and/or psychoanalyzing one person,9 let’s be clear: this was an institutional failing. One person should not have been in the position to essentially choose his own ballot and the winners of the award. And he certainly shouldn’t have been getting help from (at least part of) his committee. In short, it’s good that there have been apologies, resignations, censures, etc., but there’s no mechanism—and not necessarily any institutional will—to keep bad actors out of positions of power.

Largely missing from the discussion I’ve seen is the perspective of Chinese fans, creators, and concom. (It’s also a major lacuna in the report from Barkley and Sanford. I hope it will be filled over time.) A lot of what I’ve read have been machine translations, with the occasional translation or comment from English-speaking Chinese fans. I don’t know Mandarin (or any other flavor of the language) and, more importantly, I don’t know the context of Chinese fandom.10 So I am aware there are all sorts of gaps in the Narrative of the 2023 Hugos, but it’s still clear that the narrative is Quite Bad, Really.

Now What?

I remain sad on the part of the fans who do take part in Worldcon activities—I have some friends who are very active about reading and recommending works for the Hugo, and I don’t know if their passion will survive this fiasco—and the Chinese fans who were so excited to do so for the first time. I’m sorry for the winners and nominees who are so frustrated by the tainted process. And of course I’m sorry for the people who should have been on the ballot, and perhaps won, but were denied that opportunity.

There’s a lot of discourse about How To Fix This. I most like the suggestion Rachael K. Jones made on Bluesky: release an anthology of excluded works. That doesn’t actually fix anything, and such an anthology wouldn’t accommodate categories like novels. But I think it would be more useful to at least some of the excluded nominees than extending eligibility (messy) or creating a one-time award (largely a community in-joke, not a career-boost). An anthology would at least get more eyes on their work and some money in their pockets, and those are two of the potential benefits of being a Hugo-nominated or -winning author.

I personally think the damage to fans should be addressed by giving every member of Chengdu a WSFS membership to a subsequent Worldcon (a free membership, needless to say).11 That doesn’t fix 2023, but it also means that the fans who wanted to vote for the Hugos may have the opportunity to see their votes counted in a future year.

Monkeys & Circuses

Science fiction convention fandom in general, and Worldcon in specific, is Not My Thing. But as a lifelong fan of science fiction and fantasy, and writer of same, the Hugos are most definitely adjacent to My Things.

I never had any illusion that the Hugo Awards were awesome and definitive, just long-running and well-known. I always knew they were a pay-to-play people’s choice award powered by enthusiasm. I still think there’s value to fan awards (whether they’re associated with a specific convention or geographically-amorphous group of voters), and I kind of liked the fact that the Hugos were not like the Nebulas were not like the Locus were not like the Otherwise, etc., etc.

Unfortunately, it’s clear that the Hugos do not, in fact, currently occupy the place of a fan award. Maybe the talk about How To Fix The Hugos will lead to necessary institutional changes. I hope that happens. But I think we’ll only be able to judge the effectiveness in retrospect. In 2034, maybe we’ll be able to say that the Hugos turned around in 2024…or 2025…or 2026. There are folks who care deeply about Worldcon, for whom it very much is Their Thing, and I wish them much luck fixing it.

The past couple of years, I have been boosting Astounding Award-eligible writers (particularly those who write short fiction). The Astounding is administered alongside the Hugo, and therefore also tainted.12 As long as the Astounding remains coupled to the same administrative structure, it’s not an award I’ll spend effort promoting. There are other awards with a better track record of ethical behavior.

I am still planning to give shout-outs to new writers. My platform is modest, but I know these posts do get some traffic and lead to some clicks for the authors. New authors deserve readers—and readers deserve to discover new authors. No matter what Hugo admins think.

Featured image is a detail of John Pavelka’s “Monkey Riding a Goat,” Pyongyang Circus, DPRK, 2010. Creative Commons CC BY 2.0 Deed.

https://aphowell.com/2024/02/18/the-mess-that-is-the-hugo-awards/

#astoundingAward #astounding2024 #chengduWorldcon #hugoAward #hugos2024 #kerfuffles #shenanigans #worldcon

#HugoAwards #HugoAward #Worldcon #ChengduWorldcon

Here's a tweet that perhaps aged too well :-(

Source: https://twitter.com/ErsatzCulture/status/1691391673606033409

Machine translation via DeepL in the image's alt text.

I could probably find and link to the Weibo post I copypasted this from, but I'm disinclined to risk causing that poster more hassle.