Posting as Proof of Life
Feb. 15th, 2024 10:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I don't actually have anything to say? I'm here and alive. It snowed, the first real snow we've had all winter. It's gorgeous and brilliantly sunny. that's kind of the big news.
I do feel like I should have something to say about the renewed Hugo Award scandal, but I really don't. I was a virtually attending member of the Chicago WorldCON, and, so, due to how the Hugo voting works, I was able to nominate for the Hugos. You then have to buy at least a voting membership for the current WorldCON in order to vote and, I'll be honest, I didn't want to give any of my money to the Chinese government in protest of their stance on free speech, GLBTQIA+ rights, and the oppression of Uyghur people. I understand that the Chinese fans are lovely and not to blame, but this was a choice I made.
For the longest time, I was feeling kind of superior in a "what did you expect?" sort of way, but now I'm just utterly horrified by the fact that a bunch of Western fans decided to compile dossiers (what the f*cking f*ck) on the nominees (and then do it so very, very badly.) Thus, basically self-censoring the Hugo Award ballot. This is an absolute disgrace. Because the one take away I have held close to my heart since Trump was elected in 2016 and the shadow of fascism and totalitarianism grows ever longer in the United States is that we should NEVER, EVER comply in advance.
We did this entirely to ourselves.
However, generally, I am a supporter of WorldCON and the Hugo Awards. I have faith that we, as a community, can FIX this. As has been pointed out by many others, there's not a whole lot we can do in terms of righting wrongs, but we can do BETTER going forward. In fact, I just signed up to be a virtual attendee in Glasgow next year. It cost me over a hundred bucks (US), but just as I did NOT buy a membership last year in protest, I'm buying one this year in support of the institutions of WorldCON and the Hugo Awards.
This is, again, a personal choice and so this is why I feel, even though I just went on about it for several paragraphs, I don't really have a lot to say about this scandal.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, however.
I do feel like I should have something to say about the renewed Hugo Award scandal, but I really don't. I was a virtually attending member of the Chicago WorldCON, and, so, due to how the Hugo voting works, I was able to nominate for the Hugos. You then have to buy at least a voting membership for the current WorldCON in order to vote and, I'll be honest, I didn't want to give any of my money to the Chinese government in protest of their stance on free speech, GLBTQIA+ rights, and the oppression of Uyghur people. I understand that the Chinese fans are lovely and not to blame, but this was a choice I made.
For the longest time, I was feeling kind of superior in a "what did you expect?" sort of way, but now I'm just utterly horrified by the fact that a bunch of Western fans decided to compile dossiers (what the f*cking f*ck) on the nominees (and then do it so very, very badly.) Thus, basically self-censoring the Hugo Award ballot. This is an absolute disgrace. Because the one take away I have held close to my heart since Trump was elected in 2016 and the shadow of fascism and totalitarianism grows ever longer in the United States is that we should NEVER, EVER comply in advance.
We did this entirely to ourselves.
However, generally, I am a supporter of WorldCON and the Hugo Awards. I have faith that we, as a community, can FIX this. As has been pointed out by many others, there's not a whole lot we can do in terms of righting wrongs, but we can do BETTER going forward. In fact, I just signed up to be a virtual attendee in Glasgow next year. It cost me over a hundred bucks (US), but just as I did NOT buy a membership last year in protest, I'm buying one this year in support of the institutions of WorldCON and the Hugo Awards.
This is, again, a personal choice and so this is why I feel, even though I just went on about it for several paragraphs, I don't really have a lot to say about this scandal.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, however.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-15 06:42 pm (UTC)K.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-15 08:15 pm (UTC)Also, Nepal and Tibet are different places.
So, it wasn't the Chinese government acting stupidly this time. It was us, Western fans.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-16 07:07 am (UTC)K.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-15 07:51 pm (UTC)It's not clear anyone in the Chinese government would have cared about any of the things McCarty and his pals thought they cared about (see, for instance, the treatment of danmei inside China, which is way more complicated than simple censorship). Babel was published in China, after all. But in the name of supposedly "helping," now the people who don't even live in China have created an international incident and put the local fans in the middle of it. Way to go, guys.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-15 08:14 pm (UTC)Like, we really screwed this up by trying to "protect" people from censorship they might never have faced... I mean, the fact that no one composing these dossiers seemed to know Nepal from Tibet (or that you have to get Chinese permission to trave to Tibet, so it's not like that's seen as particularly rebellious) or that Babel was, as you noted, PUBLISHED IN CHINA.
Ah, so much SIGH.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-15 08:31 pm (UTC)And if your goal is to shield other people, actually shield them, as Courtney Milan pointed out on Bluesky. You do that by taking full responsibility, making clear that you made all the decisions on your own and no one else was involved, and give them space to say "I wouldn't have done that and I didn't want that." Which is not at all what Dave McCarty did or is doing; he's instead constantly hinting at some sort of Chinese legal regime that of course he had to follow or some sort of cultural difference that he's honoring, when we keep getting more information that indicates all of this is happening solely inside his head.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-15 09:38 pm (UTC)You remind me, in fact, that I need to take my butt over to File 770. A friend of mine said that a bunch of Chinese fans have actually been chiming in on the latest in the comments. https://file770.com/the-2023-hugo-awards-a-report-on-censorship-and-exclusion/
no subject
Date: 2024-02-15 08:36 pm (UTC)Reading the cleaned-up transcript of Chris Barkley's interview with Dave McCarty, the latter seemed in an advanced state of stress hardly distinguishable from some kind of altered experience. I imagined him talking to Chinese fans and making bizarre interpretations and acting on them, living in some imaginary China whose rules he must follow to protect his new friends. He seemed completely divorced from reality while believing he had the best inside knowledge to make things work right.
Psychoanalyzing people just because I'm a writer doesn't seem very helpful, but that interview was so very strange. The truth, which it's unlikely we'll ever arrive at, is probably both much more mundane and way way weirder.
I too think that the Hugos can be fixed, but it can't be done by the "Trust us, we're such experienced amateurs that we amount to professionals in this one task" gang. We did and they aren't.
P.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-15 09:31 pm (UTC)I guess, for myself, I'm always aware that the people running the cons we love are, at the end of the day, just people who are volunteering. As you note, they've done this one thing for years, but they aren't professionals or even necessarily experts. I'm honestly always impressed when we manage to pull of a WorldCON? Like, actually, just get it all done?? So, my bar might be lower than average.
I didn't try to listen to that interview with Dave McCarty. You are a much braver person than I. I have, however, heard other people express similar takeaways about McCarty's state of mind. I don't know him? So, I can't really comment one way or the other.
I think one of the reasons that I haven't really commented on the whole Chengdu rolling disaster until now is that I'm not fully convinced that having won or having been nominated for a Hugo tells a potential reader much of anything about the book they have in their hands other than, perhaps, that it is likely science fiction and/or fantasy.
First off, as we all know and no one would argue, enjoying a book is subjective. I might love a book that no one else likes and visa versa. There have been plenty of award-winning books that have left me cold and just as many (if not more) books that have never won awards that I've absolutely and fully adored. There are books that sell really well that have never won an award and there are books that have won that just never break sales records. That's just the nature of it all. So, no award anywhere can determine for certain that a book will be universally loved or admired; that's just not how readers (and thus awards) work.
But add to that the fact that, as I described in my post, the people who nominate and vote on the Hugo have paid for the privilege. WorldCON membership, even at the cheapest voting level, is REQUIRED to nominate and/or vote. This is obviously the loophole that the Puppies exploited, right? Because, they realized, there really aren't that many of us--particularly in the nominating phase--who are going to hit on the same books, short stories, etc.
I still think that the Hugo tells you something, but I'm not sure it's what I used to think it was. I used to think the Hugo was a kind of popularity vote, which is why I used to tell my writers' group colleagues that of the two, I'd rather win a Hugo than a Nebula. The Nebula is the respect of your peers; the Hugo is the adoration of the masses. Except it isn't. I mean, NOT REALLY. WorldCON membership is a whole LOT of people? But what percentage of is it, in comparison to, say, the overall number of people buying science fiction/fantasy books regularly?
And it's becoming obvious to me that it's kind of the same people nominating and voting every year. I guess I'm saying that I'm not sure the extent to which the Hugo really has its finger on the pulse of SFF publishing, as a WHOLE, especially in this day and age of things like BookTok (and other ways that people are finding and consuming books).
I don't know.
I mean, obviously, I still believe in it or I wouldn't have just dropped money to continue to take part in the process. So, I could probably be convinced that I'm completely wrong about my sort of "eh, whatever" attitude.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-16 12:04 am (UTC)The only truly comparable numbers are for the awards where I have read all or nearly all of the winners, since the ones where I've only read some of the winners probably are skewed high because I'm more likely to have read the books I already thought I would enjoy. For that set, the average rating of a Hugo winner was 6.95, a Nebula winner was 7.17, and a Locus SF winner was 7.00. For comparison, the average rating of all books I read last year was 7.02.
There are obviously a lot of problems with this data (it's over a 20 year period and my tastes have changed, some of the ratings are from memory from before I started this project and are even more suspect, it's only me and my personal opinion), but my conclusions from that were that awards are an okay source of book recommendations (on average the book will be fine), but not incredibly stellar. Of those awards, the Nebulas are a bit more reliable for me, but they're all fairly close.
(For whatever it's worth, the "best" award for my personal taste is the Mythopoeic Award for adult literature, which has garnered an average rating of 8.13 with 15 out of 50 read and the substantial caveat that the unread ones are likely to lower that average to an unknown extent.)
no subject
Date: 2024-02-16 04:37 pm (UTC)It was an interesting experiment? I read a lot of really fascinating books that I would never have thought to pick up on my own, much less find. I was not as meticulous as you were in terms of keeping track of which awards hit best for me, but I started following the Kitschies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitschies because a lot of the SFF books they picked were just odd and hit me in a sweet spot.
So, I mean, that is certainly one thing awards like the Hugos do. They lift certain books up into the public view, up out of the flotsam, if you will.