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.

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.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
    363·
    10 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.worldEnglish
      281·
      10 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.