First, go read Jason’s roundup of info, because he is more measured, cogent, and informative than I could hope to be: Genre Grapevine on the Hugo Awards “not eligible” problem (ETA: Cora really digs into the irregularities at her blog.)
(And you really should consider supporting Jason, because he does solid work all around.)
I don’t necessarily have anything new to add, but I have been reminded that, particularly in such a relatively small group, it can be very worth it to speak up even if the response boils down to a rousing hear, hear! It is all too easy for silence to be read as either assent, consent, or disinterest, and I also know I have my own association with WSFS nonsense as a dedicated meeting attendee.
My thoughts, then, are thus:
- This is really fucked up and really upsetting. People being marked as “ineligible” for no cogent reason I’ve yet encountered, despite a plethora of nominations and obvious eligibility. While some of the “ineligibles” are pretty easy to read as politically motivated–and that is already not okay in the slightest–others (I specifically mean here my friend Paul Weimer) make absolutely no goddamn sense in that framing. Not that it would be okay either way. Absolute fucking bullshit, top to bottom.
- It’s a massive stain on the Hugo Awards themselves, I would argue far worse than the Sad Puppy nonsense because at least there were no questions there about the admin tampering with the Hugos. So I reiterate: what the actual fuck.
- Cheryl Morgan makes an interesting point about this, by the way. The thought that releasing stats with problems as a deliberate act to draw attention is certainly a possibility. Though I find myself wondering why, if this was intended as a deliberate act of whistleblowing, one of the American members of the Hugo Admin hasn’t out and said something.
- I am pissed, I’m horrified and… I’m honestly also not surprised that there were some kind of bullshit shenanigans. I chose not to participate in Chengdu WorldCon as a panelist or anything else because of the policies and acts of the Chinese government; while I certainly know the people are not their government, I had massive concerns about either top-down political interference or protective self-censorship. I am deeply saddened and disappointed to have that choice vindicated.
You can consider the above 3 points to be squared, as my housemate Corina shares these opinions. (And doesn’t have a blog of her own, because she is wiser than me.)
I’ll admit, after my initial what the actual fuck, this is fucked reaction, my second thought was, oh boy, the Glasgow business meeting is going to be spicy as hell. Which: good. Deservedly so, if it pans out the way I imagine.
With that in mind, I want to draw attention to another post by Cheryl: Decoupling the Hugos. Please give it a thorough read, and take a look at the draft resolution.
I had a similar thought on hearing the news. Making the Hugo Admin independent of WorldCon could prevent uneven application or different interpretations of rules, say, and provide more continuity. Election administration is only as good as the honesty of the people in charge, but as we in America got educated on thoroughly in 2020, if you have officials and administrators who are answerable primarily to the rules themselves and deeply invested in the process regardless of their potential personal feelings about the results, it can shield you from a lot of interference.
I also, for reasons of my current planned participation in the Glasgow 2024 WSFS Business Meeting, don’t feel I can personally push this proposal forward–and I may very well not be able to debate on it. But I can sure say I think it’s a good idea, and Kevin has crafted some solid starting language, and I hope I get a chance to vote on something like this in August whether I’m sitting on a chair out in serpentine territory or at the table.
We already showed once that, for all its required two-year timeline, WSFS can react to deeply troubling occurrences within the Hugos. I have high hopes that we can do so again.
9 replies on “Well, I sure don’t like this (I’m talking about the Hugo stats)”
Glasgow is going to be a small uncontrolled nuclear reactor and I intend to be there with you, Corina and Zalia.
Pack your asbestos underwear, buddy, it’s gonna be HEATED
I have been keeping an eye on it since Scalzi posted about it… One of the potential wrangling points is whether or not to do something about the 2023 awards, whether that be a round of a specialty named one, insisting that the disqualified nominees be given their own rockets, or simply vacating the 2023 awards entirely, none which I’m not sure aren’t going to be filled with potential political pitfalls. Many of the proposed solutions would need careful handling, lest someone basically uses it as justification for their argument against the WSFS as an entity.
It is probably best to try to tackle the fact that the gentlemen’s agreement has been broken going forward.
I have a suggestion that somebody more active in WSFS (and who will be in Glasgow) could consider.
If a work or individual that would otherwise appear on the ballot is ruled ineligible, this must be declared, along with the precise reason for the ruling, no less than 14 days before the nominations are announced. This ruling could then be independently verified (in case a rule is misunderstood) or challenged by an individual or organization who is not the individual or organization who would be nominated.
(Spitballing the legalese).
To highlight:
Babel was the winner of this year’s Nebula Award for Best Novel.
Nebula eligibility rules: All works first published in English, in the United States, during the calendar year, in the genres of science fiction, fantasy, or a related fiction genre are eligible for the Nebula Awards® in their respective categories.
Hugo eligibility rules:
3.2.1: Unless otherwise specified, Hugo Awards are given for work in the field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year.
So. It is possible for a novel to be eligible for a Hugo but not a Nebula (as the Nebulas specify English in the United States). It is NOT possible for the same work to be eligible for a Nebula but not a Hugo.
It’s also impossible per the rules for Xiran Jay Zhao not to have been eligible.
I have no idea what’s going on with Paul Weimer, but my assumption is that both Kuang and Zhao produced works (in Kuang’s case not even the nominated work) that could be construed as being critical of China.
Censorship is, alas, the only logical explanation. Forcing the committee to explain the ineligibility of a popular work might not prevent this…but it might help. The only time I can think of where this legitimately came up was when The Martian was ruled ineligible because it had been technically published before, a ruling a lot of people disagreed with but which was, in fact, correct.
Legend told us that in time of Hugo’s greatest need, Alex Acks’ blog would return to help us! (seriously, glad to see you’re doing well enough to post – look forward to seeing your report from Glasgow).
It’s nice to hear from someone that this isn’t impossible because of *flailingarmsandhandwaves* REASONS, as a few have suggested in response to this. Decoupling may be one of the only ways to solve this problem, other than leaving the Hugos behind entirely. Regardless, the status quo is untenable. Thanks for this, Alex.
Yeah, I’ve been keeping track of a couple of the comments threads, specifically the one from Buhlert, and the one that got my attention from Scalzi.
I agree the meetings will be spicy… there’s also people advocating for opening the geopolitical can of worms that is attached to some variant of amending or invalidating the 2023 awards. I would advise that potential geopolitical ramifications of such moves be deeply considered before being fronted as legitimate options… many of the fail conditions involves at least one nation state’s fandom basically declaring that the World Science Fiction Society is clearly not representing the world in response.
[…] ETA: Alex Acks weighs in on the Hugo nomination disaster. […]
I’m too white for the level of spicy the business meeting is gonna be Alex… XD