So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
determined.

If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems
sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
for that.

This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining
and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been
on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe?
There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted
for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a
little glaring. But it was still great.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3/4/24 8:35 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
> determined.
>
> If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems
> sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
> for that.
>
> This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining
> and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been
> on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe?
> There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted
> for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a
> little glaring. But it was still great.

It already won the Nebula.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://leepers.us/evelyn, @eleeper@mastodon.social
Musk cares about the border because "the border" is a publicly-
acceptable euphemism for white supremacy. [@passenger@mastodon.social]

On 3/4/24 8:35 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
> determined.
>

Might it have run against the official line in some more subtle way?

The general consensus, though, has been that something other than
government censorship was going on with the Chinese works that were
disqualified. The committee made up a rule against "slate voting" out of
whole cloth.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

In article <us7fve$3r9o2$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>On 3/4/24 8:35 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
>> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
>> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
>> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
>> determined.
>>
>
>Might it have run against the official line in some more subtle way?

It has a Chinese edition so if there is an issue it did not preclude
releasing the book in China.

>The general consensus, though, has been that something other than
>government censorship was going on with the Chinese works that were
>disqualified. The committee made up a rule against "slate voting" out of
>whole cloth.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
>Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
>It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
>the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
>determined.
>
>If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems
>sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
>for that.

Perhaps you are not considering how a /Communist Goverment/ might feel
about a novel extolling the virtues of the non-communist past.

>This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining
>and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been
>on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe?
>There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted
>for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a
>little glaring. But it was still great.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 3/5/2024 12:38 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
>> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
>> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
>> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
>> determined.
>>
>> If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems
>> sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
>> for that.
>
> Perhaps you are not considering how a /Communist Goverment/ might feel
> about a novel extolling the virtues of the non-communist past.

Seeing as a Chinese edition has been published, in China, I don't think
they objected to the book. Its disqualification seems to have been at
the hands of a clueless and craven committee of Westerners.

The Opium Wars and in particular, the destruction of the Summer Palace,
are a staple of current Chinese criticism of the West. The period is
known as 'The Century of Humiliation'.

pt

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>Seeing as a Chinese edition has been published, in China, I don't think
>they objected to the book. Its disqualification seems to have been at
>the hands of a clueless and craven committee of Westerners.
>
>The Opium Wars and in particular, the destruction of the Summer Palace,
>are a staple of current Chinese criticism of the West. The period is
>known as 'The Century of Humiliation'.

This is clear and evident before the book was even read. But what I didn't
realize before reading it was just how fun a book it was.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3/5/24 5:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Seeing as a Chinese edition has been published, in China, I don't think
>> they objected to the book. Its disqualification seems to have been at
>> the hands of a clueless and craven committee of Westerners.
>>
>> The Opium Wars and in particular, the destruction of the Summer Palace,
>> are a staple of current Chinese criticism of the West. The period is
>> known as 'The Century of Humiliation'.
>
> This is clear and evident before the book was even read. But what I didn't
> realize before reading it was just how fun a book it was.
> --scott
>
>
It does seem that something good may have come out of this, namely that
more people will be motivated to get Kuang's book and read it. Getting
publicity in news stories in the MYT et al can't be bad for her.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://leepers.us/evelyn, @eleeper@mastodon.social
Musk cares about the border because "the border" is a publicly-
acceptable euphemism for white supremacy. [@passenger@mastodon.social]

On 05/03/2024 17:48, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 3/5/2024 12:38 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that
>>> the
>>> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely
>>> pro-Chinese.
>>> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War,
>>> and
>>> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
>>> determined.
>>>
>>> If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know.  But this seems
>>> sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
>>> for that.
>>
>> Perhaps you are not considering how a /Communist Goverment/ might feel
>> about a novel extolling the virtues of the non-communist past.
>
> Seeing as a Chinese edition has been published, in China, I don't think
> they objected to the book. Its disqualification seems to have been at
> the hands of a clueless and craven committee of Westerners.

Perhaps the "Westerners" were embarrassed
by the contents on their own hurt feelings.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
> determined.

> If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems
> sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
> for that.

> This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining
> and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been
> on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe?
> There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted
> for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a
> little glaring. But it was still great.
> --Scott

I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging,
and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th-
century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and
out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression
of dissent.

A minor criticism is that, after Kuang makes a big deal about researching
Oxford slang of the 1830s, she gives her characters a lot of 20th- and
21st-century dialogue, which I found jarring.

Begin extract:

'You rile her up,' Victoire said.

'Don't defend her--'

'You do,' said Victoire. 'You both do, don't pretend otherwise; you like
making her snap.'

'Only because she's up her own backside all the time,' Ramy scoffed. 'Is
she an entirely different person with you, then, or have you merely adapted?'

End extract.

"Rile" and "up her own backside" stood out to me. "Rile", though originally
British, was considered regional and American dialect at the time, according
to the OED. For instance, it appears in a list of Essex dialect words in 1815.
There's no reason for Victoire, a Haitian who has lived in Paris, to know it,
or for the two other characters present (one from China and one from India)
to recognize it.

"Be (stuck) up one's own arse" is first recorded in the OED from 1988.

That kind of thing won't bother a lot of people, but every time I see something
like that it sounds like a wrong note.

Also

S
P O
I L
E R

S
P A
C E

H
E R
E

There seems to be a message that every single white person will oppose and
betray the legitimate aspirations of people of color. No exceptions.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 3/12/2024 12:58 PM, jerryfriedman wrote:

> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
>
> S
> P
> A
> C
> E
>
> H
> E
> R
> E
>
>
> There seems to be a message that every single white person will oppose and
> betray the legitimate aspirations of people of color.  No exceptions.
>

This attitude is very much in line with current CCP doctrine. The
memory of the 'Century of humiliation' is actively kept alive
in China, and informs a lot of current Chinese policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

pt

jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
>I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging,
>and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th-
>century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and
>out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression
>of dissent.

Those problems were EXACTLY why I was surprised it didn't get a nomination.
Because those problems are very much advantages for promoting the book in
China. That's what I found so boggleworthy.

>A minor criticism is that, after Kuang makes a big deal about researching
>Oxford slang of the 1830s, she gives her characters a lot of 20th- and
>21st-century dialogue, which I found jarring.

I didn't find it that jarring because I am living in the middle of it, but
I agree that it won't age well.

I disagree with your spoiler, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging,
>>and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th-
>>century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and
>>out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression
>>of dissent.

Or other forms of oppression.

> Those problems were EXACTLY why I was surprised it didn't get a nomination.
> Because those problems are very much advantages for promoting the book in
> China. That's what I found so boggleworthy.

Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or
people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.

>>A minor criticism is that, after Kuang makes a big deal about researching
>>Oxford slang of the 1830s, she gives her characters a lot of 20th- and
>>21st-century dialogue, which I found jarring.

> I didn't find it that jarring because I am living in the middle of it, but
> I agree that it won't age well.

> I disagree with your spoiler, though.

Did I miss a counterexample?

--
Jerry Friedman

On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
>Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
>It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
>the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
>determined.

I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
she's written stuff critical of China in the past.
>
>If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems
>sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
>for that.
>
>This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining
>and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been
>on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe?
>There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted
>for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a
>little glaring. But it was still great.
>--scott

Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
>>Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
>>It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
>>the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
>>determined.
>
>I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
>she's written stuff critical of China in the past.

Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for "reforming"
and finally writing something less critical.

Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3/25/24 2:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>> On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
>>> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
>>> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
>>> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
>>> determined.
>>
>> I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
>> she's written stuff critical of China in the past.
>
> Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for "reforming"
> and finally writing something less critical.
>
> Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
> --scott

As I noted elsewhere, the good news is that all this resulted in a lot
of publicity for the book, which could well reach a wider audience than
if it *had* won the Hugo.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://leepers.us/evelyn, @eleeper@mastodon.social
Musk cares about the border because "the border" is a publicly-
acceptable euphemism for white supremacy. [@passenger@mastodon.social]

On 3/25/2024 11:29 PM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
> On 3/25/24 2:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Mad Hamish  <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was
>>>> that the
>>>> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely
>>>> pro-Chinese.
>>>> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium
>>>> War, and
>>>> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but
>>>> was
>>>> determined.
>>>
>>> I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
>>> she's written stuff critical of China in the past.
>>
>> Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for
>> "reforming"
>> and finally writing something less critical.
>>
>> Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
>> --scott
>
> As I noted elsewhere, the good news is that all this resulted in a lot
> of publicity for the book, which could well reach a wider audience than
> if it *had* won the Hugo.

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

pt

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:47:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/25/2024 11:29 PM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
>> On 3/25/24 2:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Mad Hamish  <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was
>>>>> that the
>>>>> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely
>>>>> pro-Chinese.
>>>>> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium
>>>>> War, and
>>>>> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but
>>>>> was
>>>>> determined.
>>>>
>>>> I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
>>>> she's written stuff critical of China in the past.
>>>
>>> Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for
>>> "reforming"
>>> and finally writing something less critical.
>>>
>>> Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
>>> --scott
>>
>> As I noted elsewhere, the good news is that all this resulted in a lot
>> of publicity for the book, which could well reach a wider audience than
>> if it *had* won the Hugo.
>
>Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>
>pt

Depends how far back you go in history. How about the first half of
the last half millennium.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:

>
> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>
> pt
>
December 1814 not count?

Tim

Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
> Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

> December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
just confused.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>
>> December 1814 not count?
>
>I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
>invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
anyway.

The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.

>Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
>participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
>flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
>just confused.

Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3/27/2024 5:46 PM, Tim Illingworth wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>>
>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>>
>> pt
>>
> December 1814 not count?

It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.

The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.

Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.

Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world

The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.

pt

On 3/27/2024 6:44 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>
>> December 1814 not count?
>
> I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
> invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
>
> Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
> participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
> flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
> just confused.

This is the first time I've noticed Keith posting in this group. He
usually hangs out in r.a.sf.fandom, but that group makes this one look
busy, and its recently been taken over by Dr Who fans and AI generated
posts.

I don't know if Keith's kill filing of me works on Endless September
but he may need to update his killfile.

pt

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.

Okay, how about Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico in
March, 1916?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
>
>Okay, how about Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico in
>March, 1916?

Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of the
Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?

I seem to recall that Villa had previously been a representaive of the
Mexican government but that at some point he had gone out on his own,
and I think that was before 1916 but I cannot recall precisely.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."