....the big Times, that is, or, as it styles itself, The New York
Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/books/booksupdate/hugo-awards-
china.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XE0.U8XL.awbCZKH-2D-D&smid=url-share

This link should be accessible outside the paywall, as I got it
by clicking on the Share button (and forgive me if you have to
copy-paste it in pieces). The article was published on the Times
website on Feb. 17, but I saw it only yesterday when it was put
into the print edition, as I read the digital mock-up of same.

In article <pan$3e26$3a7e5052$340f7b3$c0f59f1d@cpacker.org>,
Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
>...the big Times, that is, or, as it styles itself, The New York
>Times:
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/books/booksupdate/hugo-awards-
>china.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XE0.U8XL.awbCZKH-2D-D&smid=url-share
>
>This link should be accessible outside the paywall, as I got it
>by clicking on the Share button (and forgive me if you have to
>copy-paste it in pieces). The article was published on the Times
>website on Feb. 17, but I saw it only yesterday when it was put
>into the print edition, as I read the digital mock-up of same.

The fascinating thing about the Hugo Scandal What Scandals at Midnight
is how every day seems to bring a new, even more horrifying revelation.
So far we've had the numbers being broken, the US/Can committee members
politically vetting nominees (incompetently), ethnic cleansing of
the Chinese candidates (which is why the finalists were so white
despite thriving Chinese SF publishing and large numbers of avid
Chinese SF fans), the admin responsible for the above is an accused
sex pest, a WSFS member making comments that suggested they don't or
cannot protect their marks, the possibility WSFS has done their taxes
wrong, some interesting accounting anomalies, and the whole light treason
thing. Oh, and the hotel itself might have been toxic.

Oh, and not everyone associated with the Hugo fuckery has been
pried loose of committee positions, which is a bold choice.

One bright light is that EPH turns to have the unintended property
of making it very obvious when someone fucks with the numbers.

Oh well, WSFS died once before and was revived. It can be done again.

--
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 2/22/2024 4:00 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
> ...the big Times, that is, or, as it styles itself, The New York
> Times:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/books/booksupdate/hugo-awards-
> china.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XE0.U8XL.awbCZKH-2D-D&smid=url-share
>
> This link should be accessible outside the paywall, as I got it
> by clicking on the Share button (and forgive me if you have to
> copy-paste it in pieces). The article was published on the Times
> website on Feb. 17, but I saw it only yesterday when it was put
> into the print edition, as I read the digital mock-up of same.

Samantha Smith disavowed her 2023 Best Short Story Hugo for "Rabbit
Test" on February 17 --
https://samtasticbooks.com/2024/02/17/rabbit-test-unwins-the-hugo/

Adrian Tchaikovsky disavowed his 2023 Best Series Hugo for the "Children
of Time" series on February 21 -- https://adriantchaikovsky.com/

As an aside, comparing the way the "vetting" of Hugo nominees was done
in Chengdu with the way it was done in other one-party states like East
German and the USSR (which has been thoroughly documented since
1990-1992), what stands out is how permissive and amateurish the Chengdu
system was.

Take the early 1920s, i.e. the relatively liberal years of the Soviet
regime, when the national censorship office had to deal with privately
owned publishers, Soviet authors openly publishing their books abroad
and having them re-imported, etc. During that period Soviet censors
regularly compiled lengthy dossiers on Russian-language publishers at
home and abroad as well as on emigre authors. They did it in-house and
sent the resulting "secret bulletins" to all members of the ruling
Politburo for review. Using non-Communist foreigners with no credentials
to do a superficial review of foreign authors? It would have gone over
like a lead balloon.

In article <ur7rb1$3un4l$1@dont-email.me>,
Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> wrote:
>On 2/22/2024 4:00 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
>> ...the big Times, that is, or, as it styles itself, The New York
>> Times:
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/books/booksupdate/hugo-awards-
>> china.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XE0.U8XL.awbCZKH-2D-D&smid=url-share
>>
>> This link should be accessible outside the paywall, as I got it
>> by clicking on the Share button (and forgive me if you have to
>> copy-paste it in pieces). The article was published on the Times
>> website on Feb. 17, but I saw it only yesterday when it was put
>> into the print edition, as I read the digital mock-up of same.
>
>Samantha Smith disavowed her 2023 Best Short Story Hugo for "Rabbit
>Test" on February 17 --
>https://samtasticbooks.com/2024/02/17/rabbit-test-unwins-the-hugo/
>
>Adrian Tchaikovsky disavowed his 2023 Best Series Hugo for the "Children
>of Time" series on February 21 -- https://adriantchaikovsky.com/
>
>As an aside, comparing the way the "vetting" of Hugo nominees was done
>in Chengdu with the way it was done in other one-party states like East
>German and the USSR (which has been thoroughly documented since
>1990-1992), what stands out is how permissive and amateurish the Chengdu
>system was.
>
>Take the early 1920s, i.e. the relatively liberal years of the Soviet
>regime, when the national censorship office had to deal with privately
>owned publishers, Soviet authors openly publishing their books abroad
>and having them re-imported, etc. During that period Soviet censors
>regularly compiled lengthy dossiers on Russian-language publishers at
>home and abroad as well as on emigre authors. They did it in-house and
>sent the resulting "secret bulletins" to all members of the ruling
>Politburo for review. Using non-Communist foreigners with no credentials
>to do a superficial review of foreign authors? It would have gone over
>like a lead balloon.

As someone pointed out on the social medias, the one entity that does
not seem to have had an active role in the fuck up was the actual
Chinese Communist Party. What we got was Westerners cosplaying state
censors.
--
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 2/22/2024 9:40 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
[snip-snip]
> ethnic cleansing of
> the Chinese candidates (which is why the finalists were so white
> despite thriving Chinese SF publishing and large numbers of avid
> Chinese SF fans)

It's still unclear what happened with the Chinese nominees.

1. We have a "validation spreadsheet" which shows numerous Chinese works
at the top of many categories' lists. They did not appear on nomination
lists --
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhCwKLMydCto6HvXvcqjR553DqrhTfBu/view?usp=drive_link

2. We have Dave McCarthy's email sent on June 7, 2023 at 6:18pm
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_QqmsxQkACoYcxSx2LVqbxD39-DJI_gS/view),
which says:

> Tomorrow I have a 4 hour meeting with my chinese counterparts to
> look at ballot detail and determine if any ballots are to be
> voided (which happens with frequency so that it's not *really*
> that controversial if we determine we need to do it)

3. We have Diane Lacey's letter, which mentions "collusion in a Chinese
publication that had published a nominations list, a slate as it were,
and so those ballots were identified and eliminated." --
https://file770.com/diane-laceys-letter-about-the-2023-hugos/

We don't know what happened during the "4 hour meeting with [Dave
McCarty's] Chinese counterparts" which was supposed to "void" ballots,
but, given the composition of the Hugo administration committee:

Dave McCarty, Ben Yalow, Ann Marie Rudolph, Diane Lacey, Shi Chen, Joe
Yao, Tina Wang, Dongsheng Guo, Bo Pang
(https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2023-hugo-awards/)

it seems likely that an agreement was reached between Western and
Chinese administrators.

Camestros Felapton hypothesizes
(https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2024/02/16/hugo-2023-here-is-what-i-think-happened/)
that:

> I believe Best Novel, Best Novella and Best Series were rigged to
> ensure that the finalist list ONLY had English-language nominees
> to ensure that a Chinese work did not win those categories. I
> assume this was done to ensure the 2023 Hugo Awards would get
> international coverage. I assume shorter fiction was allowed to
> have some Chinese works to ensure some Chinese wins for internal
> media coverage. Similar actions took place sporadically through
> other categories, including some down ballot categories.

which is possible, but we won't know for sure until we learn more about
what happened during that meeting.

On 2/22/2024 11:24 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <ur7rb1$3un4l$1@dont-email.me>,
> Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> wrote:
>> [snip-snip]
>> As an aside, comparing the way the "vetting" of Hugo nominees was done
>> in Chengdu with the way it was done in other one-party states like East
>> German and the USSR (which has been thoroughly documented since
>> 1990-1992), what stands out is how permissive and amateurish the Chengdu
>> system was.
>>
>> Take the early 1920s, i.e. the relatively liberal years of the Soviet
>> regime, when the national censorship office had to deal with privately
>> owned publishers, Soviet authors openly publishing their books abroad
>> and having them re-imported, etc. During that period Soviet censors
>> regularly compiled lengthy dossiers on Russian-language publishers at
>> home and abroad as well as on emigre authors. They did it in-house and
>> sent the resulting "secret bulletins" to all members of the ruling
>> Politburo for review. Using non-Communist foreigners with no credentials
>> to do a superficial review of foreign authors? It would have gone over
>> like a lead balloon.
>
> As someone pointed out on the social medias, the one entity that does
> not seem to have had an active role in the fuck up was the actual
> Chinese Communist Party. What we got was Westerners cosplaying state
> censors.

The published emails say
(https://file770.com/the-2023-hugo-awards-a-report-on-censorship-and-exclusion/):

> At the moment, the best guidance I have is ‘mentions of Hong Kong,
> Taiwan, Tibet, negatives of China’. I will try to get better
> guidance when I have a chance to dig into this deeper with the
> Chinese folks on the committee.

So McCarty received "guidance" re: what needed to be removed from the
Chinese members of the committee. Whether they, in turn, received
guidance from others or whether they acted based on general principles
like "negatives of China" is not clear.

On 2/22/2024 11:38 AM, Ahasuerus wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 9:40 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> [snip-snip]
>> ethnic cleansing of
>> the Chinese candidates (which is why the finalists were so white
>> despite thriving Chinese SF publishing and large numbers of avid
>> Chinese SF fans)
>
> It's still unclear what happened with the Chinese nominees.
>
> 1. We have a "validation spreadsheet" which shows numerous Chinese works
> at the top of many categories' lists. They did not appear on nomination
> lists --
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhCwKLMydCto6HvXvcqjR553DqrhTfBu/view?usp=drive_link
>
> 2. We have Dave McCarthy's email sent on June 7, 2023 at 6:18pm
> (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_QqmsxQkACoYcxSx2LVqbxD39-DJI_gS/view), which says:
>
> > Tomorrow I have a 4 hour meeting with my chinese counterparts to
> > look at ballot detail and determine if any ballots are to be
> > voided (which happens with frequency so that it's not *really*
> > that controversial if we determine we need to do it)
>
> 3. We have Diane Lacey's letter, which mentions "collusion in a Chinese
> publication that had published a nominations list, a slate as it were,
> and so those ballots were identified and eliminated." --
> https://file770.com/diane-laceys-letter-about-the-2023-hugos/
>
> We don't know what happened during the "4 hour meeting with [Dave
> McCarty's] Chinese counterparts" which was supposed to "void" ballots,
> but, given the composition of the Hugo administration committee:
>
> Dave McCarty, Ben Yalow, Ann Marie Rudolph, Diane Lacey, Shi Chen, Joe
> Yao, Tina Wang, Dongsheng Guo, Bo Pang
> (https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2023-hugo-awards/)
>
> it seems likely that an agreement was reached between Western and
> Chinese administrators.
>
> Camestros Felapton hypothesizes
> (https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2024/02/16/hugo-2023-here-is-what-i-think-happened/) that:
>
> > I believe Best Novel, Best Novella and Best Series were rigged to
> > ensure that the finalist list ONLY had English-language nominees
> > to ensure that a Chinese work did not win those categories. I
> > assume this was done to ensure the 2023 Hugo Awards would get
> > international coverage. I assume shorter fiction was allowed to
> > have some Chinese works to ensure some Chinese wins for internal
> > media coverage. Similar actions took place sporadically through
> > other categories, including some down ballot categories.
>
> which is possible, but we won't know for sure until we learn more about
> what happened during that meeting.

BTW, back in late January I came across a repost/translation of a
Chinese fan's comments about the Hugos. The post stated that the author
had been involved in the Hugo process (committee member?) and that he or
she had a conflict with Chinese members of the Hugo committee with
various accusations flying back and forth. At the time I had trouble
parsing the post, in part due to lacking context and in part due to the
quality of the translation. It would be interesting to find and re-parse
the post now that we have more context.