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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      1002·
      9 months ago

      These events keep getting held in places like China and Saudi Arabia, where the organizers know they are going to have to make major concessions to those governments, because the organizers care far more about money than they do the event. At least that’s my theory.

      • throw4w4y5
        27·
        9 months ago

        using money to project their influence and values overseas, sport-washing and peddling fossil fuels…

    • Wrrzag@lemmy.ml
      131·
      9 months ago

      It’s a better argument to not trust the awards admin with anything from now in, given that they did that independently and removed a ton of Chinese authors from the ballots.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        6·
        9 months ago

        This isn’t the first time the Hugo has been subject to controversy, about a decade ago most of the awards went to “no award” and the nominees got “asterisk awards” because a group openly coordinated to nominate a slate of works (which they claimed others were doing less publicly in the past). The voting rules were changed over this one.