Dave McCarty’s Facebook page is where some are trying – without success – to get full explanations for the ineligibility rulings in the 2023 Hugo Nomination Report released on January 20.
McCarty, a Chengdu Worldcon vice-chair and co-head of the Hugo Awards Selection Executive Division, previously gave File 770 this reason for ruling R. F. Kuang’s Babel, fan writer Paul Weimer, Neil Gaiman’s Sandman tv series, and second-year Astounding Award nominee Xiran Jay Zhao as “not eligible”:
After reviewing the Constitution and the rules we must follow, the administration team determined those works/persons were not eligible.
People have been trying to pry more information out of McCarty in a prodigious exchange on his Facebook page. Initially he referred them to the original reply above. And slapped back at one fellow who persisted in questioning with “Asked and answered.” Then, when that didn’t silence the questioner:
And
Clearly, Joseph Finn isn’t Tom Cruise, and Dave McCarty isn’t Jack Nicholson.
Yet it’s an innate part of human psychology to want to be understood and accepted by other people. The need is so strong that even the formidable McCarty had to make some effort to answer this question.
Neil Gaiman has been quite upset about what is essentially a Catch-22 explanation – the Sandman series was a Rule 3.8.3 casualty, but the individual episode that triggered the rule was also tossed as “not eligible”. Earlier today he had this exchange:
Silvia Moreno-Garcia replied:
When Jon Nepsha tried to lay some guilt on McCarty his friend Tammy Coxen stepped in with a heavy hint that there’s a more noble explanation, it’s just not being said out loud.
But McCarty himself has taken the opposite tack by defending the adequacy of the report.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
@Jay Blanc
Did you not read past Lem Taylor’s first sentence?
@Bruce Baugh
Thank you.
@ Jay Blanc I have no idea what time zone you reside in, but Lem Taylor’s “proposal” was such an obvious satire of the gatekeeping proposals from the pale, stale, and male contingent that your serious response means you should probably go to bed
@Lem Taylor
I’ll admit you had me going for a bit there. 😀
Lem, if that was ironic, my apologies for missing it. My sense of irony mostly died, necrotized, and fell off sometime in the new millennium. I often miss such things now.
Ryan H: I don’t know why this happens, but something in social media flattens perception and often results in a humorous statement being taken as an unironic, seriously-intended statement.
@Mike Glyer: It’s been known for a while that tone doesn’t come through well in printed text. Social media probably makes that worse, because it moves so fast–in the old days, there was a larger chance that if I thought something was meant seriously when I first read it, I’d realize it was intended as a joke before putting my response in the mail, or printing N copies of my commentzine and showing up at the next collation.
That also makes it easier to think of and post a respose to the first couple of lines or at best paragraphs of something without reading to the end.
Vicki Rosenzweig: Something distinguishes the outcome in social media from how it seemed to work in fanzines. You have a point about the amount of time in the response loop. On the one hand, as you say, if it took longer to produce a response there was more opportunity to recognize humorous intent. On the other hand, social media is an environment where not only can a person immediately feed back their first impression, there are also times when people address an ironic/humorous comment as though the speaker meant it as a way of blunting their effect or embarassing them.
Speculation here, but either “Sorry, Ben, you’re out” or “OK, Ben, we accept your resignation” could have been done quickly, even if writing an explanation takes longer.
Removing his name as soon as the decision was made would make sense, even if it deciding where to make the announcement and what to say takes longer. The choice might be between answering “why isn’t Ben Yalow still on staff?” and “why is he still on staff?”
If we’re talking about nuance, you might want to actually read what I wrote, and find that at no point was I saying anything other than taking the opportunity to bring up the difference between Worldcon (event) and Worldcon (administration), and the massively growing rift between them. It might possibly be an error to assume everything I say is intended as an attack on someone. I’m not here to win points and imaginary prizes.
Voting itself aside, since there’s no actual obligation to do so and the process of doing it remotely is usually irritating, the cheapest way to get a membership to any year’s Worldcon is to have bought a site selection token.
I tried to post this series of responses last night, but got “internal error” messages; I was working from a Word document (I do not trust WordpPress), so was able to save them. The discussion has moved on in positive ways, but I spent a lot of time on these, so will be posting them – -and then might also respond to some of the newer posts. (I respond to a number of the responses to Brad, which I’ve put in blockquotes, so I hope who is saying what is clear!).
I suspect that Brad probably fails to realize he is not only gatekeeping but, in the longstanding tradition of dudebros everywhere, digging the hole he is in deeper and deeper with every comment, especially the ones that say “I did not mean what you thought I meant.”
@Bruce Baugh who responded @ Brad Templeton with:
I’m glad you’re taking some time away to recover, but want to leave this note of gratitude and offer a virtual solidarity fistbump to thank you for what you said. I’m feeling much better myself seeing your comments, and the others that follow! And I’m glad to see you’re back in the more recent comments.
I mean, from the start of U.S. fandom (which is the one I know best, and let’s keep in mind that there are fandoms all over the world, all in different national and regional contexts) asynchronous textual communication happened. It was the origin — the fans writing to Hugo Gernsback’s scientifiction magazine (which published addresses) started writing each other and then started getting together with other, local, fans. And then came larger cons and clubs.
Before the internet, there were APAS and Letterzines and fanzines (with LOCs), all full of fen interacting with each other remotely. And as Henry Jenkins has pointed out, fans were among the earliest adopters of the internet.
My fandom spaces include a small campus Star Trek club, Earth’s finest apa (APF-5), regional cons (Seattle, Portland), and then the best of all, LiveJournal (starting in 2003, online LOTR fandom).
@Andrew (not Werdna) in response to Brad’s challenge about membership:
Thank you — I liked your point about how the location made it possible for you and your wife to attend your first con as well as the “what if” speculation! And even though you can sometimes attend f2f, the virtual mode has also been important.
@GiantPanda also in response to Brad’s challenge:
Thank you! The idea that a virtual membership can be a good introduction or foundation for f2f attending is applicable for many of us including me! (May I say your username is great!)
It’s so nice to have the conceptual framework of the introvert hangover these days — and that so many of the people I know attending cons (primarily academic conferences but they’re a lot like fan conventions!) know the concept and understand it (and heck often feel the same).
@Brad Templeton (excerpts from two different replies) said:
Brad: I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that you tend to be describing a whole lot of people (often facing major barriers that you apparently are privileged enough not to face or to even realize exist) as “problems.” I’m sure you don’t intend that meaning, but as the responses to you including mine show, that’s sure as heck what’s coming across. I hope you avoid escalating your metaphor to a “war” one (which often happens in Anglophone rhetoric: see, for example, “the war on poverty,” and “the war on drugs”).
I got the same impression. You keep wanting to duck out of discussing specifics to focus on Major Philosophical Principles, but really, what a lot of people are pointing out is that “remote voting” has happened (it was US!), is happening, and will be happening, often by people who have never attended a WorldCon f2f. And the more you keep having to tell people that “they” didn’t understand what you meant, the more I doubt the problem is with our understanding.
Stop digging.
@Mike Dunford to Brad Templeton (two responses) said:
Thank you for this lovely and concise takedown (and also thank you for the information on trademark issues!). I always enjoy reading comments by people who are knowledgeable about fandom issues and about specific professional arenas (in this case, the legal stuff).
And, I would add, little about the toxicity is diluted by the “just joking” excuse!
Even more gratitude for this lovely expression of welcome (rather than gatekeeping). And yes, it’s been around forever, and I think that the Sad and Rabid Puppies were just one of the more extreme manifestations of the phenomenon, especially because they targeted writers (many of whom were fans first and yet were being told they didn’t belong, and even more nastily, that they were only winning Hugos because of who they were, not the quality of their work).
@Madame Hardy said:
Thank you! Yes! Brad keeps talking about “the problem” while ignoring the fact that he’s talking about people (as the problem).
@Joyce Reynolds-Ward to Brad Templeton said:
Brad really has no idea about the existence of all the types of fans who don’t fit his very narrow dudebro definition of fandom, I got awfully tired of that attitude in the 1970s, and have no patience at all for it in the 21st century!
If all goes as planned I’ll be attending my first in-person WorldCon at age 70! WOOT! (I’m also planning on getting third tattoo to celebrate making it to 70).
@rahaeli said to Brad:
Quotes the whole thing just to admire and fangirl the sheer beauty of the prose (especially the syntax!) and the BURN!!!! Thank you!
@PhilRM
Thank you! solidarity fistbump
@Cassy B said:
I could never get into any of the gaming, but had lots of women friends who did, and yeah. The RPGs fandoms have been amongst the most toxic over the decades (as Gamergate proved way beyond any doubt).
@Meredith, and @Bruce Baugh:
Meredith said:
@Meredith: So lovely to see you! High fives, hugs (if welcome), and solidarity fistbump!
Bruce said:
Fantastic metaphor — and yes!
And really, the idea that there’s some inherent/essential “trufan” that exists all on their own is sooooooo limited (libertarian theory of fandom, perhaps???).
How does anybody know that the “dabbler” won’t become more involved if, you know, they are welcomed rather than insulted or shunned?
Thank you all!
holds breath and presses post comment [after copying the text again]
happy dances
Mike: thank you for unspamming my earlier comment, and responding so quickly to my report of problems with this one. You rock! And I hope you were able to get enough sleep last night!
More later — must run out to walk dogs and then grocery shop for the week.
@Jay Blanc
I didn’t think it was an attack. It just seemed an oddly sincere response toward a sarcastic joke.
@robinareid
Thank you for the highlights reel of gems from this thread!
Jay Blanc: I feel uncomfortable about Ben Yalow’s removal to persona non-grata status. Particularly done by unannounced erasure. From the various comments made inside and outside of China, that after Ben Yalow’s “Worldcon In China” bid won it was coopted by a a consortium of Publishing and Resort Development concerns. And that Yalow was relegated to figurehead.
Do not portray Yalow as an unwitting dupe.
He knew exactly what he was doing when he chose to avidly spearhead the Chengdu bid, and he advised Chinese fans how to ensure that they won Site Selection. He made numerous promises to Western fans about the bid (oh, yes, of course we’ll be able to run a clean Hugo Awards program!), and — assuming he didn’t already know that wouldn’t be the case, which I highly doubt — he had the ability to publicly walk away when it became clear that they could not, in fact, run a legitimate Hugo Awards program. He was also one of the Hugo Administration team.
I mean, it’s no surprise that Yalow would blatantly take actions that would screw over Worldcon members. Back in 2015-2016, he was extremely vocal about advocating that what the Puppies did was perfectly fine, and he worked very, very hard at trying to sabotage the passage of EPH.
The only surprise is that it’s taken this long for SMOFs to finally put a stop to his sabotage of Worldcon and the Hugo Awards.
MODERATOR’S NOTE. I’m going to turn off comments overnight. Will reopen them tomorrow when I’m available to moderate.
Comments are reopened.
I am not personally on Facebook, but a person who is has sent me this public statement posted by McCarty last night on his Facebook page:
I note that it’s a handsome apology for acting like an asshole, but says nothing at all about the evident subversion of the Hugos. I expect folks here would rather that McCarty kept being an asshole as long as he admitted what actually happened (Incompetence? Coercion? Soft censorship? Hard censorship? Some combination of the above?) to make the Hugo results so obviously problematic.
Mike, I’ve reposted a statement from McCarty on his Facebook page which has gone into moderation; I don’t THINK it breaks any rules, but I apologize if it does. Or perhaps you just have strong moderation enabled on this thread, which I completely understand….
I for one would.
Cassie B: Because of past experiences with commenter interaction I moderate for the word “asshole” so I can look at the context before releasing a comment that contains it. Most get approved and yours has been.
Yes, an apology for the least of the things he did to the Worlcon/Hugos community.
And I feel uncomfortable with Ben and Dave being on any Concom or bid committee, because they are still hiding facts involved in this whole matter.
I’ve worked with Ben for several years, and being relegated to being a figurehead is the last thing I believe he’d accept.
@robinareid: oh wow. Thank you, on my own sake and for the marvelous collation.
@Casey B: I apparently retain enough of my Protestant youth to read McCarty’s apology-shaped post and think “yes, but where are the fruits of repentance?” He’s not fixing any of the problems – neither the unexplained actions nor the outright impossible-for-honest-work calculations – and not actually promising too anything differently in the future. He just wants us not to be mad at him.
I mean I’m not expecting either of those things to really change.
Re: Apology:
Good that he appolized for his tone, but its still weird, that his Facebook is the only connection to the events.
That he doesnt apologizes for the kerfuffle itself was not to expected, since its what “he had to do”
I also agree that Glasgow had to let Ben go, it they wanted to build trust.
It is a volunteer job and no one is garantied that they can do it.
Ben was one of the people responsible for the Hugos and hasn’t sad anything about this.
Talking with lawyers is good and fine, but at the moment I (and many more) don’t trust that guy, he betrayed us. I don’t think this can be repaired.
It was probably also for the best that they let him go without anoucing it (okay a Ben is no longer part of our team would be okay), because anythink else ads more drama, that is bad for the con.
I find it impossible to interpret
Any further questions or concerns about the 2023 Hugo Awards should be
emailed to
followed by the completely unresponsive Worldcon email address as anything but McCarty flipping off everyone who’s upset with him.
The email I sent days ago about In the Serpant’s Wake (which should be answerable?) didn’t actually bounce but probably got lost (trashed?) in the flood of WTF emails.
I think Glasgow’s been very savvy with quick, reassuring communication via official channels. I hope there are more statements to come, but I would expect going into greater detail (e.g. who’s resigned or been booted, etc.) might require additional consultation amongst the conrunners and with a lawyer (given that there’s now precedent of Worldcons being sued and widespread talk about legal exposure). I at least would be surprised if we see any substantive statements in the near future.
For the record, “trufan” doesn’t mean what people think it means.
The Enchanted Duplicator.
What THE ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR, written in 1954, is about is entirely long obsolete and irrelevant to 21st century fandom, but it’s where the term came from.
For the record.
I have no other point in noting this other than historical accuracy. Let me repeat: I have no other point in noting this other than historical accuracy. I have no other point in noting this other than historical accuracy. I have no other point in noting this other than historical accuracy. I have no other point in noting this other than historical accuracy. I have no other point in noting this other than historical accuracy.
Anyone who claims that noting the etymology is itself gatekeeping will be glared at. Please move along now. Thank you.
People have been claiming this since the internet began interneting, and yet somehow writers such as P. G. Wodehouse and Art Buchwald and Mark Twain and Dave Barry and Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams and a thousand other names have demonstrated that this is utter and complete nonsense.
Tone doesn’t come through if bad writers are writing or if people are looking for something to fight over.
If sufficiently skilled writers of humor are writing, and people give the writer the benefit of any doubt, tone comes across pretty well in many cases.
This is why satire is a thing, even on the internet.
I’m a fan of Alexandra Petri these days, myself. Among other funny contemporary writers.
That’s been known to happen, he reminded Ed. Just noting.
@Bruce Baugh: Longitude? Balderdash! It is self-evident that it should be required that the locations of any four consecutive Worldcons constitute the vertices of a tetrahedron whose interior includes the center of the Earth.
@Patrick Morris Miller: Ah, the natural extension of Brunner’s game called “fencing” (from Shockwave Rider)
@Gary Farber
I skimmed the text of that and read a summary and: please elaborate as to how.
And even if you’re right about the meaning in 1954, that was written 70 years ago and that’s plenty of time for words to take on new meanings. Arguments from etymology only have so much power anyway, the usual example is a particular word meaning “miserly”.
@Jake
It starts on page 26:
A fun bit of etymology, but I don’t really see it as revealing an alternative meaning of ‘trufan’. Even in a fictional context, it’s still being used to mean “true fan” – a more humorous/allegorical definition than how it’s been used in subsequent decades, but the same basic concept. Anyway, I agree with you that even if it did mean something different in 1954, that wouldn’t mean people were inaccurate for using it with the contemporary meaning. Language evolves.
@Gary Farber
Ever hear of tagging your snark? /s
@ Patrick Morris Miller: I respect that.
Considering that the Earth is far from an ideal sphere, this tetrahedral plan seems to require use of stratospheric airships.
Only benevolent airships, I hope.
@Brad Templeton
How is that different from what Mr. McCarty did? He said all that… he simply will not specify what portiona of the WSFS Constitution justifies his actions
Tetrahedra are not always regular.
@Patrick Morris Miller: get them some bran fiber, then.
Good point, my bad, apologies to all. This reading makes sense, another and I guess even better one.
Pingback: Forfattere sensurert fra den spekulative fiksjonens egen Oscar-utdeling - TBA