(1) WHEN YOU DISCOVER YOU’RE AN “INELIGIBLE”. Xiran Jay Zhao just got the news.
(2) ONLINE DISCUSSION OF CHENGDU WORLDCON HUGO NOMINATIONS REPORT. Hugo finalist Arthur Liu / HeavenDuke adds context to the 2023 Hugo Awards voting in an X.com thread that begins here. An excerpt:
(3) GRAPHIC EXAMPLES. Heather Rose Jones’ “A Comparison of Hugo Nomination Distribution Statistics” at Alpennia takes the 2023 Hugo Nominations report and the statistics from selected other years to create graphs that show just how anomalous the 2023 results are. A very helpful tool.
(4) RESPONSES TO STAT RELEASE BY THREE HUGO WINNERS.
Ursula Vernon said on Bluesky:
Seanan McGuire said on Bluesky:
Chris Barkley told Facebook readers this evening:
As someone who attended the Chengdu Worldcon AND was the recipient of Hugo Award in the Best Fan Writer category, I am upset, incensed and angry at the exclusion of R.F. Kuang’s Babel and my friend, colleague and peer, Paul Weimer from the 2023 Final Ballot. There were numerous other irregularities and outrages as well.
I don’t know for certain if Paul Weimer’s presence on the ballot would have may any difference in the outcome and to some extent, that has weighted heavily on my mind since Saturday’s release.
We may never know what actually happened here but I would like to thank the people who voted for me and have repeatedly reiterated their support for my fan writing and took the time to reassure me that my work was worthy of the award.
I also know that this incident, whether it was at the behest of the government of the People’s Republic or China or some other entity, will NEVER be forgotten and that doing something about preventing such a thing from happening again will be at the top of the agenda at the Glasgow Worldcon Business Meeting in August…
(5) IN TIMES TO COME. John Scalzi’s “What’s Up With Babel and the Hugos?” at Whatever includes some ideas about what should happen going forward.
4. Likewise, depending on what we learn about these disqualifications, next year’s Worldcon Business meeting would be a fine time to offer proposals for disqualification transparency (i.e., there have to be reasons detailed other than “because”) and for dealing with state censorship regarding finalists and the award process.
5. Even the speculation of state censorship should give pause to site selection voters regarding future Worldcons. For example, there is a 2028 Worldcon proposal for Kampala, Uganda, and while the proposed Worldcon itself offers a laudable and comprehensive Code of Conduct page, Uganda is a country with some of the most severe laws in the world regarding LGBTQ+ people, including laws involving censorship. If the state leaned hard on the local Worldcon regarding what was acceptable on the Hugo ballot, would it be safe for the organizers to ignore this pressure? This is now an issue we will need to consider, among the many others, in where the Worldcon lands every year.
(6) 2024 DEADLINE TO QUALIFY AS HUGO VOTER. If this weekend’s Hugo Awards discussion hasn’t convinced you there might be a better way to use your money, like throwing it in the ocean, and you want to be able to nominate for the 2024 Hugo Awards but weren’t a member of Chengdu, you need to get a membership in the Glasgow 2024 Worldcon by January 31: Memberships and Tickets. [Via Jed Hartman.]
(7) MEANWHILE, IN CHINA. [Item by Ersatz Culture.] Here are some Chinese user comments regarding the Hugo nomination news. As these are (mostly) from regular fans or individuals, I’ve not included their usernames, but all are on public posts that anyone can access – I imagine stuff circulating in small private WeChat/Weixin groups (which I don’t have access to) will be much harsher than these.
All English translations via Google Translate, which doesn’t handle the slangy language used very well, so some of these are a bit opaque, but the general vibe should be pretty clear. As yet, I’ve not come across any commentary about the works that just missed out on being finalists; hopefully that might appear once the initial controversies have died down a bit.
现在对国内的任何文学奖都失去信任，都不过是一小撮人自娱自乐地玩票而已。
Nowadays, we have lost trust in any domestic literary awards. They are just a small group of people playing for their own entertainment.
哈哈哈，目测你们没有审核机制，干的啥事啊
Hahaha, I guess you don’t have an audit mechanism, what are you doing?
令人不满在于数据披露拖延、不透明、疏忽大意，有呼声很高的作者和候选莫名被判定“不具备资格”，在于评奖数据显露出的组织管理混乱，而不是你以为的“烂作得奖”，只要符合规则，谁得奖都是该的，因为机制如此。所以我请你在开地图炮宣泄情绪之前，先了解一下始末
(replying to another user’s comment) The dissatisfaction lies in the delay, opacity and negligence in data disclosure. Some highly vocal authors and candidates were inexplicably judged to be “ineligible”. The dissatisfaction lies in the organizational and management chaos revealed by the award data, rather than the “bad work winning the award” as you thought. “As long as the rules are followed, whoever wins the prize deserves it, because the mechanism is like this. So I ask you to understand the whole story before opening the map cannon to vent your emotions. [Note: I’m not sure what “opening the map cannon” is a euphemism for, but I think something like “setting off fireworks” might be a more reasonable translation,]
真丢脸，无话可说????对“环境污染”放任自流，各种花样层出不穷，无法理解这样的不作为。
It’s so shameful, I have nothing to say ???? Let’s let “environmental pollution” go unchecked, with all kinds of tricks emerging in endlessly, I can’t understand such inaction.
太丢人了
So embarrassing
丢脸
shameful
不是有stuff说了，公布一眼假的数据是为了表明他们也很无奈
Isn’t that what stuff said? The purpose of publishing fake data is to show that they are also helpless.
那到底有多无奈呢，总不会被枪指着头吧，感觉都是托词，总之不想负责
(reply to previous comment) So how helpless are you? You won’t have a gun pointed at your head. It feels like it’s all an excuse. In short, you don’t want to be responsible.
丢人丢到家了
I’m so embarrassed.
咋回事
What’s going on
一地鸡毛…控奖真是有点
It’s a piece of cake… Controlling awards is really a bit tricky
呵呵，这不明摆着么
Haha, isn’t this obvious? (note: I think this might make more sense translated as “blatant”)
国外网友表示雨果组织方所谓过去三个月仔细检查核准数据的说法难以让人信服，毕竟现在还有一个类别里同样的作品出现两次的错误（指最佳短中篇类别的《图灵大排档》）
Foreign netizens said that Hugo organizers’ claim of carefully checking the approval data in the past three months is unconvincing. After all, there is still a category where the same work has errors twice (referring to “Turing” in the best short and medium novel category). Food stalls》)
无非三个原因：商业运作，草台班子，不可说因素
There are no more than three reasons: business operation, grassroots team, and unspeakable factors
怕只怕有心人……
I’m just afraid of someone with a bad intention…
(8) CENSORS, CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM. “After national backlash, Florida lawmakers eye changes to book restrictions” at Politico.
Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature wanted to keep obscene books out of the hands of kids. But some are now acknowledging they created a “logistical nightmare” that lawmakers are trying to rein in.
Legislators this month introduced a new idea to curb frivolous challenges to books — one of the first admissions the law, which tightened scrutiny around books with sexual content in K-12 schools, may have gone too far. The potential solution: allowing local schools to charge some people a $100 fee if they want to object to more than five books.
“I’m happy that we are digging in and trying to remove reading material that is inappropriate for our children,” said state Rep. Dana Trabulsy, a Republican from Fort Pierce who is sponsoring the legislation. “But I think [book challengers] really need to be respectful of the amount of books that they are pouring into schools at one time.”Florida’s Legislature in 2023 expanded education transparency laws by requiring books considered pornographic, harmful to minors or that depict sexual activity to be pulled from shelves within five days and remain out of circulation for the duration of any challenge. If school officials deem a book inappropriate, it can be permanently removed from circulation or restricted to certain grade levels.
The law caused a national outcry after local schools received hundreds of challenges to a wide range of books, leading to reviews of titles like Ernest Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls” and “And Tango Makes Three,” a kids book about a penguin family with two dads. It’s also led to multiple lawsuits against top education officials and local school boards asserting that the restrictions violate free speech. Florida, according to the free speech advocacy group PEN America, has “banned” more books than any other state — some 1,406 works total….
(9) MEMORY LANE. (A 1984 REFERENCE COULDN’T BE MORE TIMELY!)
[Written by Cat Eldridge.]
1984 — On this day forty years ago, Apple (then know as Apple Computer) began selling its first Macintosh. It featured an 8 MHz processor and 128k of RAM in a beige all-in-one case with a 9-inch monochrome display — all for around $2,500. That’d be $7,380 today.
Now I’ll connect it to our genre, Apple for the Mac’s arrival with its 1984 commercial that aired during a break in the third quarter of Super Bowl XVIII. That commercial was based of course on that George Orwell novel. It starts off with the opening of “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like 1984.”
Ridley Scott was the director. Steve Jobs hired him to do it just after Blade Runner came out. Though the press said Scott spent a million dollars on it, he has said in several interviews since that Apple budgeted it at a quarter of that so he got creative, meaning instead of performers in Britain (where he filmed it) who had Union standing and would have cost him serious money, those are actually skinheads playing all those drones.
(This being 1984, those Union performers that there was got the Union minimum of twenty-five dollars for a day’s work.)
Anya Major is the sledge hammer throwing runner. She beat all models and runners who tested in a London park, most couldn’t lift the hammer, and several threw nearby parked windshields. And yes, that is actual glass that she smashes though of course it gets enhanced afterwards.
She has only one other video appearance as Natika in Elton’s 1985 “National” video. Well and the documentary done about this commercial. Of course there’s a documentary. When isn’t there?
Naturally the lawyers got involved. Because the ad looked an awfully lot like a scene from the 1984 film — which I’ve not seen so I don’t know how much it looks like that film — the Estate sent a cease-and-desist letter to Apple, and the commercial never aired on television again.
The commercial aired only twice on American television. It had been first screened in December 1983, right before the one am sign-off on KMVT in Twin Falls, Idoho, which made it eligible for advertising industry awards for that year. That’s why it got to win a Clio Award for Creative Excellence in Advertising and Design, a very high honor indeed.
In addition, starting on January 17, 1984, it was screened prior to previews in movie theaters for a few weeks.
It’s on YouTube, though, so you can it see here.
(10) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY.
[Written by Cat Eldridge.]
Born January 21, 1933 — Judith Merril, (Died 1997). Yes, I know Judith Merril is a pen name but it’s the name on her writing, so it’s the only name that I’m interested in for this Birthday. Let us get started.
She was no doubt most excellent SF writer. Her first novel, Shadow in the Hearth, was written by herself. It was published by Doubleday in 1950 with the scary cover art by Edward Kasper. Geoff Conklin said her first novel was a “masterly example of sensitive and perceptive story-telling”. And I agree.
Gunner Cade was under her Cyril Judd pen name, written in collaboration with Cyril Kornbluth, as was Outpost Mars from Simon & Schuster just two years later, with a much more traditional SF cover. The novel itself is quite well done.
Outpost Mars was also given a paperback edition from Dell that would get a very traditional SF cover by Richard Powers. It’s a great look at a Mars-based doctor, the colony, and their dealing and the Earth company and its meddling.
Eight years after Outpost Mars, her novels come to an end with The Tomorrow People. It is also her first novel not from a major house, being printed by Pyramid Books.
(I’m going to leave it to someone here who’s more knowledgeable than me about fanzines to talk about them.)
Her short fiction is some thirty pieces deep, including a few collaborations. She co-wrote a story each with Kornbluth and Pohl. I’ve have read more than a few of her stories, there’s not a weak one, and even the ones written in the Forties still hold up very well. Which collection is a good question. That’s easy as NESFA, as always is our friend here publishing Homecalling and Other Stories: The Complete Solo Short SF of Judith Merril.
She was not nominated for any Hugos in her lifetime. She, along with Emily Pohl-Weary, granddaughter of her and Frederik Pohl, would win at Torcon 3 for Better to Have Loved: The Life of Judith Merril.
(11) COMICS SECTION.
- Tom Gauld probably didn’t need to find out about this from the sff field, much as it applies.
(12) MAESTRO’S NAME OVER THE DOOR. Deadline is on hand when “Sony Pictures & Steven Spielberg Dedicate John Williams Music Building”. (Photo at the link.)
“The first time I came to this studio was 1940 when my father brought me here to show me the stage, and I was about 9 or 10 years old, and I thought, ‘Some day this will all be mine!’ It’s finally come to be – it’s only taken me 92 years to get here!” That’s what five-time Oscar winner and 53-time nominee John Williams said as the curtain was raised on the iconic Sony Pictures Entertainment lot’s newly renamed John Williams Music Building.
Joining in the celebration — and it was a celebration — were Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group Chairman and CEO Tom Rothman, SPE Chairman and CEO Tony Vinciquerra (who made opening remarks), filmmaker J.J. Abrams and of course, Williams’ longtime collaborator Steven Spielberg, who instigated the idea of putting the legendary composer’s name on the building where they have worked on 20 or their 29 films, as Spielberg noted….
(13) SHE’LL BE BACK. Did no one ever tell them that when it comes to a choice between the truth and the legend, print the legend? “Reacher Showrunner Shares the Surprising Story Behind That Terminator 2 Reference” at CBR.com.
Reacher Season 2’s reference to Terminator 2: Judgment Day had nothing to do with the casting of Robert Patrick.
In the second season of the hit Prime Video series, Patrick, who played the T-1000 in Terminator 2, played the role of Shane Langston, a foe to Alan Ritchson’s Jack Reacher. The Season 2 premiere included a cheeky reference to Terminator 2 when Frances Neagley used the alias Sarah Conner, a nod to Linda Hamilton’s Terminator franchise character. When he’s asked by a henchman, “Who’s Sarah Connor?,” Patrick’s Langston replied, “I don’t give a sh*t.” It’s a stark contrast to the character he played in Terminator 2, where killing Sarah’s son was the T-1000’s sole objective.
Per TVLine, showrunner Nick Santora revealed that the Terminator 2 reference was not written in to the show because of Robert Patrick’s casting. Santora wanted to make it clear, noting how “everyone thinks we’re so smart and funny for doing it,” but that the Sarah Connor line was “in there before Robert Patrick came in. I don’t want to lie; that’s the truth.“…
(14) ABOUT UGANDA. Fans are already concerned about the prospects of a Uganda Worldcon bid. Something more to keep in mind: “Ugandan internet propaganda network exposed by the BBC”.
…They all claimed to be Ugandan citizens – often women – whose accounts appeared to have the sole purpose of posting praise for the president and pushing back against critics.
The Ugandan Media Centre, which handles public communications on behalf of the government, did not respond to our requests for comment.
A sprawling network of fake accounts
By analysing those accounts’ behaviour, BBC Verify was able to map out a network of nearly 200 fake social media accounts operating on X and on Facebook (even though the latter has been blocked in Uganda since 2021).
The vast majority of these accounts used stolen images as profile pictures – often social media photos of models, influencers, and actresses from across the world. But none of the usernames used by them appeared to be linked to real individuals in Uganda or Tanzania….
(15) CALLING OUT MAO. Inverse recounts a bit of Chinese sff history in “44 Years Ago, a Revolutionary Sci-Fi Movie Ushered in a New Golden Age For the Genre”.
Imagine a world where scientists are banned from and even persecuted for practicing their research in technological advancement. This was the reality in China during Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. Fueled by a desire to remove all forms of capitalism from their society, Mao’s followers destroyed laboratories and burned any literature related to science — including science fiction.
Science fiction author Enzheng Tong wrote Death Ray on Coral Island in 1964 but hid it for fear of being persecuted due to the belief that the genre was created by the West to corrupt the people of China. It wasn’t until 1978, under Xiaoping Deng’s reign, that science and technology became a national priority for the country and Tong published his short story. In 1980, director Hongmei Zhang took this opportunity to adapt Tong’s story into a film — keeping the original’s sense of nationalistic pride while taking other liberties to address the scientific failure of Mao’s rule.
(16) DEBOSE Q&A. “’I.S.S.’ Star Ariana DeBose Talks Shocking Ending, Returning To Broadway” in Variety. Beware spoilers.
“I.S.S.” is a thriller set in outer space, but the creative team was filled with pioneers in their own right. “Blackfish” director Gabriela Cowperthwaite helmed the project, with Oscar winner Ariana DeBose suiting up for the lead role — both creatives playing in a new genre for the first time.
The result is a fleet, pulpy film in which three American and three Russian astronauts are living and working together on an international space station. But things turn dire quickly when their governments declare war on each other and both groups are instructed to commandeer the space station by any means necessary….
What was the most challenging part about filming zero gravity realistically, for nearly the entire film?
Cowperthwaite: I just wanted it to look as real as possible. We tried different contraptions, some of which were a bit more comfortable, but unfortunately for the actors, they didn’t look as good. Now I understand why so many films don’t do zero gravity.
DeBose: To achieve this look and feel, we shot the movie in harnesses that are very tightly secured on our hips. Then there were tethers attached to them. We had about two weeks of training, where we learned how to balance our bodies. It’s very hard, but the especially challenging thing was when we had scenes that involved all six of us. That meant we were all in harnesses, and for every one of us, there were at least two or three people operating. While you don’t see the tethers, they were very much there, so shout out to VFX….
[Thanks to SF Concatenation’s Jonathan Cowie, Steven French, Mike Kennedy, Andrew Porter, John King Tarpinian, Chris Barkley, and Cat Eldridge for some of these stories. Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editor of the day Peer.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Why I think I’ll take a First.
Listening to Raymond Chandler’s The Long Goodbye.
Please do — no subscriber notification today.
Mike says to my taking a First: Please do — no subscriber notification today.
That there’s no subscriber notification is about as surprising as, well, the fact all of the writers I know love chocolate. And much less charming
(10) I just looked up publication information on “That Only a Mother” and realized that it was Judith Merril’s first published story! Wow!
One day, Jetpack is going to be found in a mysterious locked room…
Cyril Judd was Judith Merril & Cyril Kornbluth. Guess why I remember that.
(8) It appears that only a few people are doing most of the objecting – something like 12 or 15, for the whole state.
The most interesting comment I read:
The committee could have just not released the data, that’s what half the people weee expecting anyway and they would have shrugged and moved on. Instead they choose to release clearly problematic data, why?
P J Evans says It appears that only a few people are doing most of the objecting – something like 12 or 15, for the whole state.
Three years ago, the conservatives got a referendum question to enshrine in the constitution the right of an individual not to get any vaccination because of philosophical or religious objections.
They thought because they collected the needed sixty or so thousand signatures that they had the feel of what the mood was in the State on this issue. Oh were they wrong. Nearly 75% voted no, the single largest such rejection of a ballot question ever in our State.
(1-7) The stats, and why did they release them, if they were so obviously screwed with? How ’bout if I give them the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that they did it to show that they were screwed with, and the Hugo admins had no control?
(8) Considering that there’ve been reports that 90% of so of the challenges have been from 11 people? https://www.truthorfiction.com/only-11-people-responsible-for-majority-of-book-ban-requests/
Birthday: Outpost Mars. Which I had, but found another copy at a yard sale years back, and could not not buy, for amusement value. https://www.amazon.com/Sin-Space-Cyril-Judd/dp/B000RF0Z30
(16) My version would, of course, have them say “this is bullshit, we have to work together to stay alive”, given that the Station only survives on regular supply launches. And it’s not just Russian and American – I know, for a fact, that there’s an Italian module, and a number of other modules from other nations.
Re what I suggested about the Hugo stats: I think what I’m saying, is give fans a chance…. (Of course you know the tune.)
(1) This reminds me to ask about something.
The Astounding Award website says:
“The Astounding Award is administered by the Worldcon, but the rules are determined by the award sponsor, Dell Magazine.”
Does that mean that in the event of controversy, Dell gets to determine eligibility? Or do they completely delegate eligibility determination to the Hugo administrators?
Has anyone asked relevant Dell people what they think about all this?
I think that @bookworm1398 and @mark, in comments here, are echoing a sentiment that Cheryl Morgan also implied in her post: the idea that the Hugo admins issued clearly weird stats in order to signal the community that something is wrong.
But I feel like that supposition raises further questions. Like: Why did the admins wait the full three months allowed before releasing the stats? (Wouldn’t it have been a more effective raising-of-a-flag if they had released them immediately?) And: If the goal is to get attention by having mistakes, then why did they correct one of the mistakes that was pointed out? And: The news of the problems is now widely known; how is that better/safer for the admins than other approaches to signaling (such as resigning)? If a subtle signal becomes a social-media wildfire, it’s no longer subtle.
…I’m not saying that I have a better answer; all of the theories I’ve seen so far have flaws or holes or unlikely aspects. But I do feel like if this had been meant to be a signal, there would have been better/easier/simpler/faster ways to send the signal.
Jed Hartman: The Astounding Award website has a page with an Eligibility List which piggybacks on data from Rocket Stack Rank. That seems more like an informed guess than an ironclad eligibility determination. So I think your guess that they delegate the job to the Hugo administrators is the way to bet. And the Hugo administrators just wait to see what surfaces when the votes come in. They don’t have to rule on anyone who doesn’t have enough votes to be a finalist.
And if they rule based on some hidden agenda, as happened with Chengdu, the Dell people can only join the line at the complaint window.
Again. It’s HeavenDuke (sigh).
(4) awful to see worthy winners doubting the validity of their prizes for no fault of their own.
About the “ISS”: this brings back memories of Ben Bova’s Kinsman novels – “Kinsman” and “Millennium”. Back then – in the height of the Cold War (!) – Bova had enough optimism to imagine the colonies uniting and rebelling against the suicidal orders from Earth… here – we shall see.
@PJ Evans (8):
I think they’re all members of Mothers Against Family or some such org.
(9) or watch the Futurama version https://youtu.be/lSt04IPqFfM?si=NI1BTvQTT7p5FEev
To be honest, I think the counter-reaction from some in the “Worldcon Fandom Establishment” is a too predictable human tendency…
“I did nothing to stop this. But I am a good person. Therefore nothing could be done to stop this. And nothing can be done. So we can continue to do nothing. I am still a good person. Any suggestion that something can be done is created by trouble makers. As I am a good person, my friends must also be good people. My friends must have acted correctly. Any suggestion that my friends did wrong is created by trouble makers. I am a good person, so I will say we must all do better, but not do anything right now. This matter has been settled now, those who continue to bring is up must be trouble makers.”
And thus we deliberately ignore the inconvenient.
(15) I think that however you’re going to order Chinese names you should be consistent, and if you choose “Xiaoping Deng” you have to go with “Zedong Mao”.
I feel like this is noteworthy. From the extended discussion over on Dave McCarty’s Facebook in which he repeatedly insisted he’d already answered the question, “why were these works/people ruled ineligible,” Gray Anderson wrote:
Dave responded:
(Here’s the source: https://www.facebook.com/grand.universal.dave/posts/pfbid0hGrsGBfQdKJ1AeJ9rvQBZHnm6sMN477qekuseGViBUBvkgmkgNLtfWXCFJqyboNHl?comment_id=7091661744250595 )
Also of interest, Jameson Quinn has gotten interested and his first cut (over on Bluesky) is that the numbers are, and I quote, “cray-cray.”
I had some further thoughts on timing and the reasons given for timing of the nomination stats. This is largely copied from what I posted on Bluesky, but with some additions.
And one quoted phrase [inthe article at https://mrphilipslibrary.wordpress.com/2024/01/21/hugo-nominating-stats-rascality-and-a-brief-history-of-where-it-all-started/%5D got me thinking more deeply about something. One reason for the delay in releasing the nomination stats was quoted as “this delay is purely to make sure that everything I put out is verified as correct (and the detailed stats take time to verify, there’s lot of stuff going on there.” [McCarty]
But remember that unexpected delay when announcing the finalists, way back earlier? Surely that was the point when everything needed to be verified as correct? Like: making sure titles and names were correct and consistent so that nominations were tabulated and processed correctly? And an extensive verification process before the nominations were tabulated to generate the finalist list makes sense and is understandable. But the Long List is not a separate entity from the Short List. It’s just a peak at a larger part of the same list.
That’s why the nomination stats are usually able to be released immediately after the award ceremony: the work should have been complete months before. The nomination stats document should be ready to release at the time the finalists are announced. So what possible verification and correction could still be pending after the date of the announcement of the finalists? Much less after voting is complete? Much less for three months after the awards are given out? It doesn’t make sense.
[added for this post] Any errors or inconsistencies whose correction contributed to the 3 month delay after the con would be errors and inconsistencies that existed at the time the nomination data was processed to generate the finalist list.
Therefore, even if it were true that the long delay in getting the nomination stats out (not just 3 months, but 3 months plus the time between release of the finalist list and the time of the convention) were due to the need to correct errors and inconsistencies, that in and of itself indicates that the data generating the finalist list was deeply flawed.
On the other hand, I could propose a “hypothesis #4” to add to the ones in my blog: The finalists were a semi-arbitrary selection–perhaps based on actual nomination data, but not determined by the prescribed nomination process–and the long delay was due to the need to create long-list data that supported the published finalist list. (Note that none of my hypotheses are intended to be taking as being solidly supported or being what I believe, they are simply models that could be consistent with the observed data.)
@Naomi Kritzer
When I saw him use “asked and answered,” it reminded me of an infamous Usenet flamewar — one in rec.arts.sf.composition. Did it give anyone else a R*ckoids vibe?
@Naomi Kritzer: Evidently McCarty believes that if he repeats his claim that he’s answered the question enough times, people will just give up asking.
It is pretty common in WSFS Business Meeting discussions to take a “It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it” approach to proposals. So when something breaks in an obvious way, there are screams to fix it immediately, preferable retroactively. You might say that WSFS BM participants collectively (not individually) are really good about wanting to close barn doors once the horses have escaped. The one good thing about this is that eventually the door gets closed, and it’s unlikely that the next set of horses will escape from the barn.
The most notable recent case prior this year seems to me to be 2015, when in response to an organized attack on the Hugo Awards, the members adopted rules that were intended to prevent the same attack from happening again. Whether those changes were the correct ones is debatable (there were alternative proposals that were rejected), but the meeting did do something constructive rather than just say, “There’s nothing that can be done.”
I encourage anyone who wants the barn door closed on 2023 to come up with a specific proposal that would make things better in the future. Heck, even trying to create a 2023 Retro-Hugo Award (that could be held by any Worldcon after its ratification and that would presumably explicitly override the rule that Retrospective Hugo Awards can only be given for years that did not already have Hugo Awards) is a proposal that recognizes which way the arrow of time points.
As with the proposal I composed at Cheryl Morgan’s request, if anyone has an actual proposal with definable goals and wants me to write it up for you in the correct form, so you can submit it to the 2024 WSFS Business Meeting, I’m willing to help.
Incidentally, I am not a member of the staff at any level for the 2024 or 2025 WSFS Business Meetings, not even Assistant Videographer (tripod carrier).
1 – 5 Some years back I was playing fantasy football and told the other guys in my league that this was going to be The Year of the Tight End and I drafted players accordingly. I was scoffed at but when the dust settled, not only had I won our league’s Super Bowl but out of the top five scorers, three were TE’s, two on my team and one on another guy who had also been paying attention. I share this decidedly non-genre anecdote to illustrate that there are few things that feel as good as being proven right.
14) “But none of the usernames used by them appeared to be linked to real individuals in Uganda or Tanzania….” Which, according to precedent, is no real bar to them casting votes for site selection.
@Kevin Standlee, thank you so much for your words. I am intrigued by your ideas, and really do want to subscribe to your newsletter. I think more people should attempt to commit policy, so they understand just how hard it is.
Re: Worldcons outside the West, if we want to be World, we need to have them, but they will often be exactly what we’re seeing here. If we want to have a permanent bureaucracy for Worldcons, then we will have to create/maintain it, and I would rather herd perturbed lionfish in the nude. But I have also been known to bemoan the lack of exactly that kind of structure wrt Worldcons, specifically. As Jim Wright so often says, “If you want better government, be better people” and I don’t know that the community wants to undertake such a wart-locating process of self analysis. Because that’s -also- what it is.
To a very large degree, this is the fundamental set of problems of organization. I want something done, but I don’t want to do it. I want there to be rules, but I neither want to create nor follow them. Nor will I support the people I elect to speak/vote for me, on my behalf. I look at how this is reflected in so many facets of Western life and thought, and I’m not sure we’re the people we’re looking for.
Kevin: I like the idea of a 2023 retro Hugo.
A 2023 Retro Hugo would require, IIUC, a specific mandate from WSFS, which would take at least two years. And it wouldn’t actually repair any of the actual harms done. I think that we need to think about the future, and how to prevent things like this happening again. And, too, about the health and safety of Worldcon and the Hugos. This whole thing is really throwing into high relief the problems with our system of governance.
Since so many people seem to be upset by the Uganda bid, there is a simple solution: erect a bid for elsewhere. There are many experienced convention runners who will advise you. Be aware that it will cost a great deal of time and money.
There already is a bid competing with Uganda: Brisbane.
I don’t know the Aussies’ status, but I did find that the Ugandan facility, which looks UTTERLY GORGEOUS, sadly has no elevators, no disabled-person-suitable rooms, nor allows assistance dogs.
I don’t know but suspect there won’t be much catering for ND folks, nor those with various allergies. Make sure your legs, eyes, ears, immune system, lungs, and brain are at least average if you want to go. And that your bank account, whatever it’s denominated in, is healthy for the airfare if you’re coming from outside Africa.
Lurkertype: A Brisbane bid was announced. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen any activity from it. Have you? I’d like to follow them if they are doing anything.
The Brisbane bid hasn’t responded to any requests for information for the Q&A sessions in years. It appears to be defunct.
Although someone on Bluesky has spoken to one of the bid chairs recently, and it might be coming back. That would be great!