Leaked E-mails Reveal Hugo Awards Committee Spied On Writers On Behalf Of The Chinese Government For Chengdu WorldCon
by Jon Del Arroz
The Hugo Awards have been a debacle of epic proportions for nearly a decade. Once revered as an award that heralded classic works in the science fiction genre, it’s been mired in politics since extreme leftists in publishing decided to put political agenda ahead of stories. 2023’s Hugo Awards came under fire when serial cuckold Neil Gaiman complained about his Sandman series on Netflix being disqualified under nebulous circumstances. Now, that political agenda is coming back to bite them as newly leaked emails from Chengdu Worldcon’s committee reveal the Hugo Awards team conspiring to spy on award nominees on behalf of the Chinese government to rig the awards.
RELATED: Sandman Creator Neil Gaiman Outraged At Chengdu Worldcon Hugo Award Ineligibility Debacle
Diane Lacey, a member of the Hugo Awards committee for Chengdu Worldcon, wrote a letter to “sincerely apologize to my community” after more problems with politics and rigging have come to light as this matter unfurled. In this letter, which she had posted to the left-wing hate website File770, she stated:
January 25th, 2024
Let me start by saying that I am NOT making excuses, there are no adequate excuses. I am thoroughly ashamed of my part in this debacle, and I will likely never forgive myself. But the fans that have supported the Hugos, the nominees, and those that were unfairly and erroneously deemed ineligible in particular, deserve an explanation. Perhaps the only way I can even begin to ease my conscience is to provide one.
I was asked to join the Hugo committee for Chengdu, and I agreed to do so because I care about the Hugos. I’ve been a member of several Hugo committees going back to 2009 and I was the Hugo Administrator in 2012. The Hugos have always been important to me, and I believed, in part because of the depth of Dave McCarty’s experience, and because I thought he felt the same way, that they would be run with integrity.
It happened gradually. We vetted entries, as always, checking length, publication dates, etc. Then things began being removed from the vetting lists. We were told there was collusion in a Chinese publication that had published a nominations list, a slate as it were, and so those ballots were identified and eliminated, exactly as many have speculated*. This certainly accounted for some of the disappearances. These were all Chinese language publications so I don’t know who the authors might have been. I was never privy to the actual nomination numbers.
Should I have resigned? Probably, but hindsight, as they say, is 20:20. It was apparent that there were issues beyond the slate. We were told to vet nominees for work focusing on China, Taiwan, Tibet, or other topics that may be an issue in China and, to my shame, I did so. Understand that I signed up fully aware that there were going to be issues. I am not that naïve regarding the Chinese political system, but I wanted the Hugos to happen, and not have them completely crash and burn. I just didn’t imagine that there would be so many issues, and that they’d be ultimately handled so poorly by Dave. (Okay, so maybe I do have a certain level of naivete.) Dave insisted that there needed to be more time elapsed before the Chinese nationals would be safe from the ensuing uproar, and he made it clear from the time the finalist names were released that he intended to wait the entire 90 days. Are they safe now? I hope so, I truly do, but I can’t imagine that ensuing uproar and the international media attention that came along with it has done them any favors.
As far as Dave’s apparent actions in cooking the results, I have to say I didn’t really expect that either. And if I had I, like many others have said, would have imagined he’d do a better job. (Again, my non-zero level of naivete at play.) Had that been the case I might not be writing this, but he didn’t do a better job. The fallout has negatively affected something I care deeply about, the Hugos, and I’m not sure they can recover.
Again, I am not making excuses. I sincerely apologize to my community. I don’t expect you to forgive me when I can’t even forgive myself. I’ve violated your trust, and I don’t deserve your forgiveness, but I am so very sorry. Mea Culpa.
Diane Lacey
*Although since then, a better explanation has been given for the “cliff” phenomenon in the data.
The letter was accompanied by a document that revealed emails from the Chengdu Worldcon Hugo Award committee, in which it revealed several American members of the committee spying on the personal lives and online postings of several Hugo Award nominees on behalf of the Chinese communist government to censor what the Chinese considered inappropriate for their Worldcon and Hugo Awards.
The email chain has the committee checking the top 10 items in each category, with two people independently reviewing the nominees to verify they complied with Chinese censors. The committee members naturally “just followed orders,” as they cared about their clout within the science fiction community as Hugo Award gatekeepers rather than allowing votes to be processed democratically.
The emails reveal these willing participants calling different nominees “problematic.” It includes calling out clout-chaser and left-wing activist Jason Sanford for voicing his concerns about holding a Worldcon in communist China. It also speaks of alleged pedophile Paul Weimer, not because of his strange activities of photographing nude children and posting them online, but for his trips to Tibet and posting about Hong Kong.
For Worldcon and the Hugo Awards, criticism of the Chinese government in any form meant disqualification.
Several Hugo Award ballots were also revealed to have been thrown out. The Hugo Award committee said this process is “normal,” revealing that the awards have been rigged multiple times in the past, which wouldn’t surprise many people who followed the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies years of the awards.
Not only were works censored because of any author’s mention of China, but also one author was mentioned to be disqualified for describing “themselves as queer, nonbinary, and trans.” While the Hugo Award committee said “good for them,” they also didn’t stick to their alleged diversity values regarding appeasing the Chinese government. Once again, the virtue signaling for identity politics stops when these people want to maintain their social clout.
The emails objectively prove that the 2023 Chengdu Worldcon Hugo Awards were rigged, that votes were discounted and didn’t matter, and that it was entirely because of politics. While the people in charge are pointing to China as the problem, the Americans involved wilfully dug up dirt on several different authors on behalf of the Chinese to discredit their peers in the field.
It begs the question, if these science fiction clout chasers did this just to appease China, what happened in years past when their political opponents were getting nominations, and how much did they rig those Hugo Awards? Regardless, with a scandal of this level, an honest can’t look to the Hugo Awards as anything other than political-driven pointlessness. These aren’t the best science fiction works in craft. They’re just political propaganda pieces.
What do you think of the Hugo Awards science fiction controversy from Chengdu Worldcon? Leave a comment and let us know.
NEXT: Aethon Books Announces New Larry Correia Fantasy Series Debuting In 2025
Hugo's have been beyond pathetic for a long time now. It's just a skinsuit. This is a new level of corruption.