Chengdu WorldCon

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Science Fiction Convention
Name: Chengdu Worldon, Worldcon 81
Dates: October 18-22, 2023
Frequency: once, part of Worldcon's annual convention schedule
Location: Chengdu, China
Type: fan run (with heavy commercial sponsorship)
Focus: science fiction, fantasy
Organization: World Science Fiction Society
Founder: World Science Fiction Society
Founding Date: 1939
URL: Chengdu Worldcon
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

The 81st WorldCon was held in October 2023 in Chengdu, China. The Guests of Honor were authors Liu Cixin and Robert James Sawyer. Sergey Lukyanenko was announced as a guest of honor early on and appeared on the website, however he did not actually attend. No public statement was made to explain this (although there was controversy surrounding his invitation, see below).

The original dates and location (August 16-20 at Chengdu Century New International and Convention Center) were changed in an announcement in January, 2023.

Ben Yalow, Chen Shi and He Xi were co-chairs. More than 1,200 guests from the science fiction community and over 20,000 fans from 35 countries and regions attended.[1]

Location

The event was held in the Chengdu Science Fiction Museum in the city of Chengdu, the fourth largest city in China billed as the "sci-fi city". The convention was held over three floors of the museum, with the central Theme Exhibition Hall, Exhibition Hall for Fans and the Hugo Hall on the first floor and a variety of smaller halls (named after the planets) for the various panels and activities on the second and third floors.

The building was commissioned specifically to host the WorldCon and was built in twelve months. WorldCon was the inaugural event and marked its opening.[2]

Bid and Con Committees

Program

https://en.chengduworldcon.com/ProgrammeEvents_94_8/114.html

Controversies

Site Selection

Per the WSFS Constitution, the site selection for WorldCon 2023 was held at WorldCon 2021 (Discon III) in Baltimore. The selection was fraught with controversy with a number of issues arising:

1) The only two bids at the time of voting were Chengdu (which launched in 2017) and Winnipeg, who were allowed to file after the official closing date. Bids by New Orleans, Spokane and Nice had previously folded and Memphis withdrew their bid after Winnipeg was allowed to file. No explanation was provided by the Discon III committee for why the late bid was accepted.

2)

a) Apart from the late filing of the Winnipeg, there were other irregularities at the site selection. Chengdu's victory was due to a large amount of mail-in ballots from China, the result of the committee's extensive campaigning. It was felt that this ignored the unwritten Worldcon rule that the Worldcon community (those who had attended previous conventions as well as participated in the sci-fi fandom) and resulted in allegations that Worldcon could be "bought" by a bid committee with the funding to campaign outside of the Worldcon community[3][4][5].

b) Additionally, there were issues with the contents of the pre-con ballots; 1591 only contained email addresses, not street addresses as is required by item 4.4.1 of the Constitution:

4.4.1: Site-selection ballots shall include name, signature, address, and membership-number spaces to be filled in by the voter. Each site-selection ballot shall list the options “None of the Above” and “No Preference” and provide for write-in votes, after the bidders and with equal prominence. The supporting membership rate shall be listed on all site-selection ballots.

 [6]

The site selection committee requested clarification from the Business Meeting, as the rule does not state the address section has to be filled in, only that it appears on the ballot. A motion was tabled by the Winnipeg in '23 committee stating that "any ballot without membership numbers, name, signature and address that meets the country of origin’s requirements should be counted as “No Preference.”"[7] The motion was passed, but as it was non-binding, the site selection committee chair Tim Szczesuil overruled the committee and declared Chengdu the winner.[8]

In an interview with Esquire much later, chair of the DisCon III committee, Mary Robinette Kowal elaborated on the reasoning for accepting those votes:

...other people were alarmed that many of the Chinese votes for Chengdu were written in the same handwriting and posted from the same mailing address. The chair of the convention that year, Mary Robinette Kowal, says some members of the awards committee wanted to mark those votes as invalid. “But if you’re filling out a ballot in English and you don’t speak English, you hand it to a friend who does,” she says. “And the translation we’d put in could be read as ‘where are you from,’ not ‘what is your address.’”

 [9]

3) China's human rights record and especially their persecution of the Uyghur minority were raised as a reason for Chengdu to not be selected as a Worldcon site. Even after the successful bid, open letters[10][11] were sent to the World Science Fiction Society asked for the selection to be rescinded; according to the WSFS Constitution the Chengdu committee was the Worldcon committee for 2023 and the WSFS had no power to change the decision.

Links

Guests of Honor

Sergey Lukyanenko

The selection of Sergey Lukyanenko (author of the Nightwatch series) was hugely controversial. In the past he had made his support of Putin's government known and has been extremely vocal in his support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine[12]. His invitation to attend Chengdu as a Guest of Honor was met with petitions demanding he be disinvited, proposed boycotts and extensive online discussion. While he remains listed as a GOH on the official website, he did not attend the convention. There was no public statement from the committee as to why.

Cixin Liu

A popular science fiction author in China, Liu was the first Asian writer to win a Hugo Award in 2015 and internationally lauded for his book, "The Three-Body Problem". He also supports China's mass internment of the Uyghurs[13] and was associated with SenseTime, a company known for creating the AI "Uyghur Alert", facial recognition technology used to track the minority population and alert officials as to their whereabouts[14].

Hugo Awards

With the release of the winners and statistics for the Hugo Awards for 2023[15], a number of concerns about the legitimacy of the process have been raised:

Disqualifications

Comment from Ryan Estrada in the discussion in Dave McCarty's Facebook re the disqualification of a number of works from the 2023 Hugo Awards

The disqualification of a number of works and individuals without explanation.[16] Specifically the multi-award winning novel Babel by R.F. Kuang (Best Novel nominee), Paul Weimer (Best Fan Writer nominee), Sandman Episode 6: "The Sound of Her Wings," (Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form), “Fogong Temple Pagoda” by Hai Ya (Best Short Story) and Xiran Jay Zhao (Astounding Award). The report was also released at the very last minute before the required deadline, which was seen as suspicious. Dave McCarty, a Chengdu Worldcon vice-chair and co-head of the Hugo Awards Selection Executive Division responded to questions on his Facebook by saying "After reviewing the Constitution and the rules we must follow, the administration team determined those works/persons were not eligible." and refusing to elaborate on why these particular works were deemed ineligible. The ensuing thread became heated, largely in response to McCarty's insistence that those who didn't accept his statement above were stupid.[17]

The impacted authors have reacted in various ways:

No explanation has been given for why this was or why any of the individual works were ineligible. No explanation has been given for why no explanation can be given, other than "after we reviewed the constitution and the rules we must follow, we determined the work was not eligible," with no explanation of what the "rules they must follow" are. There is a not-unwarranted suspicion here that it has to do with Chinese censorship. Other explanations would happily be entertained but the complete lack of information is difficult to deal with.

 [18]

Of the awards committee, Dave McCarty and Kevin Standlee have resigned from their positions with Worldcon Intellectual Property (WIP), the nonprofit responsible for the World Science Fiction Society’s service marks. They, as well as WorldCon 81 committee co-chairs Chen Shi and Ben Yalow were censured by the organization for their roles in and responses to the allegations of censorship[19]. Yalow is also no longer listed as part of the Glasgow WorldCon committee.

Statistics

It also appears there are widespread inconsistencies in voting numbers. In his Twitter post of January 20, 2024, Marshall Ryan Maresca pointed out issues with the numbers posted:

Hugo folks, double check the math for me on this, but: the EPH numbers represent one ballot, right? One point per ballot, split between nominees on that ballot.

So the total of any column can't exceed the number of ballots cast, yes?

But yet column 9 adds up to 1652, 15 more than the 1637 ballots.

 [20]

He went on to further examine the provided statistics and came to the conclusion that:

The "gap" (see link) means one of two things happened:

1. Unified slate voting on a level that puts the puppy efforts to shame. 2. Someone boosted the nomination numbers for the finalists and made numerous errors in trying to fit the EPH numbers to that boost.

https://alpennia.com/blog/comparison-hugo-nomination-distribution-statistics

[21]

The full analysis of the statistics (provided in the link above by Maresca) on January 20, 2024 includes this conclusion:

Well, there really aren't any conclusions other than the ones that were immediately apparent from the raw data. The 2023 Hugo Nomination Statistics are implausible and anomalous and as a result we don't actually know who should be on the Hugo Long List.

 [22]

After a second analysis, Jones concluded that there were some unusual results in the numbers, but was unable to be specific as to her conclusions:

Once again, I get to the end of this and don’t have any clear conclusions. Possibly I should stare at this data for a while longer, listen to what other people say about it, and then come back for some final thoughts. At this point, I’m no longer setting out to “prove” anything, but only to present the data in a form that might spark other people to come up with interpretative inspirations. A couple things that I wanted to jot down in the mean time:

When there is a significant "cliff," the number of entries above the cliff is "around" the number of slots on the final ballot. Plus/minus. I counted seven categories that I classified as having a "cliff", with 5 (x1), 6 (x2), or 7 (x4) items above the cliff. Of those, there was only one category where, after invalidations, not all the "clifftop" entries were able to fit on the final ballot. However both in terms of the magnitude of the cliff and the type of category, there was no thematic consistency.

Another interesting thing that happened in the voting phase is that, in six categories, the first place winner was obvious in one or two rounds (and if it took two, the item only needed a few votes to go over the finish line). Those six categories were all either in my "typical but interesting" group or my "non-typical for reasons other than a standard cliff" group. I have no idea whether this is meaningful. It's just an observation.

 [23]

Lack of Transparency

That there are discrepancies is undisputed, however the Award Committee's failure to be transparent only exacerbated the scandal. From an article published in Esquire on February 2, 2024:

Without answers from McCarty, many Hugo enthusiasts have coalesced around two theories: either the awards committee miscounted early-round votes and realized their mistake too late, or the ineligible writers were censored under pressure from the Chinese Communist Party. “If they had issued a statement saying there was a miscount and we’re deeply sorry about it, people would have been mad, but it would have been understandable,” [chair of DisCon III committee Mary Robinette] Kowal says. Some fans have pointed to mathematical irregularities in the voting statistics compared to past years, and an additional former WorldCon committee member tells me, “I’m guessing someone made a mistake—probably more than one.”

 [24]

Investigative Report, February 14, 2024

On February 14, 2024, Chris M. Barkley and Jason Sanford released a lengthy report (released simultaneously on File770 and Genre Grapevine and also available to download as an e-book epub file and as a PDF) on the allegations of censorship, actions by the Hugo Awards team and confirmed (by way of emails released by whistleblower committee member Diane Lacey) that:

...the 2023 Hugo Awards were censored because certain authors and works were deemed to have too many political liabilities, at least from the viewpoint of the Chinese government. While it’s unclear if this was official censorship from the Chinese government or self-censorship by those afraid of offending governmental or business interests, we can now be certain that censorship indeed took place.

However, what also disturbs me is that the administrators of the Hugo Awards from the United States and Canada, countries that supposedly support and value free speech, appear to have been active participants in this censorship.

Let me say that again because there are too many people who believe all this happened solely because of the Chinese government: The administrators from the United States and Canada appear to have helped censor the Hugo Awards!

As detailed in the emails and files examined by myself and Chris Barkley, these Western administrators took it upon themselves to research political concerns about many of the finalists. I was one of those finalists they researched and let me tell you, this is the first time I’ve seen what amounts to a political dossier being created on what I’ve said and done. It’s not a good feeling.

 [25]

Kat Jones, who had been part of the eligibility research team for the Chengdu Hugos, resigned from the Glasgow Committee following the release of this report[26]. In a statement posted at File 770, she clarified her role, referring to the released emails:

For Chengdu, I conducted the eligibility research as instructed by the 2023 Hugo Award Administrator, and asked for clarifications where instructions were not clear. I did have concerns, and I shared them with the Administrator. Those concerns you should have evidence of if you have access to all communications. I was not involved in the evaluation of the data we flagged – and you’ll note in those emails we all expressed confusion over the vague instructions and had no idea whether anything we were mentioning was an actual problem.

I had serious concerns at this point about this process. I then stepped back and did no further work for the Chengdu Worldcon after the first pass of eligibility research. I only had visibility into that first step as a Hugo researcher. I did not ever and do not have visibility into why the choices that were made, were made.

I would not be willing to participate in any way in the administration of an award under such circumstances again. I don’t think we, as a community, should put our Hugo Award administration teams in this kind of no-win situation.

 [27]


It is anticipated that the impact of these revelations will continue to be felt within the science fiction fandom.

This article documents a currently unfolding situation within the fannish realm. Content may change quickly, and the page structure itself may undergo major revision. New details are very welcome.

Links

References

  1. ^ "The 81st World Science Fiction Convention Closes in Chengdu" - Chengdu Worldcon website, October 23, 2023 (archived via Wayback, Nov 27/23)
  2. ^ "China's newest museum is straight out of science fiction" - CNN, Oct 29/23
  3. ^ Chengdu Worldcon - Controversy - Fancyclopedia #
  4. ^ comment from Steve Stanley Dec 18/21 - Chengdu Wins 2023 Worldcon Site Selection Vote - File 770
  5. ^ comment, Kevin Standlee in "Elections Have Consequences", Kevin Standlee - Dreamwidth, Jan 21/24
  6. ^ WSFS Rules as of Worldcon #78 (2020) - World Science Fiction Society Website
  7. ^ "DisCon III Business Meeting Keeps Lodestar, Best Series; Passes Controversial Resolution About Site Selection" - File 770, Dec 17/21
  8. ^ Chengdu Wins 2023 Worldcon Site Selection Vote - File 770, Dec 18/21
  9. ^ Inside the Censorship Scandal That Rocked Sci-Fi and Fantasy's Biggest Awards by Adam Morgan, Esquire, Feb 2/24 (Wayback Feb 14/24)
  10. ^ Open Letter to WorldCon Committee to revoke Chengdu Bid 2023 - Jan 14/22
  11. ^ "SFF Authors Release Open Letter Condemning China as Host of 2023 Worldcon" - File 770, Mar 7/22
  12. ^ Sergei Lukyanenko - Position on politics - Wikipedia
  13. ^ Liu Cixin’s War of the Worlds by Jiayang Fan, The New Yorker - Jun 17/19
  14. ^ Dear World(con): Do not host the Hugos amidst Uyghur concentration camps by Sarah Rana, Winter Is Coming.net Mar 19/22
  15. ^ 2023 Hugo Awards - The Hugo Awards website
  16. ^ Astrolabe 36: Panic! At The Hugos - Astrolabe, Jan 20/24
  17. ^ Dave McCarty - Facebook - Jan 20/24
  18. ^ "Response to aragarna ask:" by neil-gaiman on Tumblr, Jan 22/24 (Wayback Feb 15/24)
  19. ^ "Resignations, Censures Follow in Wake of Hugo Awards Controversy", by Sofia Stewart, Publishers Weekly, Feb 1/24
  20. ^ Marshall Ryan Maresca, Twitter/X, Jan 21/24
  21. ^ Marshall Ryan Maresca - Twitter/X, Jan 23/24
  22. ^ "A Comparison of Hugo Nomination Distribution Statistics" by Heather Rose Jones - Alpennia.com - Jan 20/24 (Wayback Feb 5/24)
  23. ^ [A Comparison of Hugo Nomination Distribution Statistics - Part 2 "A Comparison of Hugo Nomination Distribution Statistics - Part 2"] by Heather Rose Jones at Alpennia.com, Jan 23/24 (Wayback Jan 26/24)
  24. ^ "Inside the Censorship Scandal That Rocked Sci-Fi and Fantasy's Biggest Awards" by Adam Morgan, Esquire, Feb 2/24 (Wayback Feb 14/24)
  25. ^ "The 2023 Hugo Awards: A Report on Censorship and Exclusion" - Observations and Conclusions by Jason Sanford - via Patreon.com, Feb 14/24. ([Wayback Feb 15/24])
  26. ^ Glasgow 2024 Hugo Awards Statement – 15th February 2024 by Esther MacCallum-Stewart, Chair, Glasgow 2024, A Worldcon for Our Futures. (Wayback Feb 15/24)
  27. ^ "2023 Hugo Awards-related Statement by Kat Jones" - File 770, Feb 15/24 (Wayback Feb 15/24)
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Chengdu_WorldCon&oldid=2607578"