A Hugo Awards administrator has exposed that the 2023 Hugo Awards in Chengdu purposefully excluded R.F. Kuang’s Babel, as well as writers Paul Weimer, Neil Gaiman, and Xiran Jay Zhao, for political reasons.
When the Hugo Awards were presented on October 21, 2023, many found it surprising that Babel, or The Necessity of Violence, wasn’t a finalist for Best Novel. The book had already taken home the Nebula Award for Best Novel and received high critical acclaim. As one of the year’s top-rated works of speculative fiction, it seemed a shoo-in for the Hugo Award. Most assumed it was just a shocking snub—until the voter data and nominees list was released in January 2024 and told another story.
The voter data showed that Babel had received the third highest number of votes for Best Novel, meaning it should’ve secured a spot as a finalist. However, a small asterisk next to the title labeled it simply as “not eligible.”
It was soon discovered that Babel wasn’t the only title deemed “not eligible.” An episode of Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman was excluded from the Best Dramatic Presentation category. Xiran Jay Zhao was deemed ineligible for the Astounding Award, while Paul Weimer was similarly excluded from the Best Fan Writer award despite receiving more than enough votes to make them finalists in their categories. None of the authors received any notification from the Hugo Awards about why they or their works were “not eligible.”
As Zhao encouraged their followers to question the 2023 administrators, one administrator became aggressively defensive, while not a single person could answer the straightforward question of what makes an author or book ineligible. Now, leaked emails from a 2023 Hugo Awards administrator confirm that the organization actively and unjustifiably censored specific works.
Leaked emails paint a dismal picture of Hugo Awards censorship
Journalists Chris M. Barkley and Jason Sanford conducted a deep dive into what happened at the 2023 Hugo Awards, publishing their report on File770. The pair were able to provide authors and readers with some answers, largely thanks to Diane Lacey. She is listed as one of the 2023 administrators on The Hugo Awards website, along with Dave McCarty, Ben Yalow, Ann Marie Rudolph, Shi Chen, Joe Yao, Tina Wang, Dongsheng Guo, and Bo Pang. In their investigation, Barkley and Sanford also learned of the involvement of Kat Jones, who was not listed as an administrator.
However, Jones was listed as an award administrator in 2022 and was slated to be on the team for the 2024 Hugo Awards. The report notes that none of the 2023 administration’s Chinese members were involved in the email exchanges. The debacle started on June 5th, 2023, when McCarty sent an email telling several administration members that they had to keep in mind the awards were being held in China while reviewing nominees.
He wrote, “In addition to the regular technical review, as we are happening in China and the *laws* we operate under are different…we need to highlight anything of a sensitive political nature in the work.” When Jones inquired what they should look out for, McCarty responded, “At the moment, the best guidance I have is ‘mentions of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, negatives of China.'”
Further emails, compiled in a Google Doc, see Lacey and Jones exchanging emails in which they flag anything potentially problematic with the nominees. In an email for, “Best Novel potential issues,” Jones wrote, “Babel has a lot about China. I haven’t read it, and am not up on Chinese politics, so cannot say whether it would be viewed as ‘negatives of China.'” In a separate email, Jones detailed “Fan Writer potential issues.” The email included numerous nominees in the category, with bullet points under each name outlining every potential issue. Under Weimer’s name, Jones included a detailed list and links to every social media post, comment, podcast episode, or review that delved into Chinese history or expressed criticism of the Chinese government. She even included an alleged trip to Tibet as a potential problem.
Meanwhile, Lacey sent an email highlighting “Astounding award possible issues,” mentioning how Zhao’s book, Iron Widow, was a reimagining of the rise of the Chinese empress Wu Zetian. Lacey also misspelled the author’s last name as “Zhou” and mentioned that they are an “internet personality.” Based on the emails, it appears Lacey and Jones did extensive research on every nominee, probing their Wikipedia pages, social media accounts, comments, and publications for, seemingly, even just the slightest mention of “China” throughout their careers. The only excluded nominee who wasn’t flagged in these emails was Gaiman.
The aftermath of The Hugo Awards exposé
Lacey, who provided the emails and files to Barkley and Sanford, issued an apology for her involvement in the matter. Jones also issued a statement expressing concern about whether the journalists received “incomplete” or “modified” files. She also explained that she was merely doing what the administration asked and wasn’t involved in the final evaluation of the compiled data. Meanwhile, the report highlights that there is no evidence in these files that the Chinese government ordered this censorship. Although one can’t wholly rule out China’s involvement, the report notes this could just be a case of “self-censorship” due to “pressure from financial interests and businesses in China.”
The next Hugo Awards is set to occur in Glasgow. Shortly after Barkley and Sanford’s report, the Chair of Glasgow 2024, Esther MacCallum-Stewart, released a statement confirming that Jones had resigned from her role as administrator for the 2024 awards. MacCallum-Stewart apologized “for the damage caused to nominees, finalists, the community, and the Hugo, Lodestar, and Astounding Awards.” Though she noted that the current administration does not know more about the eligibility decisions than have been released to the public, the organization is taking steps to “ensure transparency.” These measures include immediately releasing voter and nominee data and publishing explanations for any decisions or disqualifications regarding potential finalists.
Prior to Jones’ resignation, McCarty and board chair Kevin Standlee also resigned from their positions. Although the resignations and promises of transparency are necessary steps, it’s unclear if it will be enough. Barkley and Sanford’s report raised the notion that perhaps the Hugo Awards needs to be wholly separated from Worldcon and the “laws” of whatever setting the convention ends up in. Weimer agreed that the organization may need a “third-party auditing of the ballet” to ensure fairness. It certainly seems that significant steps and reform need to be taken, as one questions how it is even possible a handful of administrators were able to take this matter into their own hands with no oversight.
Not only were four nominees unfairly excluded from the awards, but the organization broke the trust of thousands of voters and millions of readers. Even now, we have only leaked emails from a whistleblower to give us a partial picture of what happened and who was responsible. The refusal of the whole administration to come clean about this fraud makes us doubtful about whether the Hugo Awards can ever regain its credibility.
(featured image: Penguin Teen Canada / Hugo Awards / Harper Voyager)
