From: petertrei@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/3/2024 6:18 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > James Nicoll  wrote:   
   >> At this point it is not clear that the authorities played any direct   
   >> role. It could be self-censorship. There's also a case that this was   
   >> not political at all but rather giant fuckup processiing the votes:   
   >   
   > Which only excluded specifically those works by people or with   
   > content that the genocidal totalitarian regiem in Bejing had a   
   > problem with, and none others.   
   >   
   > Coincidences happen.  But to quote Auric Goldfinger....   
   >   
   > "Once is happenstance.  Twice is coincidence.  Three times   
   > is enemy action."  There were more than three works that   
   > somehow mysteriously ran afoul of this "mere happenstance,   
   > nothing to see here, move along, move along" thing.   
   >   
   > Insisting that the works were excluded "by the rules"   
   > but adamantly refusing to even hint at *which* rules and   
   > attacking anyone who asks "which rules"... doesn't engender   
   > much in the way of confidence.   
      
   The story is hitting the non-genre press. Yesterday, Esquire magazine   
   published an account of the affair:   
      
   https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a46612912/science-fi   
   tion-hugo-awards-2024/   
      
   It leans more towards the 'state interference' hypothesis than it does   
   the 'incompetant f*ckup' theory (personally, I think both are involved),   
   but otherwise seems a pretty good account. It praises the transparency   
   of the Hugo process, but notes its drawbacks as well.   
      
   pt   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)