THE 2024 HUGO AWARDS CEREMONY IN GLASGOW SCOTLAND, A PHOTO ESSAY
By Chris M. Barkley:
(1-3) Lining Up for the Hugo Awards Ceremony outside of the Armadillo, 7:00 pm local time.
(4) Artist Maurizo Manzieri (right) and Silvio Sosio (left), publisher and editor of the magazine Robot and the online magazine Fantascienza.com, outside of the Armadillo, 7:00 pm.
TL;DR LIST OF AGENDA ITEMS VOTED ON OR DISPOSED OF AT PRELIMINARY BUSINESS MEETING
C. STANDING RULE CHANGES
C.1 Magnum PI — PASSED C.2 Strike 1.4 — PASSED C. 3 We Don’t Like Surprises, Why Do You Ask? – RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY CHAIR. THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO TAKE UP AN ALTERED AMENDMENT BY 2/3RD OF THE VOTE FAILED. C.4 Repeal 7.9 [Proxy and Remote Voting] – PASSED
D. RESOLUTIONS
D.1 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Conann a.k.a. She Is Conann — PASSED D.2 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Lovely, Dark, and Deep – PASSED D.3 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Kimitachi wa dô ikiru ka a.k.a. The Boy and the Heron — FAILED D. 4 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Gojira – 1.0 a.k.a. Godzilla Minus One— PASSED D.5 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Mars Express — PASSED D.6 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Tiger Stripes — PASSED D.7 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Mollie and Max in the Future — PASSED D.8 MPC Funding Request – PASSED AS AMENDED D.9 Business Meeting Study Group – POSTPONED TO SATURDAY D. 10 Hugo Process Study Committee — PASSED
By Chris M. Barkley: The Preliminary Session of the 2024 World Science Fiction Society Business Meeting was held in the Inspiration Suite at The Village Hotel, just across the River Clyde from the Scottish Event Campus (SEC), where the main events of the Worldcon are being held.
The Officers for the 2024 Business Meeting are (left to right)
Timekeeper: Ira Alexandre (they/them)
Deputy Presiding Officer: Warren Buff (he/him)
Presiding Officer: Jesi Lipp (they/them, Chairperson)
Parliamentarian: Martin Pyne (he/him)
Secretary: Alex Acks (they/them)
Floor Manager: Chris Hensley (he/him) (not pictured)
The start of the meeting, scheduled for 10:00 a.m. GMT, was delayed due to problems with the close-captioning system, which the Chair Lipp declared was essential for the hearing impaired fans present at the meeting and those streaming the proceedings elsewhere at the convention or at home.
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 11:34 a.m., to much applause.
The 2024 Business Meeting moved on to the first item on the Agenda. Sections of the Agenda quoted below are displayed in italics.
2024 Business Meeting Agenda Table of Contents
After a brief explanation of the procedures of the Business Meeting, Chairperson Lipp called for the first item on the Agenda; Committee Reports and the Mark Protection Committee Nominations:
Mark Protection Committee Nominations: When the call for nominations were made the following people’s names were placed on the ballot:
Bruce Farr, Chris Rose, Linda Deneroff, Cliff Dunn, Mark Richards, Donald Eastlake, Alan Fleming and Olav Rokne.
Balloting will take place at the first session of the Main Business Meeting on Saturday, August 10th.
Other Committees: The Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee and the Worldcon Conrunners Committee had no comments to record from the members. There were no objections to either committee continuing to function with their current members.
Financial Reports: The LoneStarCon Financial report was submitted late and was not included in the agenda but copies were made and were read into the record:
Chairperson Lipp thanked previous Worldcons who submitted final financial reports: Chicon 8, Pemmicon, DisCon 3 who all disbursed their surplus funds.
Chairperson Lipp moved on to Standing Rule Changes for the Business Meeting, which, if approved, will take effect at the beginning of the next year’s session of the Business Meeting in Seattle.
C. STANDING RULE CHANGES
C.1 Magnum PI
Moved, to amend the Standing Rules as follows:
Rule 5.3: Postpone Indefinitely.
Moved, to amend the Standing Rules as follows: Rule 5.3: Postpone Indefinitely. The motion to Postpone Indefinitely shall not be allowed at the Main Business Meeting, but shall be allowed at the Preliminary Business Meeting and the first time a main motion is brought before a Main Business Meeting. This motion shall have four (4) minutes of debate time and shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote for adoption.
Proposed by: Cliff Dunn, Jared Dashoff
The motion to Postpone Indefinitely shall not be allowed at the Main Business Meeting, but shall be allowed at the Preliminary Business Meeting and the first time a main motion is brought before a Main Business Meeting. This motion shall have four (4) minutes of debate time and shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote for adoption. Proposed by: Cliff Dunn, Jared Dashoff
Discussion: At Discon in 2021, the Business Meeting was subject to heavier time constraints than usual across its first three days. At Chicon in 2022, the business of the Preliminary Business Meeting spilled over into the first day of the Main Business Meeting due to a large amount of business being presented. Combined with the wave of business this year, the possibility that business which might be respectfully but swiftly disposed of via Postpone Indefinitely might be unable to be disposed of thusly for no other reason than the Preliminary Business Meeting either being cut short or running over has emerged.
Therefore, we propose to adjust the rules surrounding Postpone Indefinitely to allow it to be brought up at the “first pass” of any item of business. Our hope is that this will be adopted with a 2/3 vote for immediate effect, given this year’s Business Meeting circumstances.
Vote: There was no debate and motion was passed by the raising of a majority of hands and was adopted and put into effect immediately by another vote by hands.
C.2 Strike 1.4
Moved, to amend the Standing Rules as follows:
Rule 1.4: Scheduling of Meetings. The first Main Meeting shall be scheduled no less than eighteen (18) hours after the conclusion of the last Preliminary Meeting. No meeting shall be scheduled to begin before 10:00 or after 13:00 local time.
Proposed by: Cliff Dunn, Kate Secor
Discussion: We find Standing Rule 1.4 overly prescriptive in its constraints on the Business Meeting. While it might be preferable to schedule meetings according to the directions contained in Standing Rule 1.4, as the last few Worldcons have shown, facility availability and business volume may not always align with this. Whether it is the necessity of the Preliminary Business Meeting spilling into a second day’s session or the possibility that space availability might require “non-conventional” scheduling (e.g. an earlier start or split sessions within a single day with a planned break), Rule 1.4 doesn’t anticipate anything but “vanilla” scheduling. We therefore propose eliminating it so as to remove those constraints.
A debate time of four minutes was proposed by the Mixed Chair and adopted.
After a back and forth about theoretical starting and ending times, a motion was made for a serpentine majority vote, in which the Floor Manager counts each member standing (or sitting) by number. A majority of the plurality carries the motion.
Vote: In this vote, the Yeas were 49, the Nays were 39. The motion passed.
Before proceeding, the Chair announced that write-in candidates for the Mark Protection Committee were permitted but the persons being written in must consent and make their intentions known to the Business Meeting to appear on the ballot. Furthermore, the Chair urged all nominees to post on the Worldcon Discord page to get to know their fellow nominees. They also advised on how to access Discord page
C. 3 We Don’t Like Surprises, Why Do You Ask?
Moved, to amend the Standing Rules as follows: Rule 2.2: Requirements for Submission of New Business. Rule 2.2.1: Emergency Business.
Proposed by: Cliff Dunn, Kristina Forsyth, Erica Frank
No business may be submitted to the Business Meeting without prior notice for consideration at the same meeting of the Business Meeting without unanimous consent. Any business which is submitted with unanimous consent for immediate consideration and adopted shall be subject to a motion to reconsider at the next day’s meeting of the Business Meeting, and said motion may be made and/or seconded by any member who voted against its passage or who was not present at the time. No business may be brought up under this section on the final scheduled day of the Business Meeting. Excepted from this shall be business presented to the Business Meeting by the Site Selection Administrator pertaining to that year’s Site Selection process and motions pertaining to the resolution of a disputed or failed Site Selection process. Except as provided within, this rule shall not be subject to a suspension of the rules.
Discussion: This is a minimal change, but it is aimed at preventing a “surprise rules change” by the Preliminary Business Meeting, as happened in Chengdu. The concept of “Notice to Absentees” is important, especially in the context of a convention with multiple conflicting tracks of business. Basically, this would force any such business to the next day. The sole carve-out is for Site Selection business – both for the potential adjudication of disputed ballots and the resolution of a disputed or failed Site Selection process. The former is necessarily time-sensitive and the latter should be considered potentially noticed in the form of the “Site Selection Business Meeting”.
Ruled Unconstitutional by Chair: This proposal was ruled unconstitutional by the Chair and out of order because it conflicts with WSFS amendments 5.1 and 5.6, which interfere with the presiding officer to administer New Business. They did allow that this proposal could be re-submitted at this Business Meeting with different language that would not conflict with the Constitution.
Cliff Dunn offered to resubmit with the several offending words, “No business may be brought up under this section on the final scheduled day of the Business Meeting” omitted.
The motion to suspend the rules to take up an altered amendment by 2/3rd of the vote failed. Cliff Dunn made an appeal that the Chair’s ruling that the motion no longer before the voting body was improper. The Chair ruled that their original ruling was no longer before the body and rejected the appeal.
There was some slight clapping and the Chair reminded the audience that such demonstrations would count against the debate time and would be enforced.
C.4 Repeal 7.9
Moved, to amend the Standing Rules as follows:
Rule 7.9: Proxy and remote voting.
Proposed by: Jesi Lipp*, Jared Dashoff, Alan Bond, Chris Rose, Kathy Bond, James Bacon, Joyce Lloyd, Colin Harris, Gareth Kavanagh, Farah Mendlesohn
*Jesi Lipp will not be presiding over this item, as they are the maker of the motion.
Only WSFS members physically present at the Business Meeting shall be recognized for purposes of debate, or may move, second, or vote on motions on the floor of the meeting. Proxy voting is not permitted.
Discussion: Standing Rule 7.9 sets an extremely bad precedent by explicitly restricting the Worldcon from attempting to allow more WSFS members to be active participants in the society of which they have become a member. It further alienates and bars from participation anyone who does not or cannot spend approximately half of the convention in the Business Meeting. WSFS as a member organization should state and act as if it values its members. The society should take steps to increase openness and participation in its rule making, and should not be prevented from doing so by its very own Standing Rules. The Business Meeting is one of only three duties that the Constitution requires of the host convention; it is critical to the convention and continuation of WSFS and Worldcon. Therefore, we must value participation in the Business Meeting and choose rules that increase participation by the members rather than reduce it. Our current system for holding the Business Meeting privileges voices of those with the financial resources to physically attend the convention, and then further those with the ability to devote a significant amount of their convention time and energy to attending the Business Meeting.
There are arguments from some that giving up such a significant amount of one’s time and energy is the price one must pay to get a say in the business of their society, and that it demonstrates the commitment and dedication of those members. But lack of financial resources to travel or having access needs that prevent physical attendance should never be interpreted as lack of commitment. Further, this argument somehow concludes that the hours and effort put in by countless volunteers to make the convention run (which in many cases prevent them from attending the Business Meeting) are not “dedication” to Worldcon. The existence of the WSFS membership (formerly Supporting membership) in our membership structure makes it clear that, as a society, we understand that not everyone can always attend every Worldcon, but that we still value their participation.
Our rules should therefore not limit us from figuring out ways to enable more members to participate in the Business Meeting. The Business Meeting, as it currently operates, is an outlier. Most major organizations with geographically disparate membership allow some sort of proxy voting: corporate shareholders need not physically attend shareholder meetings to vote; religious organizations, in the era of Zoom, have moved to online or hybrid meetings; even most elections allow for mail-in, absentee, or early voting of some kind. Further, allowing for non-physical presence or proxy voting addresses many of the access issues that our current system creates.
It is unfair to our diverse and disparate membership to constrain the Worldcon from attempting to use these measures to open up participation. Lastly, there is the reality of the time we find ourselves in. With WSFS’s reputation damaged in the eyes of many in recent years by questionable site selection regulations and decisions, as well as by slating and seemingly irregular ballot counting in Hugo nomination and voting, the society should be moving towards transparency in rulemaking rather than taking steps that actively bar society members from participating.
The Chair stepped down from the podium to address and comment on the motion they proposed. Warren Buff stepped into the Chair’s role to conduct the debate.
Ten minutes of debate time was proposed by Mr. Duff. There was a proposal to delay the discussion of the proposal until after the debate on D.9, which calls for the formation of a Business Meeting Study Group. The Chair pointed out that the proposers of this change were also co-signers of D.9.
Vote: The motion to postpone was voted down by a hand vote. The debate proceeded over the propriety of offering proxy votes versus how such voting could be established and administered by the Business Meeting. There was a motion to amend the motion to completely eliminate proxy voting. It was voted down by a hand vote. A serpentine vote on the main motion on the rule passed by a 49-36 vote.
Dr. Perrianne Lurie
EXTENSIONS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE HUGO AWARD. Next on the Agenda was for an extension of eligibility for seven motion pictures, whom the petitioners thought did not have an wide enough distribution during the previous calendar year:
D. Resolutions From the WSFS Constitution Section 3.4.3: In the event that a potential Hugo Award nominee receives extremely limited distribution in the year of its first publication or presentation, its eligibility may be extended for an additional year by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the intervening Business Meeting of WSFS.
Usually, these proceedings are put to a quick vote and are easily dispensed with and no dramatic work has been denied an exemption before. Until this year…
When the Chairperson proposed to bundle all seven works into a single motion, there were immediate objections, particularly for two of the works, The Boy and The Heron and Godzilla Minus One. After a short debate time, the members voted to separate those two works and vote on them separately.
Vote: The five other works were granted extensions by a wide margin by hand.
D.1 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Conann a.k.a. She Is Conann Moved, to extend for one year the Hugo Award eligibility of the movie Conann a.k.a. She Is Conann, based on limited availability, as authorized by Section 3.4.3 of the WSFS Constitution.
Proposed by: Cora Buhlert, Olav Rokne, Amanda Wakaruk, Jason Sanford, Christopher Rowe, Chris M. Barkley
D.2 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Lovely, Dark, and Deep Moved, to extend for one year the Hugo Award eligibility of the movie Lovely, Dark, and Deep, based on limited availability, as authorized by Section 3.4.3 of the WSFS Constitution.
Proposed by: Cora Buhlert, Olav Rokne, Amanda Wakaruk, Paul Weimer, Chris M. Barkley
D.5 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Mars Express Moved, to extend for one year the Hugo Award eligibility of the movie Mars Express, based on limited availability, as authorized by Section 3.4.3 of the WSFS Constitution.
Proposed by: Cora Buhlert, Olav Rokne
D.6 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Tiger Stripes Moved, to extend for one year the Hugo Award eligibility of the movie Tiger Stripes, based on limited availability, as authorized by Section 3.4.3 of the WSFS Constitution.
Proposed by: Cora Buhlert, Olav Rokne
D.7 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Mollie and Max in the Future Moved, to extend for one year the Hugo Award eligibility of the movie Mollie and Max in the Future, based on limited availability, as authorized by Section 3.4.3 of the WSFS Constitution.
Proposed by: Cora Buhlert, Olav Rokne, Amanda Wakaruk
Debate time: The debate time for D.3 was set for two minutes:
D.3 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Kimitachi wa dô ikiru ka a.k.a. The Boy and the Heron Moved, to extend for one year the Hugo Award eligibility of the movie Kimitachi wa dô ikiru ka a.k.a. The Boy and the Heron, based on limited availability, as authorized by Section 3.4.3 of the WSFS Constitution.
Proposed by: Cora Buhlert, Olav Rokne
Discussion: The Boy and the Heron is an animated Japanese fantasy film by Hayao Miyasaki as well as the winner of the 2024 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. The Boy and the Heron premiered in Japan on July 14, 2023, and had its international premiere on September 7, 2023 at the Toronto International Film Festival and was subsequently screened at other film festivals, but did not receive a wide theatrical release in most countries until late December 2023 or January 2024. Due to its limited release schedule in 2023, very few members of the Glasgow Worldcon had the opportunity to watch The Boy and the Heron before the deadline for nominating for the 2024 Hugo Awards.
Despite the fact it had a limited distribution, The Boy and the Heron was certainly noticed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which voted it the Best Animated Feature film, a fact that was probably the determining factor in it being voted down, a first for a Worldcon Business Meeting.
Vote: The motion to extend The Boy and the Heron failed by a wide margin in a hand vote.
Debate time: The debate time of two minutes was set for D.4.
D.4 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Gojira – 1.0 a.k.a. Godzilla Minus One Moved, to extend for one year the Hugo Award eligibility of the movie Gojira – 1.0 a.k.a. Godzilla Minus One, based on limited availability, as authorized by Section 3.4.3 of the WSFS Constitution.
Proposed by: Cora Buhlert, Olav Rokne, Amanda Wakaruk
Discussion: Godzilla Minus One is a kaiju movie by Takashi Yamazaki as well as the winner of the 2024 Academy Award for Best Special Effects. Godzilla Minus One had its global premiere on November 1, 2023, at the Tokyo International Film Festival and received a theatrical release in Japan two days later. The movie had a limited theatrical release in several countries in December 2023, but was not widely available in the US until January 2024. Due to its limited release schedule in 2023, very few members of the Glasgow Worldcon had the opportunity to watch Godzilla Minus One before the deadline for nominating for the 2024 Hugo Awards.
The main objection was not the quality of the movie, which even some of the objecting members praised. The sticking point was that the film grossed $116 million dollars in the United States. This argument was countered that the astounding earnings were achieved at a limited number of theaters that were boosted by a word of mouth campaign by fans of the film.
(Author’s note: I, too, spoke out in favor of the extension, pointing out that the film’s distributor, Toho Films, had mandated that Godzilla Minus One be withdrawn from all exhibitors worldwide in January 2024, in order to make way for their collaboration with Warner Brothers, Godzilla X Kong, which opened on March 26th, 2024 in Japan and four days later in the United States.)
Vote: The vote to approve the extension for Godzilla Minus One passed with more than a 2/3rds vote by hand.
D.8 MPC Funding Request
Resolved, That the WSFS Business Meeting requests that Worldcons donate US $1.00 per WSFS member, and non-Worldcon conventions sanctioned by WSFS donate US $0.30 per attending or supporting member, to the MPC to fund the committee’s operations.
Proposed by: The Mark Protection Committee Discussion:
The MPC is and always has been dependent on voluntary donations from conventions for its funding. Other sources of income are insignificant. Decades ago, a donation of $0.50 per site selection voter was suggested based on what the continuing expenses of the MPC were then. But continuing expenses have increased for the growing number of mark registrations in a growing number of jurisdictions, legal expenses, computer services, domain names, insurance, and inflation. Furthermore, the number of site selection voters is more volatile than the number of WSFS members or attendees. For example, there are usually fewer voters when site selection is uncontested. So this resolution suggests a donation based on membership.
Despite the seemingly benign nature of the request, several members argued that this request seemed poised to be a mandatory rendering of funds to the MPC. This line of attack continued even though Kevin Standlee maintained that the proposal was merely a request, not a demand. It was also pointed out that the motion was not binding in any way.
Vote: The vote on the motion was passed by a hand vote with a minor amendment to specify that a convention could contribute to the fund from any surplus funds they may have on hand instead of a specified amount from the general fund.
Debate time: A debate time of six minutes was set by the Chair for D.9.
D.9 Business Meeting Study Group
Resolved, to establish a Study Group to review the rules governing the conduct of and participation in the WSFS Business Meeting, to report back with specific recommendations to the 2025 WSFS Business Meeting.
Proposed by: Farah Mendlesohn, Colin Harris, Jared Dashoff, Gareth Kavanagh
The scope of the Study Group shall include: 1. Assessment of alternatives to Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (RONR) as the basis for the conduct of the Business Meeting 2. Assessment of the options for remote participation by Members in the Business Meeting, at three possible levels (a) observation only (b) contributing to debate (speaking), (c) participating in votes 3. Assessment of the options for scheduling the Business Meeting separately from the Worldcon (subject to (2) since this would presumably require it to be a wholly online meeting).
For each topic, any recommendations made by the Study Group should include a clear assessment of the consequences, benefits and drawbacks of the proposed approach compared to the existing approach. Note from Business Meeting staff: When a committee is created, if the membership of the committee, or a process for electing the membership, is not specified in the motion, it is the custom of the Business Meeting that the Presiding Officer selects a chairperson (normally the proposer of the motion, if they are interested) and the committee membership is constituted of anyone who expresses interest in joining.
Discussion: The Business Meeting (BM) appears to many observers as a closed shop, dominated by a core of regular participants and governed through a byzantine set of debating rules. The fact that regular BM attendees, and other individuals who are experienced with formal parliamentary protocols, find the rules navigable does not invalidate this perception. The Constitution fundamentally enshrines the principle that WSFS is a participatory rather than a representative democracy.
The adoption of participatory democracy in turn implies that we trust our membership to inform themselves and to make sensible decisions on the issues which are put before them. If we are to respect these principles then it is incumbent on us to ensure that participation is easy, convenient, and accessible to all WSFS members. A more open and accessible process will enhance the credibility of WSFS and the robustness of its governance at a time when the broader reputation of Worldcon has taken significant damage.
Further to this, WSFS governance in particular has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. It is unhelpful when BM attendees are perceived to enjoy “Robert’s Rules – the RPG” as an end in itself. And the argument that “everyone’s welcome to participate – they just need to put the work in to understand the process” has appalling optics.
These perceptions of Worldcon has taken significant damage. Further to this, WSFS governance in particular has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. It is unhelpful when BM attendees are perceived to enjoy “Robert’s Rules – the RPG” as an end in itself. And the argument that “everyone’s welcome to participate – they just need to put the work in to understand the process” has appalling optics.
These 2024 WSFS Business Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 100 perceptions speak to exclusion and barriers at a time when Worldcon needs to strive for inclusion and transparency. We believe that a Study Group is the best way to consider alternative approaches with the thoroughness that is needed and to properly reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of changes. The overriding aim will be to ensure we govern ourselves in a way that is fit for purpose for the Worldcons of this decade and beyond.
● We will review the governing Rules. Whilst Clause 5.1.4 of the Constitution already enables individual Worldcons to adopt something other than RONR, we believe that a more fundamental review is needed. If nothing else, such a review will enable us to reflect on the implications of our current approach. For instance, RONR is fundamentally based on adversarial debate, as opposed to consensus building alternatives such as Martha’s Rules.
● We will assess options for optimizing our use of RONR if it is retained, to minimize barriers to understanding and participation.
● We will review the potential for remote participation particularly in terms of the need to give all WSFS Members the option to participate. The recent changes to the definition of WSFS Membership make it more anomalous than ever to exclude those without an Attending Supplement from participation.
● We will review the option to decouple the Business Meeting from the five days of Worldcon. We understand the argument that “if people care enough about the issue they should be willing to invest the time to attend” but believe that we have created a structure which, ironically, makes it difficult for many people to attend and volunteer for the Worldcon and still be involved in its governance.
We believe that the current conduct of and participation in the Business Meeting is at odds with the progressive steps being taken in other aspects of Worldcon. In areas such as member recruitment and programme participation we see active and successful initiatives to increase diversity and inclusion and to remove barriers and gatekeeping. It is time for our governing institutions to embrace and reflect this progress.
Postponed to Saturday: The proposers of this item were not present and the Chair proposed a delay in the vote until Saturday. Hearing no objections, the proposal was scheduled for the next day.
Debate time: The final item of the Preliminary Business Meeting, D. 10, had a debate of six minutes set:
D. 10 Hugo Process Study Committee
Resolved, that there be a Hugo Process Study Committee that shall report back to the 2025 Business Meeting with recommendations and proposed amendments. The remit of this committee shall include, but not be limited to: employing third parties to administer, oversee, and/or audit the Hugo Awards and the financial implications thereof; other options for independent oversight of the Hugo Awards; creation of a whistleblower process and protections; and how such processes might affect the site selection process. The leadership and membership of this committee will be determined by the Presiding Officer.
Proposed by: James Bacon, Chris Garcia, Randall Shepard, Ian Stockdale, Sara Felix, Marguerite Smith
Vote: After a six minute debate, the proposed committee’s approval was passed by a more than 2/3rd showing of the member’s hand. Worldcon Member Bree Reeves volunteered to head the committee, was appointed by the Chair. Ms. Reeves consulted with one of the proposers, James Bacon in the rear of the room as the meeting was coming to an end.
Conclusion of Preliminary Meeting: The time at that point of the meeting was 2:53 GMT.
And with little remaining time for the next agenda item, Chairperson Lipp announced that the Main Business Meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow [Saturday]. They also said that the next three items on the Agenda, D 11 (Statement of Values For Transparency and Fair Treatment), D 12 (Chengdu Censure),will be discussed in an Executive Session, and that video, closed captioning and audio recording will not be permitted by the staff or by attending members.
D 13 (Apology) and D 14 (Make Them Finalists!) and D.8 would be taken up afterwards.
The Chair announced that it was decided to hold the Mark Protection election at the Sunday morning session.
With that Chairperson Jessi Lipp closed the 2024 Preliminary Business Meeting Session.
After starting at 11:34 a.m., there were breaks at 12:15 p.m. for lunch, reconvening at 1:00 p.m. for the second session, another break at 2:00 p.m., and the final session starting at 2:15 p.m.
Attendance count: Total Attendance in the audience at its peak was 90 people.
The recipients of seven First Fandom awards were announced during opening ceremonies of the Glasgow 2024 Worldcon on August 8. Emcee Vincent Docherty named the winners of the First Fandom Hall of Fame Award, the Posthumous Hall of Fame Award, and the Sam Moskowitz Archive Award.
FIRST FANDOM HALL OF FAME. This prestigious achievement award has been presented annually since 1963 to a living recipient who has made significant contributions to Science Fiction during their lifetime. This year, the members of First Fandom have elected Mary & Bill Burns, and David Langford to the First Fandom Hall of Fame for 2024.
POSTHUMOUS HALL OF FAME AWARD. This esteemed award (est. 1994) was created by First Fandom to acknowledge people who should have but did not receive deserved recognition during their lifetime. This year, the members of First Fandom have inducted Alfred Bester, Michael David Glicksohn, Mike Resnick, and Peter Weston to the First Fandom Posthumous Hall of Fame for 2024.
SAM MOSKOWITZ ARCHIVE AWARD (“for attaining excellence in Collecting”). This notable award (created in 1998) recognizes not only an impressive collection but what actually has been done with it. Previous award recipients have published articles and books, made collections available for public viewing, loaned items for other projects, and donated material to be preserved for future generations. This year, the members of First Fandom have chosen Joe Siclari&Edie Stern as the recipients of the Sam Moskowitz Archive Award for 2024 in recognition of a lifetime of service to science fiction fandom.
FIRST FANDOM HALL OF FAME
Mary & Bill Burns
Bill and Mary Burns in 2009.
In 1967, British fan Bill Burns and American fan Mary Ensley were both at the NyCon3 Worldcon, but they didn’t meet there. It wasn’t until three years later that they met in London, where Mary was en route to the 1970 Worldcon in Heidelberg and Bill was working at the BBC. Bill decided it would be a good idea to attend the Worldcon, and after the couple spent time together at Heidelberg, a long-distance relationship ensued.
Mary imported Bill to New York in June 1971 and the pair were married in late August that year. They spent part of their honeymoon at the first Boston Worldcon, Noreascon 1, and have been attending conventions together ever since. They visit the UK around Easter every year and have attended 110 Eastercons between them, as well as many Worldcons.
In 2009 Mary and Bill were joint Fan Guests of Honour at Eastercon LX in Bradford, and they received the same honor at Dublin in 2019, the first Irish Worldcon and the couple’s first-ever convention in Ireland.
Mary is U.S. Marine Corps veteran. Mary ran the art show at Eastercon for years and then was responsible for on-site registration. Bill founded www.eFanzines.com in 2000 to “help traditional fanzine publishers make the transition to on-line publication” and he was the recipient of the Doc Weir Award in 2003.
Bill and Mary Burns in 2019. Photo by Rich Lynch.
Bill Burns writes:
Mary and I are surprised and delighted by your announcement! Having become involved in fandom in the 1960s (1964 in England for me and 1967 in the USA for Mary), we met a good number of the founding members of First Fandom, so it is indeed an honor to be added to the Hall of Fame.
Mary & Bill Burns accepted their award in person.
David Langford
David Langford in 2014.
David Langford, active in British Fandom since the 1970s is best known as a writer, editor and critic who publishes the newszine Ansible.
Over the years, he has worked on many convention committees and their publications, and has often served as Fan GoH. He was the TAFF delegate in 1980, traveling to Noreascon Two, writing The Transatlantic Hearing Aid (1985) as his trip report. The Auld Lang Fund was organized to bring him to Aussiecon Three (1999). He won the 2002 Skylark Award.
Langford runs Ansible Editions, a small press that publishes both fanand pro material; fan publications include a number of free ebooks from the TAFF website, which he maintains.
As a fan writer, he has received 21 Best Fan Writer Hugo Awards. Ansible has received 6 Hugo Awards. He was proof-reader and copy editor for The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and received the FAAn Lifetime Achievement Award in 2021. (From Fancyclopedia)
David Langford
Claire Brialey and Mark Plummer, who are Fan GoHs at this year’s Worldcon, delivered David Langford’s remarks and accepted the award on his behalf during the Opening Ceremony.
POSTHUMOUS HALL OF FAME
This esteemed award was created in 1994 to acknowledge those people in Science Fiction who should have but did not receive deserved recognition during their lifetime.
This year, members of First Fandom inducted four people into the Posthumous Hall of Fame: Alfred Bester, Michael David Glicksohn, Mike Resnick, and Peter Weston.
Alfred Bester
Alfred Bester
Alfred Bester (1913-1987) was a science fiction author, TV and radio scriptwriter, magazine editor, and scriptwriter for comics. He is best remembered for his novels The Demolished Man (winner of the inaugural Hugo Award in 1953), and The Stars My Destination (1956).
In the late-1930s, Bester met literary agent Julius Schwartz, who agreed to represent him. After Schwartz moved to DC Comics in the early-1940s, he convinced Bester to become a writer of comics. Bester worked on various titles, including Green Lantern (he is credited with writing the modern Green Lantern oath.) During WWII, he was also the writer for The Phantom and Mandrake the Magician.
In the mid-1940s, Bester wrote radio scripts, including Nick Carter, The Shadow, and others, and began writing for television. Years later, he wrote travel articles for mainstream magazine Holiday, eventually becoming a senior editor.
He was unable to attend the 1987 Worldcon as GoH, so Julius Schwartz delivered his acceptance speech. The Science Fiction Writers of America named Bester its Grand Master in 1988, and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame inducted him in 2001. (From Wikipedia)
Michael David Glicksohn
Mike Glicksohn accepts Susan Wood’s 1981 Best Fan Writer Hugo, which she won posthumously.
Mike Glicksohn was a Canadian high school math teacher and the co-editor of the science fiction fanzine Energumen which won the 1973 Hugo Award for Best Fanzine. Glicksohn was nominated for an individual Hugo in 1977. He was born May 20, 1946, in Ports-mouth, England, and died March 18, 2011, in Toronto, Ontario. He was a Guest of Honor at Aussiecon 1, the 33rd Worldcon, in 1975. (Excerpted from Wikipedia)
Susan Manchester and Mike Glicksohn
Mike’s widow, Susan Manchester, writes:
Hurray for Mike! He would be so proud of this! How very wonderful. Just a few words about Mike’s love of fandom. Indeed, he loved fandom. He found a family there as many others have done. As I knew little about fandom when we got married, Mike cut down on the number of cons he attended. I did not ask him to do this. When he committed to something he truly devoted himself. He was that kind of person.
I know he would feel honoured to receive this award. And he would feel humbled. I never knew him to gloat over his accomplishments. To be remembered in this way would mean so much to him. On his behalf, let me offer his heartfelt thanks for this recognition.
On a personal note, Mike was the love of my life and I still have difficulty in the world without him. He was an amazing human being. He has been gone 13 years.
Mike Glicksohn and Einstein. Photo by Rich Lynch.Enjoying a bookMike Glicksohn at Happy Hour
Chas Baden and Lynn Boston Baden accepted the award on Susan’s behalf. Chas said:
Thank you! Lynn and I have been asked by friends of Mike Glicksohn’s to accept this award and bring it to Toronto so it can be presented to Susan Manchester, Mike’s long-time partner and widow.
I did not know Mike, but I have been told this award honors his lifetime of continuous activity as a genuine SF enthusiast. He had great influence in fanzines, winning the 1973 Hugo for Best Fanzine for an issue of Energumen. He also had influence in running conventions, poker games, and a legendary, yearly barbecue/birthday party he ran with Mike Harper called Mikecon.
His influence was not only felt in Toronto, but especially across Canada, the US, England, and Australia, who honored him by naming him the Fan GoH at Aussiecon 1, the 33rd Worldcon, in 1975.
He was a beloved mathematics teacher, and had a long teaching career at a local technical school. He used poker to teach statistics, and also teach the dangers of playing poker with Mike Glicksohn!
I would like to thank John Coker and First Fandom for the honor of accepting this award.
Mike Resnick
Mike Resnick, Chicon 7 (2012) Photo by John L. Coker III.
Mike will be remembered by many in our community for his love of fandom and his service to many of the early fans.
Mike Resnick (1942-2020) was an American writer of SF, fantasy, horror, and mystery. He was a seasoned editor, newspaper man, columnist, anthologist, and publisher. He was nominated for 37 Hugo Awards and won five times. He was nominated eleven times for the Nebula Award, and he won once. He was the GoH at Chicon 7. He was executive editor of the magazine Jim Baen’s Universe, and creator and editor of Galaxy’s Edge magazine. He sold his first piece of writing in 1957, while still in high school. His work has been translated into dozens of languages.
Resnick and his wife Carol were participants in SF fandom from 1962. Carol created cos-tumes in which she and Resnick appeared at five Worldcon masquerades in the 1970s, win-ning four out of five contests. He wrote more than seventy novels, published twenty-five collections, and edited more than forty anthologies. As of 2012, he had been GoH at more than 40 science fiction cons and toast-master at a dozen others.” (From Wikipedia)
Mike and Carol Resnick. Photo by Ben Jason. Collection of John L. Coker III.
Mike’s daughter Laura Resnick arranged for Chris M. Barkley to deliver the family’s written remarks. He kindly did so, and accepted the award plaque on their behalf. Laura requested that this award be dedicated to her mother, Carol.
Here are the family’s acceptance remarks:
The Resnick family thanks First Fandom for this honor, which would have meant so much to Mike.
Although many readers over the years knew him as a prolific science fiction writer, he always thought of himself first and foremost as a fan. This community was his home and his family. He loved fannish culture, conventions, and hanging out late into the night with his fellow fans. He had an almost encyclopedic knowledge of fannish history and a great affection and respect for First Fandom.
Somewhere out there in the stars, his spirit is still celebrating the sense of wonder that embodied science fiction and fandom for him. Thank you.
Peter Weston
Peter Weston (1943-2017) is best known for founding the longest-lived fan group in the U.K., chairing the 1979 Worldcon, and editing the Andromeda series of original anthologies. He was Fan GoH at Noreascon 4, in 2004.
During 1963-1976, he published the award-winning, multi-named fanzines Zenith, Zenith- Speculation, and Speculation, getting four Hugo nominations and a Nova Award.
Peter Weston holding up a Hugo rocket, 2004. Photo by Murray Moore.
For years, Peter’s foundry cast the Hugo rockets for the Hugo Awards.
He organized the Speculation Conferences in Birmingham, UK, co-founded and chaired the Birmingham SF Group in 1971, and helped start Novacon later that year. In 2008, he was inducted into the Knights of Saint Fantony.
Peter was a four-time Hugo Award nominee (1965, 1966, 2005, 2010) and five-time Locus Award nominee (1971-74, 1977). He received the Doc Weir Award (1975), Nova Award (2007), Fellow of NESFA (2010), and a Lifetime Achievement Award at Corflu 32 in 2015. (From Fancyclopedia)
Acceptance Speech for Peter Weston’s Award
Peter’s daughter Alison Weston prepared an acceptance video. Here is the text:
Peter Weston, 2005. Photo by Bill Burns.
Hello, Glasgow. Hello, Worldcon members.
Thank you for honoring my dad, Peter Weston, with the First Fandom [Posthumous] Hall of Fame Award. Science fiction was my dad’s great passion.
Discovering science fiction as a small boy growing up in post-War Birmingham was a revelation. It created in him a life-long enthusiasm and opened his mind to infinite possibility, what he always referred to as “a sense of wonder.”
That small boy devoured every science fiction book that he could find. He would hide on other shelves all the science fiction books he could find in the library, so that no one else could take them out while he was reading and returning the measly two books allowed at a time. So, to all the Birmingham fans of the same vintage, if you wondered why you could never find anything at the library, now you know why.
Science fiction gave my dad many opportunities to do things, to have adventures, from writing his award-winning fanzines, winning the TAFF in the 1970s [1974] and traveling to the US, chairing the Worldcon in Brighton in 1979, right up to being a Hugo Award nominee for the book about his life in fandom that he wrote in his retirement.
Dad had a lot of other hobbies. He joined other clubs. He was a busy man. But, science fiction was his great passion that stayed with him for the whole of his life. Apart from his family, it was the thing that meant the most to him.
And, in science fiction fandom, my dad found a community, a community of people who shared his interest, who shared his passion, who shared his curiosity for possibilities yet to be conceived; a community based on a sense of wonder, something that he kept for the whole of his life.
It would have meant a great deal to my dad to be honored here today. It means a great deal to all of us in our family. We are very proud of him for the wonderful man that he was.
So, on behalf of my mom and the rest of our family, thank you very much for remembering Peter Weston, lifetime science fiction fan, in the First Fandom [Posthumous] Hall of Fame. Thank you very much and I wish you a very good Convention.
SAM MOSKOWITZ ARCHIVE AWARD (FOR EXCELLENCE IN COLLECTING)
The Sam Moskowitz Archive Award (created in 1998) recognizes not only an impressive collection but also what has been done with it.
The members of First Fandom have voted to present this year’s Sam Moskowitz Archive Award to the team of Joe Siclari & Edie Stern.
Joe Siclari & Edie Stern
Joe Siclari and Edie Stern
By Jon D. Swartz: Siclari started in science fiction (SF) fandom in 1965 by collecting everything he could find related to SF and fantasy: books, prozines, fanzines, and other paraphernalia. By 1966, he was a fanzine fan.
He has been active in running cons, clubs, collecting and preserving SF and fan history. From Staten Island, he then moved to Florida in the late 1970s. Around 2000, he moved back to New York State with his wife, Edie Stern. Joe is president of FANAC, the sponsor of Fanac Fan History Project; The FANAC Fan History Project YouTube Channel; and, the Fan History Zoom Series.
Stern is a well-known SF club, con, collector, and fanzine fan. She started in fandom in 1970 by subscribing to fanzines she read about in Amazing Stories. She is a past chair of SFSFS, head of the 1992 Worldcon program division, co-editor of the SFSFS Shuttle, Tails of Fandom, and Shadow of a Fan, among other SF activities.
Siclari and Stern are also collectors of SF and fantasy art, and have helped create many special art exhibits at Boskone, as well as at several Worldcons and the World Fantasy Conventions during 2014 – 2018.
Together, Joe and Edie have received many genre awards, including the 2016 Big Heart Award. They are both Fellows of NESFA and were named Fan GoH at Chicon 8 in 2022.
Here’s a note from Joe Siclari and Edie Stern:
We are greatly honored to have been selected to receive the Sam Moskowitz Archive Award. Sam was the first great historian of fandom and we are happy to follow in his footsteps. He was a contributor to one of my (Joe) earliest fanzines and we both read quite a few books he wrote or edited about the field. Our goal at www.fanac.com is to archive and disseminate as much of science fiction fandom’s legacy as we can. We, of course, are using electronic means to get the material to readers.
Joe Siclari & Edie Stern accepted their award in person.
Edie SternJoe Siclari
[Thanks to John L. Coker III for providing the draft text and supplying the photos.]
(1) HWA’S USE OF NDA’S EXPLAINED. Horror Writers Association President John Edward Lawson explains why their organization requires elected officers and trustees, paid employees, and certain committee chairs or volunteers (but not all volunteers) to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. Ten-part thread starts here.
We handle your credit cards, taxes, Social Security numbers, the details of your business deals, we work with author estates, we have contracts with large publishers and other business partners, we have knowledge of your medical situation or other problems, 2/10
come and go frequently as compared to employees, so their level of training is often "in progress" but, more importantly, it's a distributed work system with everyone operating remotely–and much more difficult to track how your information is being handled. 4/10
(2) THE STATE OF HORROR. Ellen Datlow, Brian Keene, Lisa Wood, Lisa Kröger, Maxwell I. Gold, moderated by Angela Yuriko Smith, recently discussed “The State of Horror 2024”, part of the HWA “Halloween in July” program set up to help fund scholarships and educational programs year-round.
(4) EKPEKI PROGRAM. And he’s got a visa. Here’s his Glasgow 2024 schedule. Click for larger images.
(5) NOMMOS. He’ll be one of the hosts of the “Nommo Awards Winners Event” explained by JAYLit, the Journal of African Youth Literature.
An exceptional evening awaits guests of the forthcoming Glasgow 2024 Worldcon in a special evening dedicated to the 2024 winners of the Nommo Awards for the best in African Speculative Fiction.
The event will feature presentations by renowned African writers Tendai Huchu, Wole Talabi, Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki, and Nnedi Okorafor, with sponsorship from Tom Ilube.
The Nommo Awards, in their 7th edition, honour excellence in four categories: The Ilube Award for Best Speculative Fiction Novel, and the Nommo Awards for Novella, Short Story, and Graphic Novel. Finalists from Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Senegal, Tanzania, and Sierra Leone highlight the diverse talent in African speculative fiction.
Organised by The African Speculative Fiction Society (ASFS), the awards celebrate works in genres like science fiction, fantasy, horror, and more. The event receives support from Dublin 2019 – An Irish Worldcon, Glasgow 2024, and the British Science Fiction Association (BSFA).
Join in celebrating the creativity and innovation of African writers at the Nommo Awards 2024 on Saturday, August 10, 2024, at 17:30, at the Lomond Auditorium. The ceremony will last for 60 minutes.
Warner Bros. Discovery is shutting down the Boomerang streaming service and moving some of its programming, which includes many classic cartoon series, onto Max.
The kids-and-family move is set for September 30, according to an email to subscribers.
It comes in the same year as a similar strategic shift by Paramount Global, which shuttered Noggin and moved its content onto flagship Paramount+.
Boomerang, which began as a cable network in 2000 featuring a range of animated classics like Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry and Loony Tunes, became a streaming service in 2017. In more recent years, it expanded into original programming….
Universal just revealed the first in-depth look at The Wizarding World of Harry Potter – Ministry of Magic, one of the five new lands coming to the new park. While many Universal and Harry Potter fans have been extremely excited to hear more about this new land, it appears that the announcement hasn’t exactly landed the way Universal wanted it to with some fans…
…It is true that the second and third Fantastic Beasts films did not do too well, especially compared to the first. The first film, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, has a 7.2/10 rating on IMDB, while the second film, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, has a 6.5/10 rating. The last film, Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, has the lowest rating of 6.2/10….
(8) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY.
[Written by Cat Eldridge.]
August 4, 1964 — Jaroslav Olša Jr, 60. That we doing the Birthday of Czech fan Jaroslav Olša Jr. is entirely the credit of Our Gracious Host as he will explain later on with a charming tale of their encounter.
Today’s the sixtieth birthday of Jaroslav who currently is the Czech Consul General in Los Angeles. (OK I’m foreshadowing why Mike will be telling a tale.) He’s also done diplomatic service in Zimbabwe, South Korea and the Philippines — very impressive.
In our corner of things. Jaroslav’s a SF editor, translator and bibliographer. That in itself is also quite impressive, isn’t it?
Jaroslav Olša Jr. Portrait by Svenkaj.
Let’s start off with his amateur work. Jaroslav started the major Ikarie XB fanzine back in the Eighties which turned into their sf monthly magazine Ikarie which had a twenty-year run before becoming the still published XB-1. He was assistant editor there for a time.
In the period after the Velvet Revolution of 1989. with Alexandre Hlinka he also started the AFSF press which was active until the late 1990s, publishing some seventy titles including such as selections of the best stories by SF writers and also novels by Robert A. Heinlein, Robert Silverberg and Kim Stanley Robinson to name a few.
If you were at Conspiracy ’87 in Brighton, you might have him as he was there. And he attended many other international conventions.
Finally, before I let Mike have the last words here, I should note that he was responsible for twenty years for the Czech Encyklopedie literatury science fiction (“Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Literature”, 1995) co-editing it with Ondřej Neff. He also has edited about a dozen sf anthologies; has compiled bibliographies of Czech and Slovak fanzines; and often contributed to Locus.
Mike: In 2019 Jaroslav Olša, jr. invited me to a nice lunch in Westwood – making sure we had the restaurant’s front window seat. That was nice. We discussed science fiction and what he could do in that line when he became Consul General of the Czech Republic in LA. And first thing, he gifted me with copies of several sff publications he’d helped produce, including a copy of XB-1, the longest-running monthly publication in the Czech Republic, which began life as Olša’s fanzine Ikarie XB (1986-1989). He also gave me a copy of a Czech SF anthology (English translation). Since then, he’s hosted a lot of cultural events in LA, including one in conjunction with an in-person LASFS meeting. A very fannish fellow!
(10) CLOSE ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK. You may have seen it elsewhere, however, a Bluesky user recently posted a copy of the travel voucher Buzz Aldrin filed on his return from the Moon in 1969. Only $33.31, and the itinerary is a bit tongue-in-cheek.
Google is not winning any gold medals for its Olympics ads this year. After days of backlash, the company has decided to pull its controversial “Dear Sydney” ad from Olympic coverage.
In the 60-second ad, a father seeks to write a fan letter on behalf of his daughter to her Olympic idol, US track star Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone. The premise is the sort of treacly ad you’d expect to see at the Olympics, but things take a twist when instead of helping his daughter write a letter, he just has Gemini do it for them. “This has to be just right,” he says, before prompting Gemini to tell Sydney how inspiring she is, that his daughter plans to break her record one day, and to add a “sorry, not sorry” joke at the end.
(12) VIDEO OF THE DAY. [Item by SF Concatenation’s Jonathan Cowie.] Cool Worlds asks whether Dyson Spheres are possible…? I recall when Niven’s Ringworldand some bright wags from MIT (I think — though my memory may be dodgy) pointed out that it’d be unstable. So if true for a ringworld then must be too for a Dyson sphere….
The idea of a Dyson sphere was a radical proposal by the physicist Freeman Dyson, an enormous shell of material enveloping a star. Dyson’s idea may be over half a century old, but interest in looking for such objects has only grown in the decades since. But how would such structures work? Are they physically even possible? And what might someone use them for? Today, we dive into the physics of Dyson spheres.
[Thanks to Mike Kennedy, Andrew Porter, John King Tarpinian, Lise Andreasen, Chris Barkley, Cat Eldridge, SF Concatenation’s Jonathan Cowie, Steven French, Kathy Sullivan, and Teddy Harvia for some of these stories. Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editor of the day Daniel “SJ Perlman” Dern .]
(1) JEFFE KENNEDY RESIGNS AS SFWA PRESIDENT. Science Fiction and Fantasy Association President Jeffe Kennedy announced to members today that she has resigned the office. Her statement says in part:
…I’ve served in this role for over three years and on the Board of Directors for more than seven years. It has been a privilege and an honor to serve this organization.
However, the last several months have been particularly demanding in my personal life, and I have come to the realization that I can no longer provide the focused attention SFWA needs from its President. Without going into too much detail, I continue to be the sole caregiver and financial support for my disabled husband, whose progressive condition is worsening. In addition, my stepfather of twenty years passed away suddenly, widowing my elderly mother for the third time, and I am in the process of taking over all of her finances and care. These family obligations will require far more attention than I could have anticipated when I accepted the nomination to serve a second term as SFWA President.
My legal and fiscal responsibility to SFWA—and my own personal integrity—prevent me from commenting on any issues related to SFWA’s administration and operations. Throughout my tenure I did my best to serve the organization and all of its constituents with sincerity and respect, and to fulfill all of the duties I was elected to perform. Now it is time for me to step back….
…The African Speculative Fiction Society has provided sponsorship to attend but Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki is still in need of funding for other travel and visa expenses, hence this GoFundMe effort. He would like to raise $7500.00.
He has won the Nebula, Locus, Otherwise, Nommo, British & World Fantasy awards and was a finalist in the Hugo, Sturgeon, British Science Fiction and NAACP Image awards.
He is a finalist in the Nommo Award in two categories, best short story and best novella, which will be presented at the Worldcon in Glasgow this year….
To repeat myself: The late Christopher Priest (1943-2024) was one of the greatest SF writers of his generation. He made an early splash with novels like Inverted World and A Dream of Wessex (aka The Perfect Lover), followed by The Prestige, which was made into a successful movie by Christopher Nolan, and then by any number of stories and novels in his Dream Archipelago sequence. I wrote an obituary of him for Black Gatehere….
If they ask you to appear in Star Trek again, would you say yes? Nicens_boi
I mean, you can’t top killing Captain James T Kirk. I suppose I could go back and kill old Patrick Stewart … I got a lot of flak from unhappy Trekkies, but there were also a lot of happy Trekkies who’d had it with old Bill. I think he overstayed his welcome. It was good for him to move on. I’m a great admirer of Shatner. He’s 90-odd. He’s still working. He’s been an astronaut. Good god, he wipes the floor with us young guys. I once made a surprise visit when he was being interviewed on stage. They introduced me: “And the one that killed Captain Kirk.” He went: “You shot me in the back.” I never thought the producers got it right, because they didn’t send him off in a glorious manner. Shot in the back on a bridge that collapses was not a noble end to a great character.
When actor Jennifer Hale talks, you listen. Her delivery is measured and surgically precise, yet her tone has a warmth that most ASMR creators would envy. She could read the phone book and you’d pay attention.
It’s unsurprising, then, that her voice is her livelihood, and that she takes the threat to her industry posed by AI so seriously.
“They see that the work of our souls is nothing more than a commodity to generate profits for them,” she says of several of the major gaming companies. “They don’t see that they’re crushing human beings beneath their feet in blind pursuit of money and profit, it’s disgusting.”
From Commander Shepard in the Mass Effect series to Samus Aran in the Metroid titles, Hale’s list of gaming credits is as long as your arm and her voice is familiar to millions.
Hale is one of the most high-profile voice actors in the world. She’s joined 2,500 members of the US actors union SAG-AFTRA who perform in games, by striking until games divisions of prominent companies like Activision, Warner Brothers, Walt Disney and EA agree to protections around the use of artificial intelligence (AI)….
Apparently, it typically takes a week to read and assess and write a report on a submitted film script and proposal but now an AI can do it in five minutes!!!! They did a trial run and it seems to work even if it is not quite there yet… but you can bet it will be soon.
This was the last item on the programme so skip to the final 10 minutes
With voice actors and motion capture performers in the US currently on strike over AI protections, the place of AI in the culture industries remains highly contested. The Writers Guild of America may have settled their strike but film critic Antonia Quirke explores whether screenwriters still have something to fear from the algorithm…
While Doctor Who has not been afraid to break the fourth wall in the past, and have characters speak directly to the viewers watching at home, Russell T Davies’s new era has been notable for its particularly prominent usage of the device.
Not only has Ncuti Gatwa’s Fifteenth Doctor done it, winking to camera near the end of The Devil’s Chord, but Anita Dobson’s mysterious Mrs Flood has done it on multiple occasions, including at the very end of the most recent season.
Now, speaking at San Diego Comic-Con, Davies has addressed these fourth wall breaks, saying: “It’s part of the show going forward, breaking the fourth wall.”…
…The clip was introduced by guest star Nicola Coughlan, who confirmed that the episode’s punning title refers to her character Joy, “a determined woman whose life is changed forever when she meets the Doctor”.
The sequence – which you can watch below – sees the Doctor zip from Manchester in 1940 to Italy in 1962, then to Mount Everest in 1953 and finally to London in 2024, where he meets Joy.
Coughlan’s character is, of course, attempting to fend off a Silurian with a hair dryer when the Time Lord appears to deliver a ham and cheese toastie and a pumpkin latte… only in Doctor Who….
(9) TARAL WAYNE (1951-2024). Eleven-time Best Fan Artist Hugo finalist Taral Wayne, Fan Guest of Honor at the 2009 Worldcon, died July 31. Steven Baldassarra, who had heard from him earlier in the day and was bringing over a few things, says when he arrived there was no answer to his knock at the door or to phone calls. The building superintendant was asked to open the door and check. They found Taral lying down in his living room, unresponsive. Paramedics were summoned but were unable to revive him.
Baldassarra’s announcement ends with this fine tribute:
I knew Taral for just over 30 years. And while some people may have known Taral for being curmudgeonly, stubborn, fractious, and condescending, I also got to know the man who was also genuinely warm, gentle, impish, thoughtful and even vulnerable.
Taral had a ferocious intellect and was an exceptionally talented graphic artist; I could see how hurt he was for not getting his chance in the sun in becoming a financial success with his graphic work and illustration. But despite all that, Taral did what he had loved, and was contented living by the beat of his own drum.
Taral was truly a wonderful friend, and I am truly blessed to have had known him and having had him as part of my life.
I knew Taral for 45 years and will miss him a lot. File 770’s obituary will appear later this evening.
(10) MEMORY LANE.
[Written by Cat Eldridge.]
August 1, 1986 – Howard the Duck film (1986). Thirty-eight years ago a certain cigar-smoking fowl was let loose upon unsuspecting film goers. Many of whom promptly left the cinemas they were in. That was Howard the Duck based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name.
He was hatched from the minds of writer Steve Gerber and artist Val Mayerik. The former says that he based him off his college friend Howard Tockman. One assumes very, very loosely off that individual. His first comic appearance was fifty-one years ago so he’s a very old duck at this point.
Before we get to the film, we should know that he has appeared elsewhere. Starting in 2014, the character, voiced by Seth Green, appeared in cameos in several Marvel films, to wit the first Guardians of the Galaxy film and the last of those (at least so far) as well the fantastic animated Guardians of the Galaxy series also voiced by Green) and Ultimate Spider-Man (voiced by Kevin Michael Richardson there), and finally the What If…? Series where he was also voiced by Green.
I’m thinking there’s a live action appearance by him after the Howard the Duck film rather recently but I’ll be buggered if I can remember what it is. Anyone remember what it was? It was brief that I know and I can almost picture it. I remember there was a female next to him so I must’ve seen the film if I remember that. But that is all I remember.
Now for how Howard the Duck, the film. It came out the year that Aliens, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Little Shop of Horrors, and Labyrinth came out. Tough competition indeed. And wasn’t that a fantastic year for genre films? Every film I’ve mentioned here got nominated Conspiracy ’87 with Aliens winning the Hugo. Only Big Trouble in Little China and The Fly aren’t here, and they, too, came out that year.
So the film, yes I am getting it now, was written by rather unusually by the producer Gloria Katz and the director George Huyck. I’ve seen that particular combination do a script before. They certainly had the credits as writers, she having written the scripts for American Graffiti and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom; his scripts were the same as they were a couple that scripted together.
So you now know who directed and produced this film. Lucas co-produced it. It was Lucas who suggested adapting the comic book following the production of American Graffiti which they were of course involved in. (He wrote it with them. Talented man that he is.) Lucasfilm was the production company.
Ok I can’t defend it, I really can’t. There’s nothing about the film that’s not considered a rotten, smelly sulphurous mess. Its humor was considered juvenile at best, the performances, well, just awful and the story cringingly bad. In the years since, I’ve deepened my belief that it’s among the worst films ever made. It currently holds a thirteen percent rating among audience reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes. Ouch. Really ouch.
However, one criticism I am puzzled by to the day. The vast majority of comments online plus professional and amateur critics take umbrage at what Howard the Duck looks like. This makes no sense. Given the limitations of translating a two-dimensional comic duck into an actual physical creature, I thought that they did a fine job.
Remember almost thirty years on, they’d avoid this need with the Rocket Raccoon creature by simply being an entirely digital being. Today Howard would be the same. So yes, a much better one for that.
What they did was create a rather large custom puppet, which had an individual inside. That being Jordan Prentice in his first, errr, acting gig. He however didn’t provide the voice as that was the work of Chip Zien who was The Baker in the original Broadway production of Stephen Sondheim’s Into the Woods musical. The film version is well-worth seeing.
If I remember correctly it’s the worst film Lucas ever produced both from a critical viewpoint and certainly from a financial as well. It cost at least thirty-seven million dollars to produce (not counting distribution costs including the millions to print up films) and had box office receipts of that amount. Now keep in mind that Roger Ebert did an essay on it whereas his research said it was an even split, so Lucasfilm would’ve made back eighteen million thereby losing eighteen million on this. Ouch. Really ouch.
I keep hearing rumors of a sequel but I can’t imagine Disney who owns the rights now having any interest in doing so as they’ve been losing money on a lot of their MCU series right now.
I saw it once in the theatre. Did I want to ever see it again? What do you think? It’s worse than the Super Mario Bros was and that’s saying quite a bit.
… “No! I had no idea. The son of a bitch didn’t say anything to me,” Renner said. “We’re good friends. There’s the Avengers family chat. The original six. He said not a peep. I got online and started blowing up his phone like, ‘What’s going on? You’ve been hiding this from us the whole time?’ It’s exciting news. I’m really, really excited about it.”…
There’s no better way to get into the Halloween spirit than turning off the lights and scaring yourself out of your skin with a good horror flick. But if watching them (and rewatching them) on the small screen just isn’t enough any more, why not try to see some of the real-life locations where these cult classics were filmed?
In Washington, D.C., 75 steps offer a shortcut between Prospect Street NW and Canal Road NW, and if you visit at night you’ll recognize the site where Father Karras plummeted to his death in the 1973 film The Exorcist.The steps were padded with rubber during filming, and they have since been designated a historic landmark. In Morocco, just outside Ouarzazate, in a place known as Hollywood’s “door to the desert” sits a desolate, American-style gas station, home to rusted-out vehicles and dust covered props. It was plopped there for the 2006 remake of the Wes Craven classic, The Hills Have Eyes, and now just confuses anyone who sees it without knowing the backstory….
Star Wars: Skeleton Crew‘s release date has finally been confirmed by Lucasfilm…. As one of many upcoming Star Wars TV shows, Skeleton Crew naturally has a lot of hype surrounding it. This excitement is only bolstered by Skeleton Crew‘s place in the Star Wars timeline, with the show expected to tie into the likes of The Mandalorian and Ahsoka.
… Lucasfilm has finally confirmed the release date for the show via People. As evident, anyone interested in the continuation of Star Wars’ New Republic era will not need to wait much longer with Skeleton Crew‘s confirmed release date of December 3, 2024. With confirmation of when the show will be released on Disney+ finally being provided, the wait for more updates and the show’s eventual premiere will only grow in both difficulty and anticipation….
The project was first announced back in 2019 ahead of Peacock’s official launch as part of the streamer’s initial slate of original programming. It was never formally ordered to series, though, and has been in development ever since. Exact story details never emerged, but the show was said to be set in the same continuity as the 2003 “Battlestar Galactica” series.
The reboot was a passion project for Sam Esmail, who was executive producing via Esmail Corp. under the company’s overall deal with studio UCP. Chad Hamilton of Esmail Corp. was also an executive producer. Michael Lesslie had originally come onboard as the writer of the reboot in 2020, but it was reported that he left the project in 2021…
[Thanks to Steven French, Kathy Sullivan, Teddy Harvia, Daniel Dern, Mike Kennedy, Andrew Porter, John King Tarpinian, Chris Barkley, Cat Eldridge, and SF Concatenation’s Jonathan Cowie for some of these stories. Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editor of the day Cat Eldridge.]
EDITOR’S NOTE: This fifth reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue is a general recommendation to permanently separate the Hugo Awards from the Worldcon.
By Chris M. Barkley: The following are suggestions that I have written about elsewhere, in my File 770 columns, and on social media, in the past few months. Anyone reading this may consider it an open source for whatever actions or amendments may be proposed at the Glasgow Worldcon Business Meeting.
I do believe that the individual Worldcon Convention Committees should be permanently separated from the administration of the Hugo Awards. A separate administrative body should handle the nominations, voting tabulations, and distribution of the awards.
The World Science Fiction Society Convention Constitution should be amended to clearly state that the Hugo Awards need not be distributed at a Worldcon and can be given out at a separate ceremony or venue if circumstances dictate.This is also a safeguard in case future Worldcons are suspended or ended.
Additionally, any committee bidding on a Worldcon should sign a legal and binding document stating that they will abide by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, no local, state, or federal authority should have any right to interfere with the running or functions of said conventions. Any violation of these requirements would result in sanctions, such as the nullification of any awards and honors given and/or a permanent suspension of the given country to host a Worldcon.
While I realize that these options may not be popular or even feasible for some conrunners or fans to accept, I caution them that to take no action at all will result in the extinction of a treasured and valuable piece of literary history.
Cora Buhlert. Photo by Andreas HapkeChris Barkley. Photo by Pablo Vasquez
By Cora Buhlert and Chris M. Barkley.
Short Title: Save The Retro Hugos
Proposed by: Cora Buhlert, Seconded by Chris M. Barkley
THE PROPOSAL:Save the Retro Hugos
Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution by altering Section 3.14.1 of the WSFS Constitution, to allow Worldcons to continue to give out Retrospective Hugo Awards at their discretion: Section 3.14: Retrospective Hugo Awards 3.14.1. 3.14.1. A Worldcon held in a year that is an exact multiple of 10 years after a year in which no Hugo Awards were awarded may conduct nominations and elections for retrospective year Hugo Awards for one such year with procedures as for the current Hugo Awards, provided that year was 1939 or later and that no previous Worldcon has awarded retrospective year Hugo Awards for that year. Trophies may be presented, but are not a requirement.
Commentary by Cora Buhlert: Though controversial in certain quarters, the Retro Hugos fulfill an important function of honoring works created before there were Hugo Awards. The Retro Hugos also offer the opportunity to rediscover older works and forgotten authors and can function as a corrective to received wisdom about the SFF of the past.
Finally, the Retro Hugos have also done a good job in the past of looking beyond the confines of American magazine science fiction to include finalists from further afield. We are aware that holding Retro Hugos means additional work for the Worldcon hosting them and the Hugo subcommittee.
However, it should remain at the discretion of every individual Worldcon whether they want to take on this extra work or not. Furthermore, there are only seven (potentially eight) years of Retro Hugos left to cover, namely 1940, 1942, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952 and potentially 1957, which only awarded Hugos in three categories, all for magazines.
So, the Retro Hugos already come with a built-in sunset clause. Changing the years in which Retro Hugos may be held from an exact multiple of 25 years after a year in which no Hugo Awards were awarded to an exact multiple of 10 years after a year in which no Hugo Awards were awarded also means that it will not take another 25 years to get to the remaining Retro Hugo years, but that Retro Hugos can be given out, while there is at least a chance of some winners and their direct descendants being still alive to enjoy the honor.
Basically, the only change is to make it easier to give out Retro Hugos, so we don’t have to wait another 25 years to get to the last remaining years. Otherwise, the clause remains as it is with the addition that trophies are not required.
1941 Retro Hugo
Commentary by Chris M. Barkley: In May of 1928, the year-old Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences came up with a nifty idea to help promote the institution, an annual set of “awards of merit” which eventually became to be called the Academy Awards (whose “Oscar” nickname was still several years in the future).
Since the production of films had already established itself as a cultural and entertainment touchstone with the public at large, it instantly became the gold standard of what Academy members thought were great artistic endeavors. And, of course, winning one became, and still is, the most coveted of all of the motion picture awards.
(Rant/On: And have I agreed with the choices of the Academy voters over the years? I’ll answer with this question; is there anyone out there who TRULY believes that Annie Hall was or still is a better film than Star Wars (now dubbed Episode IV) in 1977? My answer is HELL to the NO! And that’s just a TINY sample of my dissatisfaction with some of the Academy’s choices over the decades. Rant/Off)
There is a small but important subset of the film industry that thirsts year round for rumors, scuttlebutt or real information on what may be considered prestigious and important projects, possible candidates for nominations in all of the major categories. And if an actor, writer, producer, members of the craft divisions or studio heads tell you that they’re not dreaming about the possibility of ending up on the stage at the Dolby Theater some March evening, they cannot be believed by any stretch of the imagination.
Now let’s flash forward to the 11th Worldcon at Philcon II (in Philadelphia PA), in September 1953. The organizers, led by Chair Milton A. Rothman, came up with a nifty idea to help promote the World Science Fiction Society with an annual set of “awards of merit” award to honor the previous year’s best works of science fiction and to be voted on by sff readers. Although it was called a “one off”, they hoped it would become an annual tradition, which happened two years later.
And, much like its motion picture cousin, over time it became the gold standard of what the voting members of WSFS and subsequently, sff readers thought were great literary endeavors. And, of course, winning one became, and still is, one of the most coveted of all of the awards in SFF and literature in general.
Let’s skip ahead to the 1996 Worldcon in Los Angeles (L.A.Con III), which marked the inaugural presentation of the Retrospective Hugo Awards, wherein nominated works were from the year 1945.
When I first heard about the Retro-Hugos, I was very interested in seeing who the fans would nominate and who would win. Among the recipients were George Orwell for Animal Farm, Murray Leinster for his SFWA Hall of Fame short story “First Contact”, Isaac Asimov for “The Mule”, a barely novel length excerpt of his compilation novel, Foundation and Empire, a film version of The Picture of Dorian Gray and John W. Campbell, Jr. for Best Editor. More on him, soon.
Remarkably enough, there were three among those first recipients who were still living at the time; Hal Clement (for his short story, “Uncommon Sense” (Astounding SF, September, 1945) and William Rostler (for Best Fan Artist) and Forrest J Ackerman picked up a pair of Hugo Awards for Best Fan Writer and Best Fanzine.
I thought most of the choices fans made were fine at the time, but I cannot say that was so for some of the subsequent seven occasions the Retro-Hugo Awards were given. Furthermore, I came to the realization that very few of the recipient’s direct families or relatives were actually receiving these awards to appreciate and celebrate.
Having participated in the nomination and voting stages of nearly all of the awards since 2001 (I missed the first vote in 1996) and I have tried to be circumspect in my choices, particularly in making sure a number of women who were active in the field were present on the ballot.
After painstakingly looking through all eight of the previous ballots, I counted only five nominees who are women; Leigh Brackett (with two wins for Best Novel and Best Related Work) Catherine L. Moore (two fiction wins, in collaboration with her partner, Henry Kuttner), Myrtle R. Douglas (two wins for Best Fanzine, with Forrest J Ackerman), Anne Frolick (winner in collaboration with Orson Welles for the 1938 radio adaptation of War of the Worlds and Margaret Brundage (Best Professional Artist, 1945).
I was delighted to see overlooked writers like Brackett, Clement, Leinster, T.H. White, A.E. van Vogt, Orson Welles and others get their past due recognition. But I have been somewhat disappointed by some of the choices voters made in the fiction and fan categories.
Especially in the Best Editor category. Because my hesitation to support continuing the Retro-Hugo Awards is firmly rooted in that category.
The talley of major male recipients reads like a virtual who’s who of the Golden Age:
John W. Campbell, Jr. – 9 Hugos (Eight for editing, one for fiction)
Ray Bradbury – 6 Hugos (fan writing and fiction)
Robert A. Heinlein – 6 Hugos (one for the screenplay for Destination Moon:)
Forrest J Ackerman – 5 Hugos (fan related)
Virgil Finlay – 5 Hugos (Artist)
Bob “Wilson” Tucker -5 Hugos (fan related)
Isaac Asimov – 3 Hugos
Ray Bradbury’s 2004 Retro Hugo for Fahrenheit 451.
Did 21st century fans select the best sf and fantasy of that era? Taking a critical look at the works that won, I would tend to say no. But, you could fill (or write) a book of opinions on that subject, which I highly recommend someone do, someday.
John W. Campbell, Jr., who was, without a doubt and for the better, the editor that dragged sf literature firmly from its pulpy, bug-eyed monster, dime novel roots into the 20th century from 1937 to 1950, during some of the period the Retro-Hugos are trying to fill. Whether he was relevant to the field or not after 1950 is still being debated to this day.
I do not revere the man as much as others have in the past. And yet I won’t hesitate to say that he was an important figure in our branch of literature and that I own several of his classic anthologies in my library.
I was in the auditorium in Dublin five years ago when Jeannette Ng roundly denounced the Campbell Award name and the man it was named after in such a passionate (and profane) manner on the stage of the Hugo Awards Ceremony. Some people who were present were outraged and others cheered wildly with thunderous applause. I was in the latter group.
In the aftermath of this event, some speculated that this was some sort of act of spontaneous cultural combustion. I can assure you, it was not.
Campbell’s eccentric notions of science were well known during his tenure at Astounding/Analog magazine, as he was an initial disciple of Dianetics and a devotee of a bogus contraption known as ‘the Dean Drive”. What was not well known to most of the sf readers at the time was that he was a virulent racist.
These facts came to the fore most prominently in Alec-Nevala Lee’s 2018 non-fiction chronicle of the Golden Age, Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction. Numerous examples of his despicable philosophies and actions have been unearthed since then.
If Jeannette Ng hadn’t said so, someone else eventually would have done so. I say this because I and several other authors and fans openly discussed online how to petition the sponsor of the award, Dell Magazines, or the WSFS Business Meeting to remove his name from the award a good two years before Ng’s speech. Ng’s brave and emotional outburst was the lightning strike that did the job for us and for that, I and other like minded people were and remain, very grateful.
Campbell’s surviving family, who live just up the road from me in Dayton, Ohio, have bitterly denounced the removal of the name and the demise of the Memorial Award that was administered by the University of Kansas’ Center for the Study of Science Fiction, which formally canceled any further awards in 2022. And while I feel some empathy for them, I would remind them that neither I nor anyone is trying to erase John W. Campbell, Jr. from our collective history, but asking for a measure of accountability for the harm he did do to his contemporaries in fandom, writers and the publishing field.
Having said all of this, you may ask why am I supporting a continuance of the Retrospective Hugo Awards?
Well.
First of all, I am a student of history and I feel as though we are leaving some of it unfinished by not honoring works from 1940, 1942, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952 and the unawarded categories from 1957.
The second reason is that I am quite hopeful that fans, readers and potential nominators are sufficiently enlightened to select the very best works to honor in these years sooner, in a fair and expeditious manner, rather than later.
The people who make up sff fandom, the fans, convention runners, artists, writers and editors, deserve a chance to look back and objectively (or subjectively) make their opinions and voices heard, whether I agree with their eventual choices or not.
And even if I have an ideological problem honoring John W. Campbell, Jr., I will not deny the opportunity to those who do. And in turn, I will advocate for Frederik Pohl, Anthony Boucher, Horace L. Gold, Geoff Conklin, Robert P. Mills and other worthy nominees from this period.
I don’t believe that history is just “one damned thing after the other” as historian Arnold J. Toynbee famously said. History is the slow, tidal compilation of things that happen every single day.
So, I suggest we continue making history instead of complaining about the established “fixed points in time”.
Let’s finish what we started.
Cora Buhlert is a fan writer based in Bremen, Germany and was the recipient of the 2022 Hugo award for Best Fan Writer.
Chris M. Barkley is a news editor and columnist for File770.com. He resides in Cincinnati, Ohio and was the recipient of the 2023 Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer.
UPDATE AND CORRECTION. Chris Barkley has issued an apology for an error in an earlier version of this article.
To File 770 Readers,
I owe an apology to Leslie Varney and to you my editor Mike Glyer; I erroneously reported that Leslie Varney wrote her email to the Penguicon Board of Directors BEFORE the convention, when in fact, she clearly stated in her statement to me is was AFTER the convention here:
Varney: “I sent an email to the committee after this year’s convention, inquiring whether there would be a statement from Penguicon to provide clarification on the reasons for disinviting Mr. Tomlinson.”
In my haste to report on this story, I overlooked this essential fact in the editing process.
I offer this apology because the fault was mine and mine alone. I will strive to do better in my future endeavors…
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The article has been revised to reflect the correct order of events.]
By Chris M. Barkley: Yesterday afternoon, the Penguicon Board of Directors issued an email statement on safety at the convention. And I immediately thought I knew the reason. I had made inquiries into why Wisconsin-based sff writer Patrick Tomlinson was summarily barred from attending the annual convention this year, an action the directors allegedly took because of accusations in an email sent to them by Seattle-based literary agent Leslie Varney. Surely, I received an email blind carbon copy because I did that.
This statement comes in the wake of the convention’s annual board meeting, which was held on June 24, two months since the annual Penguicon convention held in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Penguicon markets itself as both a sf/open-source computer convention. But neither Tomlinson nor Varney are mentioned in the statement.
Jun 27, 2024, 12:28 PM
Penguicon Board of Director’s Statement
Greetings,
As an organization created for and by the community it serves, it’s our priority to create as safe a space as possible for all who join us at our events. We want to ensure attending members who are from minority groups that are generally under-represented in spaces like ours find a welcoming environment at Penguicon. To our deep regret and dismay, this year, we made decisions as an organization that played a role in those folks feeling unsafe at the convention, and we have to own that and do better in the future.
Due to how our convention has operated since inception and the desire to empower each year’s volunteers, the Board of Directors is intentionally not involved in day-to-day event planning operations. Thus, they may not be aware of issues before they present a problem. Every volunteer from the bottom to the top is an unpaid community member with outside responsibilities, not a professionally paid event organizer. Thus far, this has served our community-run convention well. We each learn and grow as we produce the event together and frequently change positions with others who step forward, including at the Board level. Sometimes, that dynamic interferes with passing along institutional memory and timely guidance, and we must find ways to work better as a team. We want to apologize to anyone impacted and hope those who decided not to attend Penguicon at the last minute this year will consider us again in the future.
It also must be said that over the years, we have occasionally removed people from our events or prevented people from attending when we think it’s appropriate to safeguard our community. This is one of the few actions we can take as an organization that has never hired security to police our attendees. We reserve the right to refuse entry, as listed in our code of conduct, because providing a minimum of care for our fellow attendees is essential.
However, we are not a court of law or professional investigators. We do not officially comment on conduct issues unless absolutely necessary to protect those who report conduct from retaliation.
Unfortunately, that does mean we have to allow people to present their case to the community without retort, even when the incidents, facts, people involved, and timing are entirely incorrect. We would rather our reputation suffer than to put others at risk, and we will not exploit our attendees for posturing, pride, or profit.
We must make choices based on the information we have as a small part-time volunteer organization. The Board wants to assure our community that we work hard with our Operations team to verify information that we take action on to the best of our abilities, to consider contradictory or maliciously presented information for its worth, and seek out multiple sources, witnesses, prior complaints, or points of evidence that point in the same direction.
We will always choose to inconvenience one person to provide safety to the whole. We would rather see the organization cease to exist than allow genuine harm to come to our fellow community members through our actions or inaction. We try to reflect that value in our decisions.
Penguicon is an incredible, unique, and diverse community full of talented, generous, kind people who build the con from the ground up every year. Our most important job as temporary stewards is to safeguard the community’s ability to share their knowledge, art, and joy with each other.
When this statement was issued, the initial reactions on Penguicon’s Facebook page were mixed between bewilderment and confusion:
“I’m not sure what I’m meant to take away from this statement.” Joe Saul
“I agree. I don’t understand the point of putting out a statement that raises many more questions than it answers.” Dave Hogg
“IYKYK. I don’t, but I support the board, staff, and volunteers of Penguicon.” Misha Tuesday
“I’d love to know what any of this is about.” Grant Root
Jessica Smith, the Facebook page administrator, wrote in response to Joe Saul: ”Nothing other than to know this is a value statement that we needed to craft and felt we should share it with our community.”
Ms. Leslie Varney has stated that she sent an email to the Penguicon Convention Committee after this year’s convention, outlining various allegations against Mr. Tomlinson; actions, such as insulting women, minorities and intimidating writers at conventions. When asked for comment about the statement, she wrote in an email to me the following:
This reads to me as a very strong commitment to the safety of Penguicon’s attendees, and I absolutely cannot fault them for that, especially with their emphasis on historically marginalized communities. I strongly believe that convention safety should be the top consideration for every convention board. I also see this as a cautious acknowledgment of the limited scope of a board of this type, and the appropriate response, or lack thereof, they feel they can give. I appreciate their position on this and see it as an understandable one. This is a thoughtful, well-crafted statement, and I admire the board for the time they took and the care and contemplation that went into it.
Ms. Varney also wrote:
I want to establish that these are my thoughts alone and aren’t reflective of any other person, group, or other entity.
I sent an email to the committee after this year’s convention, inquiring whether there would be a statement from Penguicon to provide clarification on the reasons for disinviting Mr. Tomlinson. In the email, I outlined my personal reasons for feeling unsafe attending events where Mr. Tomlinson is present and expressed my willingness to stand up for others who have felt pressured into silence.
To clarify further, a guest of honor decided not to attend the convention due to safety concerns, which ultimately led to Mr. Tomlinson being disinvited. Part of my communication with the board involved expressing empathy towards the guest of honor’s decision.
In the past year the level of disdain expressed by Ms Varney towards Mr. Tomlinson became acrimonious.
Mr. Tomlinson’s complaints against Penguicon and Ms. Varney are well known to File 770 readers in this story highlighted in the May 6th Pixel Scroll:
And now I have to deal with Leslie Varney.
Again.
Leslie is a literary agent representing other authors like me. Over the last 11 months, she has also made the conscious choice to closely align herself with the criminal cult stalking and SWATTing my family. 1/ https://t.co/NQ9Yu2NFLQ
— Patrick S. Tomlinson (@stealthygeek) May 6, 2024
Since September 2018, Mr. Tomlinson and his family have been the victims of a constant barrage of harassment themselves which include dozens of false calls to their residence (known as ‘swatting”), death threats and vandalism of their home and property. This problem began when Mr. Tomlinson made an innocuous remark about comedian Norm Macdonald on September 11, 2018 stating:
“Hot take: I’ve never found Norm Macdonald funny and was pretty sure all my comedy friends who did were either nuts or screwing with me.”
The comment was made in the context of Macdonald defending fellow comedians Roseanne Barr and Louis C.K., whose careers had recently been curtailed by their unseemly public behavior and social missteps.
Macdonald never responded at the time to Tomlinson’s 2018 tweet targeting him.
Instead, the star waited till 2019, two years before his death, when someone paid him to record a Cameo to blast Tomlinson’s innocuous opinion of him.
“I want you to stop picking on your friend Pat,” Macdonald said in the clip, which lives on YouTube. “After all, his only crime was that he didn’t find Norm Macdonald funny.”
The comic then added, “Wait a minute here, I’m Norm Macdonald.
“Hah! And I am funny. Please continue insulting that fat loser,” he jokingly continued.
Around that time, the swatting against Tomlinson ramped up in earnest, the writer said.
Ms. Varney, when asked via email whether or not she believed Mr. Tomlinson and his family are victims ofcyberstalkers, answered:
“I believe they were, and perhaps are, but I also believe there’s a lot more to the story than their say-so, and no one has looked past what they were told by Mr. Tomlinson in any reporting.”
Mr. Tomlinson was unaware the convention had issued yesterday’s statement. And after being presented with a copy by this reporter and asked to comment, he provided the following message:
It’s really disappointing after having two full months to conduct a review of the events surrounding my banning at this year’s convention to see the Penguicon board decide to double down on every mistake and poor decision they made in the first place. It seems that even with all the extra time, they failed to learn anything from the experience or do any reflection on what went wrong.
When asked directly whether or not the Penguicon statement had anything to do with the allegations against Mr. Tomlinson, Ms. Smith, a Board member and administrator for the Facebook group responded on Messenger Thursday evening:
“The statement you received is the only one we are going to be giving. It has nothing to do with Leslie. Our decision was in process prior to her email and did not have any bearing on our decision.”
In response to this statement, Mr. Tomlinson replied via email:
It’s disappointing the Penguicon Board continues to stonewall about mistakes made even now months after the facts are already known. Secrecy and censorship benefits no one and comes across as self-serving. If they are really interested in protecting our shared community from the same malicious actors who repeatedly fooled them, openness and dialogue is the only way forward. Keeping everyone in the dark serves only those who prefer to lurk in the shadows.
Ms. Varney was also asked what personal or professional consequences she has undergone from this ongoing issue with Mr. Tomlinson, she wrote:
“Professionally, I’m sure I’ve lost the confidence of some potential clients, which is unfortunate. Personally, my physical safety’s been threatened, and I’ve lost at least one friendship.”
“But I’ve also seen a lot of support coming from the SFFH community, and that’s been very encouraging. It’s not just me who’s been targeted, and one of the primary reasons I continue to protest Mr. Tomlinson’s actions is to represent those who feel unsafe coming forward. And I’ve seen some turn-around in what the community as a whole seems ready to believe about the danger Mr. Tomlinson continues to place us in, and that’s good progress.”
She also added this email message, directed to Mr. Tomlinson:
Mr. Tomlinson, I don’t believe this will be the last event to ask you not to attend, and I will continue to stress how unsafe your behavior, along with the behavior of other bad actors, makes innocent people. If you stop engaging in troll-baiting, taunting, and in all ways encouraging responses that endanger others, I’ll be happy to support your attendance at events. Here’s to hoping!
In turn, Mr. Tomlinson had this message for Ms. Varney:
Based on her own public statements and behavior over the last year, Leslie Varney is not only sympathetic to the criminal cult stalking and SWATTing my family, but actively pursues their company, shares their objectives, and minimizes and validates their crimes.
It is Ms. Varney’s contention that anonymous domestic terrorists should be endowed with the unassailable right to unilaterally decide who gets to participate in public life. By blaming the targets of cyberstalking for the actions of the criminals stalking them, and demanding that victims be the only ones to suffer consequences, she justifies and validates all manner of crimes based solely on the personal animosity she feels towards someone she has never met or spoken to.
Rewarding these criminal acts by demanding victims give up their public appearances, signings, panels, and networking opportunities just to appease terrorists makes no one safer. It only ensures these tactics will be repeated and expanded as new targets catch the stalkers’ ire. How will Ms. Varney feel when it’s one of her own clients under their eye, or Ms. Varney herself?
She not only negotiates with terrorists, but actively befriends them and supports their aims. She is as unsafe as she is unprofessional, and anyone who is considering working with her needs to carefully consider the company she keeps and the inherent risks that entails.
By Chris M. Barkley: On February 17, 2024, I received the following email:
Feb 17, 2024, 4:25 AM
Dear Hugo and Related Award Winners,
Many of you are wondering when Hugo Awards, and Finalist pins and certificates will be shipped out to those who did not take possession of them in Chengdu. We could not distribute Finalist pins to Acceptors at the convention as is generally the custom, because we were not yet in possession of a large enough supply. So only attending Finalists received pins, and we missed some of them if they showed up early.
The award materials were shipped in bulk to the US for individual mailing, and arrived just recently. We need you to send us the shipping addresses(es) of the Winner or Winners. This needs to be a facility that can take delivery of a medium sized box. A PO Box will not do, unless you have a really understanding post office or a really large PO box. While we have a list of who got their Hugo Finalist pins in Chengdu, we would appreciate you confirming that you did or didn’t receive yours in your responses so that we can be sure we’re getting everyone handled appropriately.
Even if you have previously sent us an address, we would appreciate it if you could send it to us again to confirm things before we ship items out.
Thank you so much for all your cooperation during the preparations for the Awards Ceremony. Everything went really well, and we were pleased with the participation level of our Finalists and Winners at a Worldcon so far away from many of us. The Chinese fans experiencing all of this for their first time were thrilled to see so many finalists and winners there.
Should you have any questions regarding these instructions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] and [email protected] Because, of course, the HugoTeam email address is still occasionally having hiccups.
Congratulations again to all of you.
——————
Ann Marie Rudolph Hugo Award Selection Committee Chengdu Worldcon https://en.chengduworldcon.com/
Now, after reading this message, I, and everyone else who received this email, had every expectation of the delivery of all of the materials and awards due to the recipients.
But this is not the case.
On January 20, fandom was rocked by the release of the 2023 Hugo Awards Long List and nominating ballot statistics, which inexplicably excluded a number of nominees and works, from within and outside the People’s Republic of China, and some without any explanation whatsoever.
Thirty-two days later, on Valentine’s Day, matters were confounded even further when my colleague Jason Sanford and I published a revealing investigative report that provided part of the answer; with material provided by award administrator Diane Lacey, it was revealed that the Chengdu Hugo Award Administration team, headed up by Dave McCarty, had ruled that some of works had been ruled “ineligible” because of their alleged or perceived bias against China.
The Hugo Awards arrived in the United States in late January, but, as I have reported here in an afterword to my interview with Dave McCarty, all of the display cases and some of the awards were damaged in transit from China. As of this writing, there has been no comment from the Chengdu Worldcon Committee how the awards were shipped nor has anyone ascertained how the damage occurred or taken responsibility for their condition.
Before and during these tumultuous events, I made several inquiries as to when the recipients might expect their awards to arrive. Other than an email asking for my correct mailing address in mid-March (from an administrator not implicated in the scandal), I have not received any other news regarding the awards.
I must take a moment to commend the work and artistry of Liu Cheng and his team, who designed and manufactured the beautiful and exquisite base of the 2023 Hugo Award. I have often said that I was envious of those who received the 2007 Hugo Award depicting the rocket alongside the Mt. Fuji and the iconic tokusatsu hero, Ultraman (designed by Takashi Kinoshita and KAIYODO).
2023 Hugo Award by Richard Man
After the ceremony, I couldn’t take a step in any direction as I was besieged by fans for nearly 45 minutes as they clamored to pose for photographs with this magnificent piece of sculpture (and me), a yearning panda, reaching out of a stargate towards the Hugo rocket. I indulged everyone I could that frenzied and crazy evening because who knows when they might have a chance to see and hold such a fine work of art.
A lot has happened since the end of the Hugo Awards Ceremony nearly eight months ago; most notably an extensive delay in the delivery of a number of Hugo Award trophies won by those residing outside of the People’s Republic of China (estimated to be 29 in total) to the United States to be dispersed by the 2023 Hugo Awards Administrator, Dave McCarty.
In the past few weeks, as I marked the seventh month since the Hugo Awards Ceremony, I began to wonder if any of the 2023 recipients had either received their awards or have had any other contact regarding their Hugo Awards.
And so, starting on May 15th, I set out to contact all of the twenty-nine recipients via email or social media to conduct a survey of who and who did not receive their Hugo Awards.
(Note: I did not attempt to contact Samantha Mills (Best Short Story, “Rabbit Test”) or Adrian Tchaikovsky (Best Series, “Children of Time”) since they have publicly declined to accept their awards due to the controversy surrounding their selection. I also did not contact any of the Chinese recipients, for obvious reasons.)
I made a concerted effort to contact the following people:
T. Kingfisher (Ursula Vernon), Best Novel,Nettle & Bone
Seanan McGuire, Best Novella, Where the Drowned Girls Go
Bartosz Sztybor, Filipe Andrade, Alessio Fioriniello, Roman Titov, Krzysztof Ostrowski, Best Graphic Story or Comic, Cyberpunk 2077: Big City Dreams
Rob Wilkins, Best Related Work, Terry Pratchett: A Life With Footnotes
Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, Best Dramatic Presentation – Long Form, Everything Everywhere All at Once
Daniel Abraham, Ty Franck, Naren Shankar and Breck Eisner, Best Dramatic Presentation – Short Form, The Expanse: “Babylon’s Ashes”
Neil Clarke, Best Editor – Short Form
Lindsey Hall, Best Editor – Long Form
Lynne M. Thomas and Michael Damian Thomas, Chimedum Ohaegbu, Monte Lin, Meg Elison, Erika Ensign and Steven Schapansky, Best Semi-Prozine, Uncanny Magazine
Haley Zapal, Amy Salley, Lori Anderson, and Kevin Anderson, Best Fancast, Hugo, Girl!
Richard Man, Best Fan Artist
Out of all of the queries sent, I received the following responses:
T. Kingfisher (aka Ursula Vernon) conveyed to me, via social media, that as of this writing, she had not received her award. She also stated that she was vociferously ambiguous about keeping it, saying that she would decide whether or not to keep it after she received it.
Daniel Abraham’s assistant, Ms. Rogers, reported on May 23rd:
“Nope, no award, no emails, no nothing. I’m just answering for Daniel but I will check with Ty and Naren. Please keep us posted if you hear anything.”
Lindsey Hall, responding on a social media site on May 18th, was surprised; she kept her Hugo Award after the ceremony and had fully intended to have it shipped but never connected again with Mr. McCarty, so she decided to squeeze the case and award into her luggage and she cleared customs in China and the US with no problems at all. She also expressed surprise that none of the other recipients had received their awards yet.
Lynne M. Thomas commented via social media a few days ago that the Hugo Awards she and her husband Michael Damian Thomas won were dropped off at their Chicago area home by Mr. McCarty at an unspecified date. She also said that both trophies did not show any damage but they were given without the display boxes. She also stated that they did inquire by email in May about the other awards for their staff members but have not received any response as of this writing.
It turns out Lori Anderson of the Hugo, Girl podcast team was just as curious as I was; my inquiry to her prompted her to email Dave McCarty on May 28th:
Email screenshots with permissions from Lori Anderson
Undeterred, she sent a follow up email on June 6th:
As of this writing, there has been no response from Mr. McCarty.
On May 16th, Richard Man sent this DM response via Facebook:
“Nope, heh.” And, he followed up by asking, “Have you? Has anyone?”
And I responded, nope.
As for myself, I had a chance to receive my Hugo Award twice; I considered taking it home in my luggage but decided against it on the evening of the ceremony because I did not know what level of bother to expect at customs. So, I can easily attest that my Hugo was the very first to be boxed up. Which I regret to this very day.
Hugo Award in a display box by Chris Barkley, 21 October, 2023
The second time was the weekend of Capricon 44 on February 3rd; when Juli and I arrived, we encountered Mr. McCarty in the upper-level lobby near the dealer’s room and the art show. He told me that the damage to the display box was so bad that it was totally unusable. The Hugo base needed to be tightened up and there was a notable chip in the paint on the panda. He generously offered to bring it to me to take home the next day but also said that he could have it repaired and restored.
After agonizing over it for a few minutes, I told him, yeah, please have it repaired. Which I also regret to this day because not more than an hour later I was taking custody of a flash drive and emails from Diane Lacey that would completely upend Mr. McCarty’s life, and fandom as well.
With the exception of passing along my condolences on the death of a mutual friend, I have not attempted to contact Mr. McCarty.
On Saturday, June 8th, 2024, I attended the 50th Anniversary celebration of my high school, Purcell-Marian High School, Class of 1974.
I was invited back by the alumni association on the 25th anniversary back in 1999 but I was still feeling a bit resentful and raw from my experiences there; the teasing, fights, bullying and being made to feel as though I was a social outcast still weighed heavily on me.
But I had grown a lot a quarter century ago and I decided to attend, if anything, to finally put this part of my life behind me for good.
And from the moment my partner Juli and I arrived, we were warmly greeted. Several people personally sought me out and we shared some personal memories that reminded me that not everything was as hellish as I remembered.
When they asked what I had been doing over the past 50 years, I regaled them with stories about my daughter Laura, my four grandchildren, jobs I held over the decades and my many adventures in fandom.
Of course, this all culminated with me (repeatedly) whipping out my phone and showing them a photo of myself, holding the 2023 Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer, proudly holding it while being in the People’s Republic of China.
Chris M. Barkley with 2023 Fan Writer Hugo Award by Pablo Vasquez, 21 October 2023
I was delighted to find that there were some sff fans among my classmates and their partners who KNEW what a Hugo Award was and there was much eye-popping and praise.
And when my classmates inevitably ask where I keep it, I cryptically replied that I have a special space reserved in our dining room.
As of today, June 10th, there has been no response from Mr. McCarty, Ms. Rudolph, Chengdu Worldcon Co-Chairs Chen Shi, Ben Yalow and Hongwei He and convention liaison Joe Yao about this situation.
What we have at the moment is an astonishing lack of responsibility, accountability and transparency regarding this issue.
We all know what needs be done:
All of the Hugo Award Finalists should be sent their pins and certificates, immediately.
If there is a condition or repair issue regarding anyone’s Hugo Award, they should be sent a notice stating what the current situation is and when a delivery can be expected.
If an award needs to be replaced in its entirety, the recipient should be notified.
If the awards are going to be disbursed to everyone at the same time or as each award has been repaired, recipients should be made aware of that status.
Each and every Finalist should receive a written apology for the convention’s lack of transparency and delay of their materials and awards.
While I can safely say that no one’s life is at stake here, I can also say that once again, fandom’s black eye from the trials and tribulations of its own making continues to be on public display and, at this point, may actually be festering.
