Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom
Subject: Re: Babel
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:40:22 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <rde10jldh1c4c7r34c38jsf44eb8gfrctq@4ax.com>
References: <us5st0$485$1@panix2.panix.com>
Reply-To: newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:40:24 +0100
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8a7ad8d834b056a33a1dfd9db48cf257";
	logging-data="699919"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WemnGbqHO0kUSUrIldAoJ"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
Cancel-Lock: sha1:omZLPpknO4bBkYtfQKU1Ysoguqk=
Bytes: 2090

On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the 
>Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
>It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
>the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
>determined.  

I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
she's written stuff critical of China in the past.
>
>If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know.  But this seems
>sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
>for that.
>
>This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining
>and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo.  If it had been
>on the ballot I would have voted for it.  Is there hope for a Nebula maybe?
>There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted
>for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a
>little glaring.  But it was still great.
>--scott