[January 15, 1964] That was the Year that Was (1963 at Galactic Journey)

We've got High Hopes

First things first.  Thank you for being on the Journey with us.  We love you!

It's Hugo nomination season, and that means folks are going through their files, figuring out what stuff is worth their signature on the selecting ballot.  We at the Journey were so honored to have been a finalist for Best Fanzine last year, and we think our output has only improved since then.

Check out some of the nifty things that we did in 1963:

Expanded Foreign Coverage

Science fiction is hardly a monopoly of the United States.  To that end, we brought on a slew of new associates. 

For instance, Jessica Holmes is now covering Doctor Who and other things UK.

Cora Buhlert has provided a wealth of information on German (West and East!) science fiction, in print and on the screen.  She has also brought her keen insight to English-language SF.

Then there's Margarita Mospanova, who hails from Leningrad and covers Soviet science fiction!  We are pleased as punch to have added her unique perspective.

And let's not discount the sterling continued work of Ashley Pollard and Mark Yon, who have been covering British movies, television and magazines for several years now.

We Read Everything…so You Don't Have to Read the Bad Stuff

Despite the incessant predictions that SFF is a dying genre, there is more and more stuff to read every year.  Wading through all of that to find the gems (and there are plenty) can be a slog.  We feel for you.  That's why each year, the Journey awards the Galactic Stars, providing our readers a cream of the crop report:

Spotlighting the Unsung

We've said it before: Women write 10% of what gets published, but 25% of what's worth reading.  And now there is a cadre of other marginalized voices also finally making their way into print.  The Journey has made it a mission to feature those who might otherwise be overlooked, now and in the future. 

Behind the Digital Scene

Thanks to the arrival of Los Alamos staffer Ida Moya into our ranks, the Journey's science coverage grew to include the fascinating world of computers, as well as the often hidden role of women engineers and programmers. 

Wrapping up the First Lap of the Space Race

Project Mercury wrapped up this year with the impressive 24-hour flight of Gordo Cooper.  Of course, the Soviets then had to one-up us with the (likely) conclusion of their Vostok program — a stunning two-person flight involving the first woman astronaut, Valentina Tereshkova.  The Journey has kept you up to date on all the latest crewed and automatic space shots, distilling reams of scientific data into clear, accessible prose.

Not to mention mini-biographies of the woman engineers and scientists who have made space travel possible.

To the Outer Limits

Also added to our team was the inimitable Natalie Devitt, a film expert whose reviews of Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits are often even better than the episodes themselves.

Comprehensive Coverage

And let's not forget the work of our veterans:

Gideon Marcus, the Journey's founder, who reviews Analog, Galaxy, IF, Fantasy and Science Fiction, and much more,

Victoria Silverwolf, who lyrically covers Fantastic, Worlds of Tomorrow, and the news of the day,

John Boston, covering Amazing in his delightfully candid fashion,

Rosemary Benton, our first associate and expert on the Cold War and movies,

Erica Frank, the Journey's Curator and reporter on the Weird,

Gwyn Conaway, whose fashion articles are as lovely as the clothes and models they discuss,

Vicki Lucas, our resident highbrow (who would be quite at home as one of the faces on the back of F&SF),

Jason Sacks, whose preference for DC is mitigated by his unparalleled knowledge of the comics field,

and of course, the Young Traveler, who despite her age, writes better pieces than those of many adults.

A Balanced View

Science fiction has generally been seen as the province of the white and the male since its inception.  The Journey has striven to maintain a staff representative of the genre's future rather than its past.  To that end, we (including the non-writing but essential Janice L. Newman, our Editor, and Tammy Bozich, our Archivist) are a diverse bunch in terms of age, background, and circumstance.  We feel this is one of the main reasons the quality of our work has been so consistently high.

The Request

Galactic Journey is a labor of love.  Lord knows we don't do it for the money (What money?  The Journey doesn't charge or ask for donations, and we certainly don't carry ads.)

But we do love recognition.  A lot of people have said really nice things about us over the years.  When Rod Serling's foundation gave us the Serling, we were blown away.  And when y'all made us finalists for the Best Fanzine Hugo, well, you made it all worthwhile.

You out there with World Con memberships, if you liked us enough to nominate us last year, we'd love it if you could do it again.  And if you're new to the Journey and/or to World Con, welcome, and please consider helping us get on the ballot!

From the bottom of our hearts, thank you, and here's looking forward to a bright 1964!




14 thoughts on “[January 15, 1964] That was the Year that Was (1963 at Galactic Journey)”

  1. It has been quite a year for the Journey.  I have enjoyed the reviews of the Sci-Fi shows on TV to the Foreign coverage of Sci-Fi.  I really enjoyed Cora's coverage of Perry Rhodan and other Sci-Fi coming out of Germany.  It is a subject that most Americans know little about and it is great to have someone reporting it to us here.  I also loved the live presentations the Traveler gave on the Mercury Astronauts, that was a great presentation.  I hope that this year will bring even more and I look forward to next year as well.

    1. Glad you enjoyed the Perry Rhodan article and my other posts, Edward. I'll probably be checking in on Perry again on occasion, if only because the plot moves very fast.

      1. Yes I will look forward to reading them when the articel gets published.  Also my post on Perry as of last month became my most read post on my webpage.  It has twice as many reads thatn my second read post.

  2. > maginalized voices

    Eh?  By who?  (or would that be whom?)

    The editorial comments I read, and the quality of stories that get printed, tell me the publishers don't care if an author is a woman, a trained horse, or an Atlantean spirit channelling via a Ouija board; if a story is halfway publishable (and often if not) they'll buy and print it.

    And even if a publisher had a deliberate policy of excluding women, how would they know?  Paper is paper, and a woman can use any name she wants as long as she adds it to her signature card at the bank.

    1. Without wanting to get into a long discussion, since I already have alienated at least one fan with this topic, I think we can agree that women are underrepresented proportionate to their make-up of the population. I don't think either of us would argue that it's a physiological issue.  I also think we can agree that women, Blacks (not to mention homosexuals) are marginalized citizens–just ask Betty Friedan or Martin Luther King Jr.

      As for the idea that women can get published so long as they change their names to do so, the fact that so many women feel compelled to do so is telling.  Just ask Andre Norton or K.L.MacLean (yes, I know Campbell was proud to publish her as a woman — but she had been led to believe otherwise of the publishing industry in general).

      It reminds me of how a job my Jewish sister-in-law applied for had been filled when she gave them her real name, but it was suddenly vacant when she applied under a gentile name.

      The ability to get that job by pretending to be Christian doesn't indicate a lack of bias; it is evidence for its existence.

      Again, I am not pointing the finger (just) at editors.  But this is a real phenomenon.  And that's why the Journey spotlights the authors at the margins, so that they don't get lost in the shuffle.

      1. There is no K.L.MacLean.  Katherine MacLean always used her full name.

        It seems to me that who really values a writer's merit based on their race or sex is you.

        1. "There is no K.L.MacLean.  Katherine MacLean always used her full name."

          It was my understanding that she'd initially submitted under her initials, and that Campbell encouraged her to do otherwise, to his credit.

          "It seems to me that who really values a writer’s merit based on their race or sex is you."

          You are under a mistaken apprehension.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *