[July 2, 1962] Take Two!  (Vote for the 1962 Hugos at the Galactic Journey Tele-Conference)

by Gideon Marcus

EDIT: The original time of the RSVP was erroneous — it is at 11 AM Pacific, not PM!!!

The 20th Annual WorldCon is coming, Labor Day Weekend, 1962.  Every year, attendees of this, the most prestigious science fiction convention, gather to choose the worthy creations of the prior year that will win the Hugo Award.

But if you can’t make it to Chicago, don’t worry.  You still get to vote.

Galactic Journey is putting on its second live Tele-Conference via Visi-Phone for the purpose of gathering as many fellow travelers together as possible in one virtual place.  Our mission – to select the best novels, stories, films, etc. of 1961.  Maybe they’ll make the official World Con ballot, maybe they won’t.  Who cares?  It’s what we like that matters.  And if you’re not completely up on all the works of last year, check out our Galactic Stars nominations for 1961.

In addition to Hugo talk, there will be the slew of entertaining discussions you’ve come to expect from the Journey: on world events, pop culture, the Space Race, and much more.  Plus, we want to hear your questions for our special Stump the Traveler challenge.  The best questioners will (once again) win a prize!

So don’t miss out on the fun.  To participate in the Tele-Conference, send in your RSVP to the box below, and you’ll receive a ballot.  Then sit tight, and on July 29, 1962 at 11am, tune in to the broadcast.  As with last time, you will be able to chime in via tele-type, and, if you have the right equipment, you can even get invited on stage!

See you there!

10 thoughts on “[July 2, 1962] Take Two!  (Vote for the 1962 Hugos at the Galactic Journey Tele-Conference)”

  1. Busy , but:
    I am a member of Chicon III, tho not going:
    My votes are:
    Best Novel: Daniel F. Galouye ,Dark Universe, one of the most unusual post apocalypse novels I ever read, and it is very well written.
    I am afraid Stranger in a Strange Land is going to win. My least favorite Heinlein novel so far , has had some main stream traction , I don’t why.
    Best Short Fiction: “Hothouse” . Aldiss is deserving. 
    Best Dramatic Presentation: The Twilight Zone, tho I was tempted by Charlie, because the Keyes short story is nothing short of a masterpiece.
    Best Professional Artist: Ed Emshwiller , thank god Freas is taking a break, Ed needs more of these.
    Best Professional Magazine: F&SF, head and shoulders above Analog, but Campbells zine has bigger subscriber list.
    Best Fanzine: Amra , cause I like it.

  2. When it comes to novels, I suspect that Heinlein has the inside track.  For one thing, he’s Heinlein.  For another, “Stranger in a Strange Land,” with all its flaws, is a book that goes beyond the usual SF novel.  Not always gracefully, but it’s a very ambitious book. 

    There are some interesting British works that may not have gotten enough attention in the USA to be contenders.  There’s Clarke’s “A Fall of Moondust” and Ballard’s “The Wind from Nowhere.” 

    Theodore Sturgeon’s “Some of Your Blood” and Kurt Vonnegut’s “Mother Night” are fine novels, but neither one is SF.  On the other hand, “Catch-22” has won mainstream acclaim, and it’s got enough satiric weirdness to be borderline speculative fiction, but I don’t think the Hugo voters will consider it.  “The Fisherman” by Simak and “Three Hearts and Three Lions” (if the voters go for fantasy for the first time) by Anderson may be dark horse contenders, but I think “Dark Universe” has the best chance to challenge the mighty Heinlein juggernaut.

    I think they’re going to lump all other lengths into one short fiction category again.  If so, I have to go with “Alpha Ralpha Boulevard,” which I think is excellent even by Smith’s own very high level. 

    If “Twilight Zone” doesn’t get a nod, just for being halfway decent (at times) SF and fantasy on the tube, there weren’t very many good SF and fantasy movies released in the USA in 1961.  Once again, there’s a fine example from the UK.  “The Day the Earth Caught Fire” (which just got released over here a month or so ago, although it premiered in its native land last year) is very good, but again the voters may not notice it.

    (I don’t know if the UK release date or the US release counts for the awards, so maybe it’ll be considered next year, and maybe “Village of the Damned,” which was also very good, can still be considered this year, although its British release was in 1960.)

    1. Victoria: At this point in history, 1962, the Hugo rules are still being perfected. Right now, a movie’s first appearance anywhere establishes the eligibility year.

      The rule currently reads (http://www.smofs.org/ch10.htm):

      2.04 Best Dramatic Production. Any production, single or series, directly related to science fiction or fantasy, in the fields of radio, television, stage, or screen, which has been publicly presented for the first time in its present form during the previous calendar year. In the case of individual programs presented as a series, the separate programs shall be individually eligible, but the entire year’s production taken as a whole under the title of the series shall not be eligible.

      In the future, more will be done to enhance the eligibility of works premiered or published outside the US.

    2. I don’t know what genre Sturgeon’s book is supposed to be, but one thing it’s *not* is “science fiction.” 

      Though I’ve said a few times that SF is where things that don’t fit into ordinary classifications tend to wind up, I’d put “Some of Your Blood” into the mainstream fiction category.  It’d roost well with some of the really weird stuff that’s in print now…

  3. Do we know what the nominees are? I sure hope so — from now till Labor Day isn’t a whole bunch of time to read 5 novels, track down the short work in different magazines, read the fanzines, and mail the ballot back in time for counting. Even less time for us to read before the tele-conference!

    I’d think “Twilight Zone” is a shoo-in. It’s swell.

  4. “There’s Clarke’s “A Fall of Moondust” and Ballard’s “The Wind from Nowhere.” ”

    To me, A Fall of Moondust is way over rated , in fact somewhat pedestrian for a Clarke novel. I like Earthlight better as a Clarke Moon-novel. Since City and Stars Clarke’s interest has been in essay writing where , right now, he is better than Asimov , most of the time.

    The Wind from Nowhere , is good, even though it reads like “look here, a disaster movie option!” .

    1. I haven’t read the Ballard – I’m put off by his style, among other things – but I read “A Fall of Moondust.”  Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.  It’s a competent effort, but hardly prizeworthy.  I agree with you on “Earthlight” as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.