Has anyone else noticed the irony

I haven't...

WoodburnBob

>...but then I seldom look at woodworking magazines anymore and almost never buy one. I do agree that things change a lot before we awaken from our slumber to notice how big the changes have become. For instance, just yesterday afternoon I suddenly realized I'd paid 65 cents for a nickel bag of peanuts and became overwhelmed with the idea that I'd grown that old without noticing it.

Bill, wasn't it from FWW that Taunton Press emerged. If you think of the explosion of books and publications that Taunton Press has put out the last 30 years, wouldn't you have to say they single-handedly seduced and nurtured the common man to return to wood and craftsmanship?

Re: I haven't...

john jesseph

>I think they lent a helping hand, but there are other resources available now. I have only been woodworking for about ten years, which is as long as I have had an internet connection. I stumbled on to wreck.wood and oldtools right away, with luck, but I have been a subscriber to fww since then. FWW has been secondary to the net for me as far as guiding my hobby.

FWIW I really liked the old American Woodworker, still have all the issues I bought, still some projects in there I want to build...

Granted

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>FWW and Taunton Press were, indeed, instrumental, though not alone, in bringing really good woodworking into the public eye and setting the standards.

I guess much of my sadness in looking at the current magazine is a kind of "how far the mighty have fallen" reaction. At their best, they couldn't be topped, and even now, I don't know that there's a magazine that can touch what FWW was at the peak. It's been a while since they were at the peak, though.

Re: Has anyone else noticed the irony

Greg B�tit, Crown Point NY

>I'm sure they change their editorial bent deliberately to attract what their marketing people view as the largest potential group of subscribers. Or they write the articles that their biggest advertising accounts ask for. It's a business and us galoots don't play in their current formula as well as whomever is currently buying the magazine.

I was a charter subscriber, but let the subscription lapse in the mid '80's I think, only to pick it back up after I started hearing good things about it on the wreck a few years ago. I let it lapse again last year. Instead I started a subscription to Popular Woodworking because of the good things I was hearing about it from you folks. You guys hardly ever steer me wrong! :)

Greg

Re: Has anyone else noticed the irony

ThomD

>I absolutely agree with you. I think one of the worst points was when they went all sidebar and pointform, chronologically before they tried to pull back from the slime by adding the Masterclasses section. I have pretty much every issue of FWW, but no more. I've been just going through the motions for a while. How many remember when a magazine article could be all text, and the authors have something to say. I think FWW was so successful it created a huge opening for dross, and then had to fill it. They haven't done a significant, or competently edited woodworking title in quite some time.

I agree Pop Wood has had a few good issues, but the magazine is also terrible. The current issue has that massively redundant article on drill drivers, there is one of those every month in one of the magazines, what a waste of time. The Joint destruction article was a combination of the obvious with the ridiculous. The last page personal column was a rampant advertisement. The shaker article may or may not be going somewhere. So I also agree about the unevenness.

Arts and Mysteries has been a lot of fun, and inspirational, but it is form over substance, or maybe not. The lessons were good but obvious. It was just such a pleasure to read them. So it depends where it goes from here. What the magazines usually feed is tool and project obsession. Maybe A&M will develop a discussion that covers the techniques a competent craftsman would know, as opposed to techniques that are purposely novel, or project specific.

Woodworking has had it's innings with some of the Asian woodworking subjects they have covered, if you like that kind of thing.

Shall we put you down as undecided, Thom?

Garrett in Victoria

>

Funny, I've been thinking about the same thing

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>A recent windfall landed me with old FWW issues from the mid 80's, the oldest one dating back to '83 (black and white!). Looking at these old issues is a major contrast with the current stuff. There used to be so much more text, and a lot more articles in the old magazines. The breadth of subjects was much wider too...

This being said, Latta's article in the current issue is quite good.

Overall, I'll agree with you that FWW is on a downward slope, while PopWood is doing a very good job.

DC

Prehaps Bill...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond,CA

>I don't read them anymore... I still get them, glance through and them then they get filed in a file cabinet for future referance.

The only WW mag I "read" anymore (and the only one I'll contune) is Woodwork.

Heady for some, boring for others... but, it's the best and olny one I truly read...

Re: Confused, maybe addled - NM

ThomD

>

Re: Has anyone else noticed the irony

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Greg wrote: "I'm sure they change their editorial bent deliberately to attract what their marketing people view as the largest potential group of subscribers. Or they write the articles that their biggest advertising accounts ask for. It's a business and us galoots don't play in their current formula as well as whomever is currently buying the magazine."

As many of you know, FWW solicitated me to write an article for them about a year ago. I wasn't all that excited about doing so (in part because I already had an obligation to get the planing study out), but went ahead and put together a 12 page comprehensive article on selecting and adjusting smoothing planes to obtain the optimal surface finish. I didn't expect all of what I wrote to appear in print, but having seen the galleys a couple of months ago, I was rather appalled at how that galley hardly represented what I had written, or the photos they took at my shop presumably to illustrate the article.

The galley was half made up of photos that were not taken at my shop, yet the impression was left that they represented me, the tools I use and the woods I work. They gutted all the photos of interesting woods (say aboyna burl, or some simply beautiful endrain Macassar Ebony), and special planes (e.g., the Knight and Mujingfang Woodies, and the SMT and Shepherd Infills) and instead included models of Record and Stanley planes I don't even own. Most bothersome was that they included statements I'd never make, and removed the precision of terminology I adhere to that sharpens our understanding. Their "editorial process" introduced errors that simply displayed a lack of understanding of the topic (yet, even if they didn't start with such an understanding, they could have gained the understanding had they actually and thoughtfully read my submitted article).

I've complained bitterly to the editor, stating among other things, "I�m not invested in whether you run this article, and I don�t care if you condense my writings down, but if you do run it, it must demonstrate the precision of thought and language that is associated with my thinking and writing." I got back a statement that "due to the advertising department selling more pages in issue 181 than expected, the editorial pages had to be cut and your article was selected because it was a suitable length. We shall publish it in the future but it is not assigned to another issue yet. I shall attempt to include as many of your points as possible."

So we shall see, though I am already expecting that it is likely that I will have to repudiate the article if appears under my name. I presently have little faith it will be one that honestly and accurately represents the concepts I authored, or even the tools that I use. Which brings me to question why they even requested that I write for them, when it appears in the end that they have a forumula they wish to maintain, and a concept of an audience that differers considerably from those I write for. The only good I see now in them publishing something, is that it will finally free me to be able to offer the original article to the Web community.

Re: irony

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I am very sorry to hear that. I always try to maintain faith in people long after others have lost their faith in those people, so in the past I always said that FWW is not as bad as people say it is. But I have to agree as I looked through the Tools & Shops issue last night that it really was disappointing, especially considering the money I spent on this rag. They actually tell you how to build a plywood bench. I think I could come up with a plywood bench on my own real easy, and in fact did at one time. And now to hear what they did to your article might be the last straw, and I am quite sure I will not be renewing my subscription.

Outrageous

WoodburnBob

>Lyn, it doesn't surprise me that the ever-pandering media would treat your intellectual and creative efforts as you describe. You have my sincere condolence.

It does surprise me that you would now, still, allow them to use your name. Was there a binding contract? Did money change hands? Is it more important to see your name in print than to be the true author of an article attributed to you?

(I don't mean that last sentence in any kind of snooty or offensive way. These days it seems important to just get one's name out there regardless of what it's associated with, if one is focused on enhancing one's image, cause, mission, power, fame or what-have-you. No value judgments implied. I'm not trying to censure or impeach your integrity, just stating what I see as facts of nature.)

Re: Serious Mistakes

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>The last time I resubscribed, it was for three years. I'm going to have to put up with this stream of drivel until JAN08 :^(

Another potential tragedy from the Tools and Shops issue: Does anyone recognize anything vaguely familiar in the Lumber Storage Solutions article? I posted this photo of my scan of my original photo of my lumber rack on Badger Pond about five years ago, along with a materials and construction description. Years later, I posted it again on WoodCentral, with some more warnings about how to build it, and especially about how not to build it.

The builder and FWW made several changes described in their article that I disagree with. Of these, the most serious is substituting 1x4 construction grade softwood lumber for the plywood I used for the upright supports. I would strongly suggest that you do not build one of these according to their plans, unless you put a lot more anchor bolts deeply into the studs in the wall, and make sure your wall is really sturdy. The uprights could split at the support bolts, and it could collapse and kill you. These flimsywoodwackers took an elegant design, butchered it and kludged it back together using the old "beltandsuspenders" methodology, and hung it on the wrong wall. I will say one thing. Note also that in one of the photos they show stickered wood supported only every 32". I will say that their shop and lumberrack are nicely painted, with nicely finished floors, ceiling and walls.

Note: this is not an IP issue, as far as I know. I welcome people to use my ideas, but not to abuse them. At least, I'm lucky they didn't give me any credit at all for the design inspiration. One reason I post my ideas on WC is to get immediate feedback, comments, corrections and improvements. That surely doesn't happen with paper and postage magazines.

A New Mission for A&R?

Todd Stock

>Let's face it - FWW is in a death spiral, PW has stalled out at the same level as mid-1990's AWW (the best of the presumptive challengers to FWW during those self-indulgent years), and Woodwork, Workbench, etc. are too arty, too basic, or too venal to abide.

Our best bet is to move in the direction that other smaller fields of craft have recently taken. For direction, look at how luthiery has essentially shed their ties to the dying commercial publishing industry, opting instead for luthier-written magazines (GAL, Guitarmaker, etc.) and several reference-quality sites, such as Musical Instrument Maker's Forum (MIMF) and Official Luthier's Forum (OLF). When I built my first (and second) guitar, I found nearly all the information on design, materials, construction, and tooling to be resident in the MIMF Library or accessible from their links section, while the recommended published texts were just too dated or lacking critical comment on the presented techniques to be useful.

Lyn's trials with the Quacks at FWW simply reinforce my conviction that his article is better hosted on a site dedicated to establishment of a compendium of reference material for the fine woodworker. While WC's Articles and Reviews section currently falls well short of this mark, a quick look at MIMF's Library shows how it might be done.

So...a new mission for the A&R section of WC?

Happy Thanksgiving, as appropriate.

No, it's always been the primary one, but...

Garrett in Victoria

>Hi Todd

I acknowledge that we have a mixed bag of articles on the site. Nevertheless, there are many submissions that would stand up to scrutiny anywhere.

Quality is a function of a blend of factors, not least publishers, editors, production personnel and writers. Here at WC, we have a publisher (Ellis), an editor (me), and a production team (Dan and Rod) but we are really short of people willing to make the effort to set their thoughts to print. In an attempt to build up our "library" I've been harvesting threads that I think ought to have staying power. However, these compendia can never compete with the "real thing", i.e. an expert's precise and articulate description of a process, illustrated with photos and/or drawings.

If you can (help) solve that, we can do the rest.

Cheers, Garrett

Venal and MIMF link *LINK*

WoodburnBob

>Venal. Great word. It's not in my everyday vocabulary, though I had a general sense of it. For me it blurs into that which is venial, as in venial sin from my grade school days, and veal. Never could get past the image of eating baby cows. So it was great to look it up. I'll try to use it everyday for awhile. Thanks, Todd.

Oh, I tracked down the sight you recommended and thought others might save some time by clicking a link. Pretty cool site.


MIMF

Re: Serious Mistakes

Alice Frampton, UK

>The last time I resubscribed, it was for three years. I'm going to have to put up with this stream of drivel until JAN08 :^(

Good news, William; you don't. From FWW's site:

"Our 100% Money-Back Guarantee

If at any time you're not completely satisfied, you can cancel your subscription and receive a full refund of the entire price. No questions asked."

If it wasn't for the lucky timing that I've just had the last issue of my 3 year sub, I'd probably be doing just that myself.

And yes, the lumber rack did stike me as familiar. But I was too busy laughing at the idea of mentioning "finite space" in a shop that size... :~)

Cheers, Alf

and that will be where and when?

bill tindall

>"free me to be able to offer the original article to the Web community. "

Perhaps they meant it...

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>only for vertical storage. : )

Best, Ted

P.S. Yes, I recognized it, too.

Re: No, it's always been the primary one, but...

Todd Stock

>Garrett:

I am guilty of being unclear. First - my apologies to whomever might be offended by the assertion that the A&R section does not represent the best of what it is - a collection of primarily unitary opinion on a variety of woodworking topics. In fact, the A&R section represents a significant expenditure of unpaid effort on behalf of you, Ellis, and the authors, and is the first place I send someone seeking basic info on sharpening, hand tool use, etc.

That said, it - for the most part - does not have the components of either extensive exposure to peer review/criticism, or the sheer number of sometimes repetitive, but usually worthwhile articles on the same technique, tool, material, etc.

The unique feature of the MIMF library and some of the other 'reference' compendiums of craft information is the nature of the process by which the information accumulates. While I enjoy Lyn's reviews or Carol's contributions to A&R, the threads themselves here at WC offering additions and extensions, or perhaps expressing outright disagreement provide the fuller context in which to view each contribution. This process - rather than the final product - is in my view what moves such a collection beyond being simple a catalog of opinion to usefulness as a reference tool.

The art that Deb, Mark, Ellie, etc. bring to the MIMF library is the ability to monitor and select the threads which represent the best suggestions, debates, and current thinking on various topics, as well as the wide range of reference materials either resident in or linked through the library. While I strongly disagree with many of her policies (no price quotes, no politics...except her own, and no self-promotion by vendors), the fact remains that the one place to go for the broadest range of information on all aspects of the craft is Deb's MIMF site.

I am not suggesting that we adopt the MIMF Library model. I am instead saying that WC can tap a vast sum of accumulated expertise in the various facets of woodworking - far greater than any magazine might gather. I suggest only that it is worth debating how best to leverage that talent should the goal be a reference site of stunning depth and breath, with the recognition that it is first and foremost Ellis' site to do what he will with it.

Re: Outrageous

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Some good points that I'm happy you raised publicly.

First, lets all understand that the article is not yet published, so none of us know for sure how it will turn out. Just maybe, they will be responsive to my objections, and I (and hopefully you all) will be satisfied with it in the end. I'm sharing how I feel about the process right now and I have questioned whether I even should be commenting at this point. They certainly have a right to "edit," it just becomes a matter of whether those edits distort the information provided by and later attributed to me, and whether the article implicitly misrepresents me as a woodworker. For example, including a couple of hands only photos in the article of a person using a plane I don't even own, in the context of other photos of me working, to me is deceptive, and implies that it was me choosing that plane, and doing that planing (if the final article comes out much as the galley I received and you see photos that don't have a stainless Rolex on the wrist, it's not me). If there are comments about "me" comparing tools to wines, know now that those words didn't come for me, but were "cute" analogies the editor liked, but one's I didn't and wouldn't use. More substantatively, you all know I try to be very careful in my nomenclature. When I say "effective cutting angle" or "bedding angle" or "functional cutting angle" or "blade's primary bevel angle" there is a precision of terminology that is essential for an understanding of how a plane functions; alas that precision was regularly stripped away in the editing process, and I have made clear I expect it to return, and who knows, it very well may.

I've seriously mulled over whether I should share my experience, as it unfolds. I've done so once before with respect to the photo shoot, and I ultimately decided to make the comments in this and the above post because I felt it provides some limited insight on how FWW approaches things, and perhaps validates what many have been observing with respect to the direction FWW has taken. I truly hope my concerns are ultimately unfounded.

When they solicit an article, FWW specifies the topic, and informs you of the payment conditions. For me, and I suppose most "average" contributors, IIRC, it is $150 dollars at the time the article is received with a signed contract. There is the agreement that one will be paid another $150 dollars or so per published page (likely 4-5 after editing) if and when it is printed. Now I'm doing this from memory, so I may be off $50 dollars or so one way or another. It's really a trivial amount compared to the time it takes for an author to develop an article, less than some other woodworking magazines have offered me in the past, and truly an inconsequential factor in why I agreed to write the article.

So why did I agree to write? Well, it's probably about 1% the vanity of appearing in print in a woodworking magazine that I once respected; 49% an interest in introducing a greater level of understanding about how planes work and can be controlled to a vastly larger audience than my friends and peers here on the Web; and 50% my hope that some of that mostly print reading audience will go the next step and follow-up to check out what else I might have written, and just maybe become more appreciative of, and involved in our Web based sources of information and interaction. That's it, really.

So the possibility (and at this point, even probability) of distortion of my writings, and resultant personal embarassment with respect to those who might find me at fault for misunderstanding if not misinformation, is weighed against the possible good of some significant concepts getting raised in the print media that are usually overlooked by the typical plane user, and the possiblity that an introduction to such information may lead a larger body of hand tool users to explore further and become exposed to the Web resources (the reviews, articles and discussions). At this point, I"m leaning towards the latter, perhaps because I'm still wishing to believe that in the end, FWW wants to and will do the right thing. We shall see.

Re: and that will be where and when?

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I have no idea when, as it is contigent upon when they choose to exercise their contractual right of first publication. It was originally supposed to be in the Tools and Shop issue, but has now been indefinitely postponed. Where will be at least on Roger's Traditional Tool site (if he still wants it), and possibly here at WC as well.

Do know, this is NOT the second plane study, which I manage to spend a few hours on pretty much each week, lately. That study will be presented first on the Web (heck, it is more pages of serious text than most magazines include in an issue) and Chris (if he is still interested) is promised the rights to condensing it, or using a section of it, for print.

I"m not done yet with the discussion of that study, but it WILL see the light of day, though I really feel it is totally anticlimactic at this point as what was rather uncommon information when I started is now rather widely known, if not always accepted.

Re: Has anyone else noticed the irony

ThomD

>What a nightmare. Any time you give them more than they want you are asking for it. Whether that is more text, complexity or whatever. I can't believe they would fundamentaly publish something that was not "you". Further evidence that whenever the media covers anything one knows personally it is way off the mark. Makes one wonder about the stuff one ins't familiar with.

please alert us when available...

bill tindall

>