Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
justification
bill tindall
>If you don't do it they will get some dolt that will, and then the article will be even more misinforming with the consequesces of potential plane users failing. I failed at planes for 30 years because I didn't have a source of sound information to get me started. It was finally a visit to College of Redwoods that I saw what panes could do in the hands of someone as experienced as a 1st year student. I thought, heck, I can do that and have.
I have seen a variant of this design
Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA
>in which the "mortises" in the uprights are closer to true mortises - that is, they're the same size as the tenons of the supports that go into the opening. Would this not be a stronger design?
Mainstream vs Avant Garde
Dan in Orinda, CA
>Dear Lyn,
I certainly empathize with you in feeling indignant at not being able to exercise your artistic freedom and being misconstrued. However, is it possible that what FWW asked you to write for their targeted audience may differ in what you prefer to write on a �comprehensive article on selecting and adjusting smoothing planes to obtain the optimal surface finish�?
The reason I ask this is that I would imagine FWW will desire a dissertation on hand planes to include mainstream models of Stanley and Record, and yet you do not own these models. Similarly, I imagine FWW will want to include the species of wood their audience will most likely work with, and you include �aboyna burl, or some simply beautiful endrain Macassar Ebony�. Personally, I regrettably have not had the pleasure of working with these woods nor had the opportunity to work with �Knight and Mujingfang Woodies, and the SMT and Shepherd Infills�. I do own Stanley, Record, Clifton, Lie-Nielsen, Norris, Mathieson, and even a Holtey 98 that I like least as it is difficult to insert the blade without hitting the body, at least in my hands, but I digress.
Recently, there have been many posts reporting the demise of FWW. I own every issue of FWW starting with #1 and still look forward to each issue, just like I do with Woodwork magazine. I may not learn as much from each issue as I used to, but I just take it to mean I have evolved as a woodworker. Even going back to the earlier issues, I find the articles to be less interesting and educational than when I first read them as a new woodworker. I now also have much more resources to learn from such as the fine woodworkers on this and other sites, as well as all the new books and videos, not to mention all the courses and seminars available throughout the country. I especially look forward to reading your unabridged and unaltered work when it becomes available. However, I do not hold FWW with its core readers as priority to be at fault for not evolving with me and cater only to my evolving interests. Unauthorized alteration to your work is reprehensible and I also would rather not publish than compromise on my standards.
Respectively yours,
Dan
Re: Mainstream vs Avant Garde
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>Hello Dan,
You touch on several things in your first sentence that I'm going to try to take tourch on point by poiunt.
There is some indignantion on my part, but not with respect to anything I perceive as loss of my artistic freedom, as I don't believe artistic freedom is in play here. It is always difficult in these things when not every concern can be realistically placed in full context (if you care to contact me privately, I will share with you the full version of my correspondence). I am indignant about faceless photos being used that do not depict me, nor the tools I use, and were not (at least in the galley pdf) identified as from another source. That is misleading at best, dishonest at worst. I also take exception to an editor introducing idioms and analogies that are foriegn to my writings. In both cases I've expressed my displeasure to the editor, it is not up to him to be responsive or not. That is an unknown at this time, as I have tried to make very clear.
No I must admit that I am more used to the editorial process used in academic and scientific writing, where the editors recommend (and often demand) changes, but leave it to the author to make those changes. They don't "ghost" re-write the article. Perhaps there is a different approach for entertainment publications, but then I have always wished to consider FWW as offering something more than entertainment.
And that brings us to the FWW "target audience" as you phrased it. I think that is the thrust of much of the discussion here on WC. Many of us once felt part of that target audience, but no longer do. Yes, some of it may be due to a "maturity" in our woodworking interests and skills, yet I personally suspect that is not the main issue. As I go back in the issues of FWW (and while I don't have all of them, I have nearly all that were published before 2003), I find less writing to formula and more diversity of content. Yes, there have always be some introductory articles on tools and techiques, but I find the range of articles were greater in the old days, and more representative of the individual woodworkers writing them. I think FWW, editorially, has become a charicature of itself, emphasizing style over substance.
You ask," is it possible that what FWW asked you to write for their targeted audience may differ in what you prefer to write on a �comprehensive article on selecting and adjusting smoothing planes to obtain the optimal surface finish�? That may be true, but if they were familiar enough with my writings to solicit me, they might have had a clue about how I would write. If they are not happy, then don't accept the article. I would have been fine wtih that. But to essentially ghost write it into a different article, while still using my name for whatever credibility it might bring, is what I take offense to, and have notified them I do not approve of. But frankly, I anticipated things a little differently. I suspected they solicited me because they were hoping to speak to the very audience they have been loosing, an audience that is familiar with me, and I have some modicum of crediblity in. Thus the article I wrote might offer a little diversity from a too narrow editorial style and thrust, and represent their intentions to speak to an audience that was loosing interest in them. It also might serve to elevate the knowledge of some of the readership less sophisticated in the use of hand tools. Again, it remains to be seen what the final article will look like, but the article FWW was ready to run obviously wasn't addressed to the audience I hoped would be.
You note " I would imagine FWW will desire a dissertation on hand planes to include mainstream models of Stanley and Record, and yet you do not own these models. Similarly, I imagine FWW will want to include the species of wood their audience will most likely work with..." This is a good point, and and an interesting call on FWW's part. I can't help but chuckle over the irony of the magazine's name, as it seems so counter to what it now represents. Perhaps they should change their name to "Lowest Common Denominator Woodworking" or "Woodworking for the Masses." I'm being sarcastic, but I don't mean to be elitist here. Many of us originally subscribed to FWW because it was the publication that offered us the most content related to "fine woodworking." I don't believe this is any longer the case (for me that publication is now Woodwork", a magazine far less formulaic and focused on truly fine woodworking). Bring this back to your points, in the old days, I found FWW to not only inform but elevate my woodworking. It exposed me to things I didn't know, and broadened my opportunities in woodworking. So, yah, some don't have readly access to or familiarity with uncommon planes (not necessarily expensive, just less common) and woods, but isn't there an advantage to the exposure?, particularly when the principles of setting up and using the planes are the same. For me, the article offers an opportunity to folks to learn of a few other choices, rather than the usual examples.
I think you are so very correct that we now have some many different resources to learn from, many of which simply did not exist in "golden" days of FWW. Just as newspapers don't know how to adapt to the cable and web based sources of information, it seems that FWW cannot help but have to adapt to its new position in this truly multimedia age. I find it good that woodworkers of all sorts and levels are having discussions on what they look for in their sources of information. One of the best suggestions I've seen, is to take FWW more in the direction of instructional projects that result in fine pieces of furniture produced primarily with hand tools (hey, I'd love to see such an article on that old ribbon table, or see Derek do an article on the table he recently completed.) I believe it was actually in an old issue of AWW, but I remember an article by Ernie Conover where he made a walnut tool chest to hold his chisels. I learned a lot from that article, but more importantly, it inspired me. Yah, I guess I'm more take by magazines that have articles that inspire me, and these days I find that more commonly found in the area of woodturning, and in the magazine Woodwork.
I'm rambling a bit, and in part because I created a problem in the beginning. I have my feelings about what has happened to FWW and what kind of publications hold my interest these days, and I wished to offer some additional insight into my experiences in the next step of what has been my experience in producing a published article (to follow on my earlier and more humorous post on the photo shoot). I've let the two get mixed, and that has reduced the coherence of the issues related to both.
You end with " I also would rather not publish than compromise on my standards" and I agree. It's a messy situation now, as I know that FWW has invested some money into getting this published (editor flying to the West coast, most of a day of shooting photos, more days of "editing" and preparing illustrations), and I know that I am not at all pleased with the present state of an article that is set to appear under my name and photo. As I've said before, this process is still underway--we shall see how it turns out. Rest assured, I'll share more in the future.
I thank you for sharing your observations and perspective. This sort of feedback is one of the things that makes this forum so valuable.
Re: Mainstream vs Avant Garde - further thoughts
Michael Recchione
>Today in the news, Rupert Murdoch (I'll withhold any opinions I have of him) was reported as having predicted a "gloomy future for newspapers, which he said are failing to adapt to the realities of the Internet". Maybe the same is true of woodworking magazines.
I believe I once read that the subscriber base of a magazine almost completely cycles approximately every three years. So a magazine would be safe in running a "Tuning that flea-market chisel" or "Hand Plane Use 101" article once every three years or so with only a small risk of running into a repeat reader.
But now, with the resources of the web out there for almost everyone to refer to at will, is there ever really a need for such an article to appear again? I still like to get one or two print magazines on various subjects each month, if only to keep in the er...library. :-) But I wonder if the magazine industry is just missing something really important here.
I'm not sure what it is or where the answer lies. Someone used the example of luthiery within the last couple of days, making the claim that luthiers had become so disenchanted with commercial publishing that they've abandoned it in favor of things like the MIMF and some very specialized, non-commercial print publications.
Maybe more general woodworking is ripe for the same kind of thing. Forums like this one are great resources, and largely take the place of woodworking magazines. You get the benefit of the insights of a much larger body of your peers, hear about the latest new toys, get to look at and ask about projects, get to ask technique questions and get answers from people that you have a history with... How could a magazine compete with that?
What might be the answer is that a magazine, with people dedicated to going very deep on selected topics full-time, might be able to bring more to bear on a specific, narrow subject than most people doing something for a forum in their spare time could dedicate (I may very well be wrong about this). That would mean that FWW's strategy for competing based on appealing to the least common denominator is completely wrong - If they want to survive, they should run really in-depth, thoughtful articles like Lyn's. Who needs to pay $5 or whatever they charge to look at another "This is how you use a plane to plane wood" article nowadays?
In any case, I received my very last issue of FWW last week. I really don't care what they do from now on.
FWW alternative explanation
john jesseph
>I forgot this when reading this thread earlier. I suspect another part of the reason Lyn's work was ghost re-written is so it will fit the format of the yet-to-be-published reprint book. I think a lot of the articles are channeled in a certain direction for putting together another future compilation that isn't completley rendundant with the old ones.
Don't they own the material after it is published, not exclusively, but they can stick it in a book, CD, or on their pay-website?
Prediction: Lyn's material will be in the same FWW reprint collection as Bob Smalser's chisel article...
Re: Mainstream vs Avant Garde
Sgian Dubh
>Lyn, I know what you mean about flicking through woodworking magazines. I seldom read one in depth and haven't really done so for a long time: a couple of decades I suppose. Mostly I catch up on current news: changes in equipment, trade news, diary events and so on, so I tend to read trade journals more.
Moving on to the 'artistic integrity' or 'artistic licence' side. One of the reasons I enjoy writing for Woodwork is they do allow me to say whatever I want, whenever I want. I write only intermittently when the urge takes me and when a subject seems interesting enough to discuss.
Editorially my text is altered very little-- perhaps just a slight rephrasing here and there to help with clarity, but that's about it. That's worth a lot to men as I really couldn't stand the grind of having to knock something out on a regular basis for any publisher, and having it mucked about with to the point that the original text is unrecognisable to me. Slainte.