Re: The Glory Days Of "Fine Woodworking" Are Behind Us

[Duane Bozarth]

[lgb]

Istarted with #59 and stopped at #161. Why? Well, it had gotten somewhat repetitive, which is to be expected, and after retirement I had to stay within a budget. I'd rather buy wood and/or tools than a magazine :-).

I did buy a set of FWW Techniques just before they became unavailable, which gave me tbe articles from issues 1-55. One of these days I'll locate 56,57, and 58 at an estate sale :-).

[Patrick Conroy]

Tom Watson wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Really?

From what perspective are you standing when you look over at FWW on it's journey and say "Hey you! You're going the wrong way!"

Maybe you're the one moving away?

Like Albert said: "It's all relative and depends on your frame of reference!"

[George]

It's become more of a social "science" publication than I care to read. Like any academic can't suggest ways to spend other peoples' money in some other forum? Editorial staff changed ~5 years ago, and printed a statement of purpose to present opinion and advocacy articles. Sawardee khrap.

[Robatoy]

The word Parody just made me sit up straight. So did "The Ultimate Blurfl"

Please expand?

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:19:56 GMT, the opaque [e-mail] (Lawrence Wasserman) spake:

-------------------------------------------- -- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --

Comprehensive Website Development ============================================================

[Robatoy]

The neighbourhood?

[Robatoy]

Tofu-sucking tree-huggers, I dare say...

[hgates]

Dude, Threads totally rocks. Way better than any other sewing magazine!

-Holly

[CrackedHands]

I'm not a subscriber of FWW but I've been reading them from the local libraries. I think you hit it on the spot when you mentioned the lack of the "design theory" articles. Every issue, I have seen a number of "fine" pieces in their projects showcase. Although most everyone will agree that they are indeed beautiful, there is no telling of "why" they are. Because of this, IMO, these showcase pieces are more than likely to be only the sources for the "inspired copycats" instead of the seeds for the next generation "masters."

[Patriarch]

[e-mail] wrote in news:1119389974.073235.225370 @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

don't think they belong to Time Warner...

[B Moody]

This has been one of the most interesting and possibly the longest message exchanges I have ever seen on this message group. I am a happy amateur who got his first computer in the mid 80's and decided in 1987 to set up a data base I could organize by subject, source, date, and page. I subscribe to both FWW and Wood, which to my surprise has not been mentioned in this exchange. My data base lists only articles I think will be of future use to me. Here are the results:

FWW: Earliest listing: Nov 1987, #67. Nr. Articles: 179.

Wood: Earliest listing: Apr 1987, #16. Nr. Articles: 233 .

I realize this count applies only to me, but it does say something about the FWW focus on artsy fartsy versus practical.

Bob Moody

[Mark & Juanita]

The magazine changed. I subscribed to it about the same time ago (and read it even before then in high school and college on occasion), the articles then were exactly as the title described, "scientific", most of the articles (at least the ones that always caught my eye) were heavily weighted to the hard sciences: physics and chemistry. I quit subscribing as I noticed the "science" starting to decline and the articles becoming more slanted toward particular agendas to the point that the magazine could be more correctly described as "Politically Correct American". The content of the articles started changing as well, moving away from the hard sciences towards psychology, political science, meteorology, and other sciences for which one's conclusions could be supported by the appropriate application of the proper statistical techniques to a favored set of data. There were, of course, still a few articles geared to the earlier fare, but they were becoming too few to be worth subscribing. It's been 15 years or more since I've read it; it may have changed again, just haven't the time to find out.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Mark & Juanita]

Have every issue of that published. That was a fine magazine and contained many inspirational articles.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Mark & Juanita]

I think you've hit on the main issue here Patriarch. You came at the original FWW's from the perspective of someone with a number of years of experience and probably got a good bit of your initial knowledge from the more recent magazines (I'm speculating here, but infer that from your comments above). Thus, you saw the information in those magazines as somewhat mundane relative to what you already knew. I would further speculate that people like Tom Watson and others were earlier in their careers and thus saw what was in FWW then as new material back then. As their skills grew, the material in FWW become repetitious or more mundane, because by that time, they had their own experience base and prior education from the earlier volumes from which to draw.

... snip

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Patriarch]

Mark & Juanita wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Well, Tom has HAD a 30 year woodworking career. I have had but a 5 year hobby, after banging on carpentry and home improvement project in my spare time, from my electronics-based career. Tom learned and did, multiple times over, as did many wReckers. I learned and did few, smaller, more accessible projects.

When Tom was building beautiful homes, furniture and cabinetry, I was trying to get networks to talk, and people to stop screwing them up. We decided, my wife and I, at the beginning, to put the artistic pursuits on hold until after the kids grew up. We both knew of far too many starving artists, including a few Mendocino County woodworkers.

I appreciate those who teach, demonstrate, inspire and answer questions. Here and elsewhere. I also enjoy getting out in the shop, and making beautiful stuff. This week, however, seems to have been about making 'interesting firewood' at the lathe, as I try to pick up some skill at bowl turning.

Patriarch

[Mark & Juanita]

Don't misunderstand what I was saying; I meant absolutely no criticism of Tom or others of his skill level and experience. My only point was that, given his skill level, it is not surprising that current FWW seems mundane now; he has aquired many of the skills that FWW has to offer. As an analogous situation, think about your skill level in networking; think about the technical magazines you most likely poured through when you were first building your career and knowledge. Now, think about how much of those magazines are of value to you now -- probably a few select articles that highlight either current trends or some new technology breakthroughs

-- you've got the basics down, it's the new things that are going to make you take notice. It doesn't mean we stop learning, it just means we get a lot more selective.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Patriarch]

Mark & Juanita wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I understood what you were saying, and agree(d) with you completely. I simply took the opportunity to express gratitude that the information, experience and knowledge is accessible to me, and others like me, who didn't start this when we were 18 years old, under the direction of a grizzled master.

We get the condensed versions, and get to learn from other folks' experience. That wasn't the case in networking...

Patriarch

[Andy Dingley]

It changed twice in recent years. First one was a visual makeover and they managed to preserve the quality. Second time definitely dumbed it down. Some real muppets as celebrity columnists didn't help either.

After a sub for about 25 years, I no longer read it. I've switched to American Scientist, which is everything SciAm ought to and used to be.

[Rob]

Interesting obseration, Bob.

For you, more practicle articles have a greater future value and longevity than esoteric articles, detailing less of the "how".

In my experience, FWW articles do tend to gloss over the dimensions and details of construction, tending to favour the description of the process of building. I guess that you find that you can reproduce the results of Wood projects faster and better than FWW projects because of this detail.

Many articles in FWW of the past few years have been basic. Taunton Press seems to target a readership of beginner to intermediate amateur level rather than the intermediate to advanced amateur/professional level that articles in early FWW targetted. And maybe this reflects on FWW's change of philosophy, IMO.

The title "F>...My data base lists only articles I think will be of future use to