Mr Maskery,
Agin’ my better judgement I make another post in this thread. I suppose I owe you an explanation so feel I must. (You won’t like it).
You mention:
3 There is one very easy way for you to get the magazine you want. Write it.
You cannot wriggle out from criticism by huffing that the customer should do it himself. The point is that you charge me for a product (the magazine). If I find the product inadequate or want to describe how it fails to meet my need then this is just the usual seller-customer convention. You are confusing me with a friend who is merely considering your letter or blog describing what you have been up to. In fact, the relationship is a commercial one.
Then you ask:
1. Where, exactly, is the poor English? The question has been asked earlier in the thread, and yet no substantiation has been offered.
I posted these two comments:
* The writing style is woefully amateurish, with poor syntax and sudden lurches from one thing to another. Everything is both hard to read and very sparse in hard information. There is too much "look at my chatty personality", which is OK for forums but not for good quality magazine articles. The worst aspect is the inability to explain things, which are blithely skimmed over. The author knows what he means therefore so should we, seems to be the attitude - all too common in British WW publications.
“ .. for a model of what I see as the ideal WW article style, read Fine Woodworking. The pictures tell a story and aren't just dressing. The words are frugal, to-the-point and unambiguous, without imposing the personality of the writer. The subject matter ranges from first principles to fantastique! Compare this to the "I did this then I did that" plodding of most British magazine articles.
I am trying to say that the style of writing you use is an inappropriate variety of “stream of consciousness” style.
* It’s narrative story, with loads of spurious detail (“I buy Swedish redwood unsorted and rough sawn…”; “I started by machining up the boards…” and similar take-as-read steps). You seem to have made little attempt to separate what is important in understanding the process of constructing the piece from what is just basic woodworking procedure. There is too much of your general woodworking habits and not enough information specific to the nature of the piece.
* Then there is unexplained jargon (“I modelled it in Sketch up and then copied the drawings onto a piece of MFC to make a full sized rod”). I can guess you mean something like MDF or hard board but what is MFC? I presume (don’t know) that by “rod” you mean a story stick or some form of pattern? In either case, where is the description or photo showing how you copy from sketch up via a drawing to whatever the rod is? We must either know about these strange terms and processes already or make wild guesses. What if we are not sketchup users? You describe no alternative approach.
* Then there is the constant mention of jigs, with no explanation of their use nor any discernible photos. Either stick to a basic jig-free method (much better for those who prefer making furniture to jigs) or describe/reference information sufficient to make and use the jig.
* The photos accompanying the text are largely spurious as they are pictures of you stood next to a tool rather than an illustrative explanation of the important configurations for various aspects of the process. The diagrams are basic and fail to show the construction details.
On a more positive note I do offer you a model to consider for writing how-to WW articles (almost any Fine Woodworking article or Taunton Press book for that matter; also, early F&CM articles from the first 5 years).
My fundamental criticism is that you seem to be writing a story but the subject matter requires a different style, one appropriate to technical information. It needs to describe each significant process stage in bald terms, with decoding of any technical jargon. The illustrations must inform, not be mere portraits of the author or pictures of his shed. There should either be no need to ask a large list of questions (which cannot be answered as magazine pages are dumb) or a list of additional info panels or references to other technical bits that are quoted (such as the definition/picture of a rod or a jig).
Of course, your style of writing is the norm for every domestic WW magazine. But this is why I don’t buy any of them on a regular basis. Naturally, if your market research shows a preference for this style you will stick with it. But I somehow doubt that you actually do such research, as this narrative-ramble tradition of writing is everywhere and if anything is getting worse. You are all taking cues from each other and listening only to the odd sycophantic letter writer.
Hopefully you will take this carping as it’s meant – not something personal (after all, I know nothing of you the person) but as simply the reasons I don’t buy the magazine and hence your articles. You can either shrug it off as not relevant; or consider it and perhaps refine your style if you are convinced by any of the arguments. It ain’t a matter of right and wrong, that knows!
Finally, you complain:
2. I think few people, here or anywhere else, would enjoy hearing their work described as "dross"…… If you are going to be critical, please, at least, make that criticism constructive. Otherwise, those of us who sweat blood to write feel as if we are wasting our time. Fortunately I have enough positive feedback to realize that not everyone feels as disappointed as Mr Lataxe.
I said: “The furniture-making articles are mostly (and sadly) of the "simple pine stuff" standard. As to the thing to hold a ball of string! This so encourages low standards and feeble ambitions. And what of that half-finished article about a book cover!? Just as well, I suppose, as I'd rather darn a sock”.
I didn’t describe your work as dross although there is plenty in domestic WW magazines that I would so-describe. You yourself are in danger of “going dross” if you think rather bland pine stuff (that can be bought for less than you paid for the wood from any number of bog-standard pine shops) is somehow inspirational enough to encourage woodworkers reading the article. Sure, you will get weekend woodworkers (not a pejorative term) and folk with lesser ambition praising your article. They want easy and bland perhaps; and good luck to them. But I suspect, looking at all them Festools in your shed, that your personal standards may be rather higher. Perhaps you are making that endemic assumption that amateur or hobby woodworkers are by definition not very good and incapable of better than bland-pine style. If so, I think you’re dead wrong.
That comment you made along the lines of: I bodged it here and there but it was OK for the wife if not a real customer, speaks volumes though.
Lataxe, a demanding little pest.
