Just notice that Gary Rogowski isn’t on the list of Contributing Editors! WoW! Now that is a shocker….. I hope it was Gary’s decision and not FWW. For FWW needs Gary and all the other Contributing Editors. What is funny is that Gary highly praised FWW in the live feed of Q & A a few months ago. I just don’t know what to think about FWW these days. I use to collect all the issues of FWW but, now a days I just download my 1-3 articles a year.
I can tell you one thing if I see another Poly finish article, another test the routers article, another best bandsaw article, another dovetail article, another hand plane vs. sander article, another publication that is just focus on novice than I am going to puck.
FWW needs to challenge all skill levels. I am still learning from the early issues. Come On FWW.
Woodworker…..
Replies
Pucking
Just don't get any of that "puck" on me.
Zolton
Couldn't agree more
FIMWDWKR,
I couldn't agree more with your complaint about the magazine. I love FWW, but it pains me to see them moving away from the fine side of woodworking. The recent addition of the Fundamentals section is proof that this is happening. If I want to read articles on how to glue up a basic tabletop panel or how to use a bench vise I'll go read American Woodworker or some other hobbyist-focused magazine. Those articles have their place, just not in FWW.
After reading your post I sat and thought about why I read the magazine and what I would like to learn. Basically, I read the magazine with the hope that what I learn will help elevate my woodworking to a level near that of the best woodworkers in the country. Sections like Master Class and How They Did It help me do that by showing me what is possible and what some of the best are doing. I don't mean to be overly critical, but, in my opinion, another article on the different ways to cut M&T joints is wasted space. If I need a refresher I'll go to the back issues which are readily accessible online.
Another aspect of woodworking that I feel is somewhat overlooked in FWW is design. I recently had the opportunity to have a conversation with Jeff Miller about how to improve my woodworking and he had an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered. Unsurprisingly, woodworking consists of a design side and an execution side. My thought was that if I wished to improve my woodworking I needed to concentrate on the execution side. Jeff disagreed and suggested that if you're able to improve your design side your execution side will naturally follow. In other words, if you design more balanced and challenging pieces you'll figure out how to put them together.
If you buy into this belief that better execution will follow better design then FWW would do us all a great service by helping us develop our designs. Woodworking, for the most part, is a solitary pursuit. Those few people who are present to provide feedback during the process (spouses, friends, etc.) are usually biased, don't know what constitutes good design, or don't want to hurt our feelings. A forum for design education and constructive criticism would be a welcome addition. This month's Design Doctor article was a step in the right direction and I applaud the effort. Popular Woodworking has taken it a step further with their design column by George Walker and it has become a can't miss section of the magazine for me.
I apologize for the long-winded diatribe. I don't want to give the impression that I'm upset or unsatisfied with the magazine. As a whole, I love it and have no intention of cancelling my subscription. In fact, I still get excited every month when I find the magazine in my mailbox. Further, the online community that they have created is fantastic and has done much to help me improve my skills. It has helped make woodworking less solitary and facilitated the sharing of ideas and information. The purpose of this post is to simply let the editors know that I, for one, would like to see the magazine go in a different direction that continues to allow me to grow as a woodworker.
Aaron
Aaron, I agree with all your comments and sadly the irony of it is that you are describing the recently deceased Woodworking magazine. I specially agree with you in the design part of your post. For one I am tired of square projects like arts and crafts, Greene & Greene, Prairie etc. I would like to see more "organic" designs, how to make them and execute them. Lets face it we all start making the square things to learn how to make dovetails, M&T, etc and have them come out square, but enough is enough.
OTOH, I have to disagree on some of the comparison articles. Some of them are useful, both my chisels and saws where bought based on the articles by Chris Gnoucher (spelling?). These were not articles comparing ROS, or miter saw, but more specialized articles which are not common and I don't mind them.
Anyhow, no need for an apology, I feel all your point were well presented and on point for those of us who want to take WW beyond making square things.
I agree with you, Aaron. I am by no means an expert, but I have been reading, doing and learning enough to be able to handle most basic skills. One thing that has really helped me is the videos on this site. I pick up little things that the person doing the video does and may not even talk about or I get the significance of what that person is talking about in a way that I just don't in the printed form. It seems there has been a lot of effort(and a continuing need) to get people started however the unserved nich seems to be those who are looking for something beyond the elementary. I no longer subscribe to Fine Woodworking manazine for the reasons you describe. I will only purchace it at the news stand if I see some things that make it worth my while.
Howard
Aaron - Right on the Money
Design holds many of us back, and that's an area that has been sorely lacking in FWW. Many of us would rejoice at a regular feature in this magazine on such a neglected topic.
Good points!
Jeff
Lighten up
There could be a lot or reasons that Gary Rogowski isn't on the list of Contributing Editors from he found religion, to he "wants to spend more time with his family."
Some of you seem to want to see a magazine with only Master Classes and more pictures filling pages of Readers' Gallery. But you'd probably get tired of yet another article on how to make the perfect, hand carved, curvy gun stock. There are some things I'm just not that interested in trying to make. In the end, I think the magazine does a reasonable job of having articles that cover a range of interests and skill levels.
The magazine is a business so it is rational they would have articles featuring their advertisers products. I'm sorry if you have all the tools now, but the features are the price of admission. Keep the advertisers happy.
After many years taking art classes I yet to find someone who could teach design and I find the design articles in Popular Woodworking on design to be of questionable value. The best approach I've seen for teaching design is the way they go about training architects, where they give everyone the same problem, let them solve it and then one at a time present their solutions. Students learn from each other comparing their efforts to others and listening to the critics. And in a way that's what happens when Fine Woodworking has one of their competitions.
Peter
I agree with most of the comments about the "dumbing down" of the magazine.
One thing long-time readers of this publication will notice is the dramatic shift in the sources of the articles. Years ago, nearly all of the content was written by woodworkers who happened to know how to write - but they were, first and foremost, skilled craftsmen. The earlier volumes of the magazine always had an article or two from the Contributing Editors, several more from readers, and none from the magaizne staff.
Today you find a large percentage of the content being written by the magazine's staff. Most (but not all) of the "simple" articles seem to originate with the staff. Rather than having the content furnished by professional furniture makers, a lot of it now comes from professional magazine people who happen to be hobby woodworkers. For me and it seems many others, there's the rub. Many of us subscribe to this magazine to learn from professionals.
While I don't know this for sure, I suspect one of the reasons behind the shift in article source is cost. The magazine pays for submissions from its readers. It would be surprising to me if the magazine paid its already-paid staff additional cash for articles they write for the magazine, and it's a lot easier on the bottom line that way.
I suspect that trying to make the magazine profitable is at the root of a lot of this. Unfortunately, this isn't the same magazine that Taunton started publishing years ago. While the title is the same, the quality of the content is not.
While it's not for me to say why Mr. Rogowski's name disappeared form the list of Contributing Editors, I'm certain that neither religion nor family played a role.
The mag that sets the standard
I have been a follower of the magazine for more than 25 years and a woodworker for over 40. I have to agree with much of what you guys say as far as the "general appeal' aspects of the magazine being not what the best woodworkers are after, we want to see the experts and how they complete compound curves and flawless bent tapered-laminations. However I also sense that the magazine caters to a wider audience than us older folks. Indeed to survive the publication must appeal to younger woodworks. Think of the new generations that do not normally have access to wood-shops at school these days, where will they get there interest from, indeed how will they ever even develop the interest we have unless they have a parent or relative with a shop and the time and patience to show them what we already learned in those back issues (when they were new issues) I can see the publication needs to have some appeal to the "less skilled" in order to attract subscribers. I fear if all the content is tailored to only the top woodworkers, the magazine will be faced with an ever dwindling membership.
That will not further any our interests either. Maybe what we really need is to contribute more ourselves to the magazine - become the contributing editors ourselves.
Robert.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled