I bought my first copy of this new magazine (Issue 5) yesterday and spent a couple of hours going through it. Whilst not wanting to be negative I have to say I give it about 3 out of 10.
Why so harsh? Basically because it sets a standard that's more or less identical to that of all other British WW magazines.
* The tool tests are merely someone rambling out his opinions, despite the odd attempt to find "objective" criteria. Moreover, there are far too many such "tests," which reduces the amount of other stuff about.... British woodworking. Frankly, a lot of them also sound like puff pieces for the manufacturer. Where are the comparisons across a range of similar tools? Why is a bandsaw with loads of quality issues suddenly OK at the end of the article?
* 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.
* 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.
Well, how about some positive comments?
* It's refreshing to see articles covering innovative tool makers, timber qualities and maker-profiles (although I don't know what Garret Hack is doing amongst the British woodworkers, despite his excellent stuff - a contrast to that pine dross). What a pity then that these articles are so badly written, flitting from this thing to that via queer jerky sentences and puzzling asides.
* The bloke who examined the Tormek for use with lathe tools did a good job of giving and explaining his opinions, including the problems or drawbacks.
* I enjoyed David Savage's cherry article, although it was too brief.
***
I wonder if the magazine will improve? I suspect it is always going to be a tool-oriented and somewhat uncritical vehicle for advertisers. I also suspect that it will continue to adopt that chatty, amateurish style. But I would love to be proved wrong.
Perhaps it needs some professional writers who are also woodworkers?
Meanwhile, Fine Woodworking and an occassional Popular Woodworking (both American) still set the standard for me. This new magazine is as far from those high standards as all the rest of the British oeuvre, in my opinion (admittedly not a humble one).
Lataxe
