Giving Up On FT

[MrRING]

FT is moving in a direction where I need to part with them as a purchaser, unfortunately. It feels like it has become a skeptic's magazine for the most part, and many article are trying to be humorous but fail (for me). Hunt Emerson is always a delight, but the big articles have begun to rub me the wrong way. It doesn't help that where I can find issues locally it sells for $16, which is a pretty penny to shell out for something that is primarily skeptical and sometimes hostile towards their own readers (like some recent Peter Brookesmith articles, and I'm not even a big follower of the UFO scene in general). The Classical Corner just seems to be a collection of catty jokes. The Building A Fortean Library is an offense and perhaps the most annoying single way such an article could be written.

In the end, it's just not fun for me.

 

[titch]

I no longer read anything by Brookesmith or SD Tucker, but without them I still find plenty of interest, last month's issue was very poor but there was still enough in the magazine to entertain and inform me, and ignoring Brookesmith , I think the magazine has quite a good balance, but given the subject matter it will be impossible to please everyone.

 

[ramonmercado]

My film and book reviews are still worth reading!

 

[gordonrutter]

What about EdFort at 20 and Citizen Forteana? Surely worth the price of admission alone!!!!!

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

FT is moving in a direction where I need to part with them as a purchaser, unfortunately. It feels like it has become a skeptic's magazine for the most part, and many article are trying to be humorous but fail (for me). Hunt Emerson is always a delight, but the big articles have begun to rub me the wrong way. It doesn't help that where I can find issues locally it sells for $16, which is a pretty penny to shell out for something that is primarily skeptical and sometimes hostile towards their own readers (like some recent Peter Brookesmith articles, and I'm not even a big follower of the UFO scene in general). The Classical Corner just seems to be a collection of catty jokes. The Building A Fortean Library is an offense and perhaps the most annoying single way such an article could be written.

In the end, it's just not fun for me.

Know what you mean.
A few of the recent copies have been a bit of a grind to get through and I did (briefly) consider cancelling my subscription.

I do still however enjoy reading FT in bed.
If it's boring, it sends me to sleep easily.
If it's interesting, it sends me to sleep with a sense of wonder.

So I'm afraid I'm still hooked!

 

[gordonrutter]

Seriously though I think the world of Forteana is so vast and the number of peopel writing that yes there are alwasy going to be things we don't agree with, writing we don't like and articles that we don't care for. But similarly there are are going to be viewpoints we can get down with, writing we love and articles that we love. Sometimes individual issues may differ in their balance of any of these and people will differ in which issues and which articles are the good ones. So if an issue comes along with little to interest you don't worry there'll be another one along soon which you may fall in love with! Regular articles you don't like? Don't read them. Most issues are full of enough different things to at least dip into even if you don't want to devour them completely.

 

[MrRING]

Thanks for your thoughts, but I still think I'm pulling the plug on further purchases unless it appears that the tide is changing back to something I think I'll like. ramonmercado - what is your review name - I don't remember your user name as one of the reviewers...

 

[ramonmercado]

Thanks for your thoughts, but I still think I'm pulling the plug on further purchases unless it appears that the tide is changing back to something I think I'll like. ramonmercado - what is your review name - I don't remember your user name as one of the reviewers...

Páiric O'Corráin, sometimes printed as O'Corcráin.

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

I regularly skip a few sections but there's still enough to keep me engrossed every month. Maybe time for another reader survey?

Having said that, I'm always a few months behind as I have a massive reading backlog, so maybe it's become shit in the last couple of months.

 

[ramonmercado]

Thanks for your thoughts, but I still think I'm pulling the plug on further purchases unless it appears that the tide is changing back to something I think I'll like. ramonmercado - what is your review name - I don't remember your user name as one of the reviewers...

Páiric O'Corráin,, has been printed as O'Corcráin in FT on occasion.

 

[escargot]

I first began buying FT because I wanted to read about the things that interested me that weren't covered elsewhere. Ghosts, general occult subjects, human weirdness, Earth mysteries... loads of stuff but not UFOs. They don't grab me.

These days you can find lots of sources for everything like that but I'm staying loyal to t'Times from gratitude and, well, ghosts, general occult subjects, human weirdness, Earth mysteries... I can miss out the UFOs coverage.

 

[taras]

UFOs are my favourite but ghosts, the occult and earth mysteries are all fun too. Plus hoaxes, conspiracies, secrets, mass delusions etc. Animal stories ('giant badger sighted in Mongolia' etc) and medical stories don't normally interest me but I appreciate they have their place.

I could do without the 'hauntology' stuff - doesn't feel to me like there's anything actually paranormal or even unusual about it - it's people deliberately being spooky, which to me doesn't count. But each to their own.

 

[lordmongrove]

FT is moving in a direction where I need to part with them as a purchaser, unfortunately. It feels like it has become a skeptic's magazine for the most part, and many article are trying to be humorous but fail (for me). Hunt Emerson is always a delight, but the big articles have begun to rub me the wrong way. It doesn't help that where I can find issues locally it sells for $16, which is a pretty penny to shell out for something that is primarily skeptical and sometimes hostile towards their own readers (like some recent Peter Brookesmith articles, and I'm not even a big follower of the UFO scene in general). The Classical Corner just seems to be a collection of catty jokes. The Building A Fortean Library is an offense and perhaps the most annoying single way such an article could be written.

In the end, it's just not fun for me.

Building A Fortean Library should be re-named how not to build a fortean library. It is just a one sided diatribe against forteana and written with a transcendental lack of knowledge. It also comes over as sneering. I wrote a letter complaining about this but i don't know if it will ever see light. The FT pendulum has swung far too far to the sceptic side.

 

[Analogue Boy]

 

[Analogue Boy]

Building A Fortean Library should be re-named how not to build a fortean library. It is just a one sided diatribe against forteana and written with a transcendental lack of knowledge. It also comes over as sneering. I wrote a letter complaining about this but i don't know if it will ever see light. The FT pendulum has swung far too far to the sceptic side.

Not quite true. As Forteans, we look at the evidence, As the limitations of compact cameras produce orbs where previously there were none. As the increasing tech and mass observation of everone carrying a camera at all times, there is no real new evidence of what we’d call Forteana.
Monsters are eels. Lights in the sky are lights in the sky. The Blessed Virgin Mary remains as elusive as The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Make of that what you wiill

What remains fascinating to me is the question of why should the human mind play these deception games on itself?
Sorting out the real wheat from the chaff is what we’re mostly and should be doing .

 

[Naughty_Felid]

Not quite true. As Forteans, we look at the evidence, As the limitations of compact cameras produce orbs where previously there were none. As the increasing tech and mass observation of everone carrying a camera at all times, there is no real new evidence of what we’d call Forteana.
Monsters are eels. Lights in the sky are lights in the sky. The Blessed Virgin Mary remains as elusive as The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Make of that what you wiill

What remains fascinating to me is the question of why should the human mind play these deception games on itself?
Sorting out the real wheat from the chaff is what we’re mostly and should be doing .

Not quite true either. Forteans look at the subjective nature of the impact a fortean event has on the beholder. It's not all about the evidence. Which you seem to agree with.

I gave up on the mag awhile ago, It is tedious and lost a lot of it's soul after Felix died.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

Fortean and paranormal studies have taken a massive downturn in recent years. The whole subject seems split between idiots doing ghost hunting and sneering skeptics who are usually rude and obnoxious.

Ive been interested in this stuff since I could walk but have never been so bored with it. It's lost it's magic. The skeptics, (and I'm skepitcal too a lot of the time), are a bunch of arseholes.

 

[lordmongrove]

Not quite true. As Forteans, we look at the evidence, As the limitations of compact cameras produce orbs where previously there were none. As the increasing tech and mass observation of everone carrying a camera at all times, there is no real new evidence of what we’d call Forteana.
Monsters are eels. Lights in the sky are lights in the sky. The Blessed Virgin Mary remains as elusive as The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Make of that what you wiill

What remains fascinating to me is the question of why should the human mind play these deception games on itself?
Sorting out the real wheat from the chaff is what we’re mostly and should be doing .

Some monsters are eels, some are not. Eels can be monsterous, especially the very, very big ones. I've never brought the 'all in the mind' answer to forteana. It's explaining things away but not explaining them.

 

[Swifty]

The issue before this one (I think) raised an eyebrow from me with the feature on why the EU is good, disguised (IMO) as an urban myth example by example expose .. perhaps it was 100% correct?, perhaps it wasn't? who cares!! .. what's that got to do with Fortean topics either way though? .. I want to read about weird shit instead, we're all knee deep and above on everyone's opinions on the EU at the moment without FT giving the nod to someone to slide in with their opinion.

 

[Krepostnoi]

The skeptics, (and I'm skepitcal too a lot of the time), are a bunch of arseholes.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm all for critical thinking and not taking things at face value, but the most voluble skeptics seem to be devoid of any empathy whatsoever, and that is deeply unappealing.

 

[James_H]

Yep, I'm a skeptic on most issues when it comes down to it but 'Skeptics' as a movement often come across as a bunch of self-satisfied jerks who think they have all the answers - so I don't associate myself with them. On a similar note, I'm an atheist but find the atheists who feel the need to shout about it insufferable.

I see forteanism as a form of universal scepticism in the tradition of Diogenes: dogma is also subject to scrutiny.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...What remains fascinating to me is the question of why should the human mind play these deception games on itself?...

This, exactly. One of the things that more or less insulates me from any frustration when considering Fortean subjects is that the human mind's wish to believe in things is as fascinating as the things it believes in; if the latter turn out to be bobbins (or one believes it to be) the former never wavers.

 

[maximus otter]

l still enjoy it immensely, and plan to stick with it.

lt would, however, be nice if we could get through an entire issue without mentioning Hitler; or making thinly-veiled negative references to certain figures currently in public life.

maximus otter

 

[Spookdaddy]

The issue before this one (I think) raised an eyebrow from me with the feature on why the EU is good, disguised (IMO) as an urban myth example by example expose...

I don't think that's totally fair. The propogation of urban myth is surely within the remit of the magazine, and - although in many cases it may well be - I don't believe that calling bullshit on a myth necessarily has to be attached to a political stance.

Probably the timing was out - but, given some of the sheer outlandishness involved, fair game, I'd say.

 

[Spookdaddy]

I find the odd issue uninspiring, but generally still thoroughly enjoy the magazine; I won't be dreaming of giving up for a long while yet.

What I do miss are the mad letters...the really mad ones. Does no-one write them anymore? Or have all those guys got websites now? Or is it that the world's gone so nuts that nothing looks that weird anymore?

 

[escargot]

What I do miss are the mad letters...the really mad ones. Does no-one write them anymore? Or have all those guys got websites now? Or is it that the world's gone so nuts that nothing looks that weird anymore?

My favourite pages were the Letters.

 

[Zeke Newbold]

I don't get to see `F.T` all that much these days - what with living abroad and having an unreliable incoming postal system. but when I do manage to get my hands on it it I can see that the magazine still fills a market niche that nobody else seems to have claimed. It deals with the whole panoply of oddness in both fact and fiction without a too incredulous approach nor a skeptic agenda and without sunbscribing to any particular paradigm.

I also appreciate the fact that `F.T` - like `Private Eye` -remains an ink and paper product and has not fully migrated onto cyberspace, giving it a select feel.

I do worry that the demographic that it speaks to is limited and diminishing. I'd say the target market is mostly Brit, educated and middle- aged-going-on -elderly. It's the generation that came of age during the paranormal paperback explosion of the seventies and hence were exposed to the likes of Daniken and Keel and Dinsdale and, while they may be less wide-eyed about it all than when they were younger, still want to chew over the same kind of territory. This generation is not being replenished - as a quick check: hands up anybody on this site below the age of 35....Thought so.

So when we go - it'll go.

As regards the contents. Yeah, the knee jerk UFO scpeticism, which may have been refreshing 15 years or so ago, is getting to be a bore in its predictability, but otherwise, I don't see all that much of a change. The mission statement always contained the phrase `attitude of benign scepticism` - and that's still about right.

And far too many of you are treating `F.T` as a product which is handed down to you from on high by V.I.P's. You are forgetting that it is written by Ordinary Joes like you and me. There's a lot of very articulate people on this board and many of them have posted material that, with a bit of polishing and extra information, could quite easily be turned into a credible article for `F.T`. (Hey - I mean I had some articles in `F.T` a whle back - and i'm a right old tosser!)

The message is clear: IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT''S IN IT - THEN START WRITING FOR IT!

 

[Tigerhawk]

Fortean Times is a broad church. Not every article appeals to every reader. I skip the ones I don't like, enjoy the ones I do, and like the magazine because it introduces me to subjects I wouldn't normally be exposed to. Besides, it provides an excellent website for us to meet and greet, and exchange ideas, jokes and dirty stories. Don't give up on it because you feel it has changed, broaden your horizons and keep a balanced view of Forteana...

 

[gordonrutter]

I don't get to see `F.T` all that much these days - what with living abroad and having an unreliable incoming postal system. but when I do manage to get my hands on it it I can see that the magazine still fills a market niche that nobody else seems to have claimed. It deals with the whole panoply of oddness in both fact and fiction without a too incredulous approach nor a skeptic agenda and without sunbscribing to any particular paradigm.

I also appreciate the fact that `F.T` - like `Private Eye` -remains an ink and paper product and has not fully migrated onto cyberspace, giving it a select feel.

I do worry that the demographic that it speaks to is limited and diminishing. I'd say the target market is mostly Brit, educated and middle- aged-going-on -elderly. It's the generation that came of age during the paranormal paperback explosion of the seventies and hence were exposed to the likes of Daniken and Keel and Dinsdale and, while they may be less wide-eyed about it all than when they were younger, still want to chew over the same kind of territory. This generation is not being replenished - as a quick check: hands up anybody on this site below the age of 35....Thought so.

So when we go - it'll go.

As regards the contents. Yeah, the knee jerk UFO scpeticism, which may have been refreshing 15 years or so ago, is getting to be a bore in its predictability, but otherwise, I don't see all that much of a change. The mission statement always contained the phrase `attitude of benign scepticism` - and that's still about right.

And far too many of you are treating `F.T` as a product which is handed down to you from on high by V.I.P's. You are forgetting that it is written by Ordinary Joes like you and me. There's a lot of very articulate people on this board and many of them have posted material that, with a bit of polishing and extra information, could quite easily be turned into a credible article for `F.T`. (Hey - I mean I had some articles in `F.T` a whle back - and i'm a right old tosser!)

The message is clear: IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT''S IN IT - THEN START WRITING FOR IT!

In case anyone doubts this there is at least one semi regular columnist whose work came from a conversation he had with David Sutton one year where he (the columnist) complained there wasn’t enough hard Forteana in the magazine.

 

[taras]

middle- aged-going-on -elderly [...] the generation that came of age during the paranormal paperback explosion of the seventies [...] as a quick check: hands up anybody on this site below the age of 35....Thought so.

I'd like to see the actual readership stats to back this up. Also, you're forgetting the generation of readers that came of age and joined FT during the X-Files craze in the mid-to-late 90s.

Admittedly I just turned 35, but I strongly doubt that I am the youngest FT reader.

The message is clear: IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT''S IN IT - THEN START WRITING FOR IT!

I am! (though I do like what's in it)