• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Giving Up On FT

I stopped subscribing to Fortean Times for simple economic reasons after taking my pension earlier than planned. However, I took into account that each succeeding issue had given me less joy than the one before.

Yes, I'm of the generation that read Von Däniken and half believed it, and read Lobsang Rampa with an open mind... and yes, as I've got older, I have become more sceptical in the proper sense of considering the evidence, and mundane explanations, before giving credence to outlandish theories that require you to believe three impossible things before breakfast.

However, I hope I am not a skeptic in the sense of being the opposite of a conspiracy theorist: someone who starts with the assumption that everything can be disproved if you discount the inconvenient evidence as "a hoax".

Certain parts of Fortean Times were annoying, and I had stopped reading the UFOlogy stuff, and the mothman stuff, and I normally found Classical Corner self-satisfied and Necrolog irrelevant because I am not part of any "Fortean community" — other than this forum, of course. However, I did enjoy the articles and photos on things like the Victorian "vampire hunter's kit" and the Fijian mermaids.

The problem with FT is that there is only so much that can be said about the celebrated cases, and it draws you into a strange twilight world in which you are expected to know all the background details and names of the people involved in the Rothwell incident, and the Rendlesham Forest Incident, and the Patterson Gimlin film, and the Surgeon's Photograph, and Borley Rectory, and all the other causes célèbres. It has become — or perhaps always was — cliquey, as if you had to do your homework just to earn your position as a legitimate FT reader.

However, that said, I got a lot of pleasure from reading it for a few years, and it led me to this forum, where I continue to read good material from knowledgeable enthusiasts, and occasionally get drawn into worthwhile debate. There's plenty of weird stuff out there, and the answers are not always as clear cut as either the believers or the skeptics would have us believe.

Long may this forum continue as one of the friendliest and most interesting places on the internet.
 
as a quick check: hands up anybody on this site below the age of 35....Thought so.
Hands up. For another couple of years, at least...

I do know other youngish people who like the fortean times, but they're not invested enough to subscribe
 
My guess would be that few people under 30 have even heard of FT and people of that age group tend to use social media rather than message boards, so few will make it here. The 90s X Files demographic, referred to above are probably the last major cohort to come on board.
 
The FT would be more of a draw if they put some giveaways on the front.
I’d buy an extra copy if they had a blister pack of Nails from the True Cross free with an issue.

Did you not buy the issue that came with a free Holy Prepuce? I did. Unfortunately, I dropped it into a packet of cheese and onion Ringos and the dog eat it before I'd had a chance to go through them all.
 
If you go back about 10 years (or more, I forget), there are letters to the editor complaining about FT and canceling their subscription because it's gone "too skeptical". So, meh on that. I happen to appreciate good research on such topics (all hail Mike Dash), not balderdash. Endless speculation gets old; answers are sometimes welcomed unless it's not the answer you want.

When I had spare issues to give away, a young couple (around 25) met me to take my spares. The current young crowd gets their info digitally. Note that FT's website is no longer, which is a real shame. I enjoy the weird news the most, though. It is the only mag that does this anywhere. There aren't even decent websites that aggregated it so I always find something new every month. There is certainly an audience for all things paranormal today, it's just mostly online, in videos and short web-based writeups, not on paper.
 
Naughty Felid said: "I gave up on the mag awhile ago, It is tedious and lost a lot of its soul after Felix died"

I saw a similar comment here a short while ago (yours?).

Well, I'm sorry to disillusion you, but Felix Dennis's interest in the mag itself (as against helping to contribute to his already vast wealth) was precisely zilch. Oh, I know when Dennis Publishing bought out I Feel Good Ltd he said in a press release that he "loved all that flying saucer stuff" (or some such), but he never once set foot in our office, and his only editorial suggestion was: "More Nazis!" Not because he was a Nazi sympathiser (as far as I am aware, he wasn't), but because at the time that Dennis bought IFG, the Nazi UFO issue (I think issue 175 - wonderful cover, courtesy of Etienne Gilfillan and Alex Tomlinson) was the best-selling one of that year. That was Felix's sole concern - making money.

On the other hand, the crew who are still putting out FT (Dr David, Etienne, Bob, Paul, Val, Abi and Hunt, plus the many regular columnists and feature-writers ) remain dedicated to FT itself and to CF's memory and to the very broad church of forteana itself.

I've been reading FT since 1979 (and worked there 2000 - 2012), and I still read it cover-to-cover (sadly obsessive that way - I do the same with Interzone and Scientific American). True, some issues may seem less or more involving than others - but that's inevitable in a mag that emerges thirteen times a year. And sometimes it's probably more due to the mood I am / you are in at the time rather than the actual content.

In SF fandom, there's a phrase, "goshwowohboyohboyohboy", which is the typical newcomer's reaction on discovery; but for many or most of us, after a while, "The thrill is gone" as the old blues song goes. But it can still be enjoyable and worth continuing, even if for some familiarity ends up breeding comments, sorry, contempt. And as in all things, some people will drift away; some of them will drift back. I still read SF, FT and try to keep up with science, and I guess, hell, it's too late to stop now.

I can understand why a lot of people find SD Tucker or Brookesmith a bit much, but I rather enjoy their cynical take on things. And they are obviously trying to provoke reaction. So to that extent, it's working. If they make you think (even if what you think is "bullshit!"), surely that's exactly what any fortean should be looking for. I don't want to live in a closed bubble where I only encounter people whose every word I agree with.

Not that that's likely to happen very often anyway.
 
I stopped subscribing to Fortean Times for simple economic reasons after taking my pension earlier than planned. However, I took into account that each succeeding issue had given me less joy than the one before.

Yes, I'm of the generation that read Von Däniken and half believed it, and read Lobsang Rampa with an open mind... and yes, as I've got older, I have become more sceptical in the proper sense of considering the evidence, and mundane explanations, before giving credence to outlandish theories that require you to believe three impossible things before breakfast.

However, I hope I am not a skeptic in the sense of being the opposite of a conspiracy theorist: someone who starts with the assumption that everything can be disproved if you discount the inconvenient evidence as "a hoax".

Certain parts of Fortean Times were annoying, and I had stopped reading the UFOlogy stuff, and the mothman stuff, and I normally found Classical Corner self-satisfied and Necrolog irrelevant because I am not part of any "Fortean community" — other than this forum, of course. However, I did enjoy the articles and photos on things like the Victorian "vampire hunter's kit" and the Fijian mermaids.

The problem with FT is that there is only so much that can be said about the celebrated cases, and it draws you into a strange twilight world in which you are expected to know all the background details and names of the people involved in the Rothwell incident, and the Rendlesham Forest Incident, and the Patterson Gimlin film, and the Surgeon's Photograph, and Borley Rectory, and all the other causes célèbres. It has become — or perhaps always was — cliquey, as if you had to do your homework just to earn your position as a legitimate FT reader.

However, that said, I got a lot of pleasure from reading it for a few years, and it led me to this forum, where I continue to read good material from knowledgeable enthusiasts, and occasionally get drawn into worthwhile debate. There's plenty of weird stuff out there, and the answers are not always as clear cut as either the believers or the skeptics would have us believe.

Long may this forum continue as one of the friendliest and most interesting places on the internet.

Very good post.
 
Naughty Felid said: "I gave up on the mag awhile ago, It is tedious and lost a lot of its soul after Felix died"

I saw a similar comment here a short while ago (yours?).

Well, I'm sorry to disillusion you, but Felix Dennis's interest in the mag itself (as against helping to contribute to his already vast wealth) was precisely zilch. Oh, I know when Dennis Publishing bought out I Feel Good Ltd he said in a press release that he "loved all that flying saucer stuff" (or some such), but he never once set foot in our office, and his only editorial suggestion was: "More Nazis!" Not because he was a Nazi sympathiser (as far as I am aware, he wasn't), but because at the time that Dennis bought IFG, the Nazi UFO issue (I think issue 175 - wonderful cover, courtesy of Etienne Gilfillan and Alex Tomlinson) was the best-selling one of that year. That was Felix's sole concern - making money.

On the other hand, the crew who are still putting out FT (Dr David, Etienne, Bob, Paul, Val, Abi and Hunt, plus the many regular columnists and feature-writers ) remain dedicated to FT itself and to CF's memory and to the very broad church of forteana itself.

I've been reading FT since 1979 (and worked there 2000 - 2012), and I still read it cover-to-cover (sadly obsessive that way - I do the same with Interzone and Scientific American). True, some issues may seem less or more involving than others - but that's inevitable in a mag that emerges thirteen times a year. And sometimes it's probably more due to the mood I am / you are in at the time rather than the actual content.

In SF fandom, there's a phrase, "goshwowohboyohboyohboy", which is the typical newcomer's reaction on discovery; but for many or most of us, after a while, "The thrill is gone" as the old blues song goes. But it can still be enjoyable and worth continuing, even if for some familiarity ends up breeding comments, sorry, contempt. And as in all things, some people will drift away; some of them will drift back. I still read SF, FT and try to keep up with science, and I guess, hell, it's too late to stop now.

I can understand why a lot of people find SD Tucker or Brookesmith a bit much, but I rather enjoy their cynical take on things. And they are obviously trying to provoke reaction. So to that extent, it's working. If they make you think (even if what you think is "bullshit!"), surely that's exactly what any fortean should be looking for. I don't want to live in a closed bubble where I only encounter people whose every word I agree with.

Not that that's likely to happen very often anyway.


I started buying the magazine in the 80's and attended FortCon's so perhaps the quality of the whole magazine dropping off a cliff had nothing to do with Felix's death but in my opnion it certainly started around then.
 
The magazine's failure to really capture the wave of the X-files, crop circles, (apart from flogging Schwaa stuff in it's ads), and the second summer of love cost it back then in attracting new readers.

Then it was the publishers/staff complete lack of understanding of the seeds of social media that put the nail in the coffin.

I carried on buying it for years even though I'd only really read about half of it out of a sense of duty. Anyone who says I wasn't loyal can f off!

When they canned the forum I stopped buying it.
 
I still subscribe to F.T. I prefer it to Nexus and similar conspiracy theory rags, as FT is less speculative and more factual in its orientation, which I appreciate.
 
Another reason I'll never stop subscribing is that someone close to me loved it. After this person's death I dreamed about the next issue being delivered and the Dear Departed grabbing it first with a triumphant laugh, and I woke up smiling for the first time in ages.
 
If you go back about 10 years (or more, I forget), there are letters to the editor complaining about FT and canceling their subscription because it's gone "too skeptical". So, meh on that. I happen to appreciate good research on such topics (all hail Mike Dash), not balderdash. Endless speculation gets old; answers are sometimes welcomed unless it's not the answer you want.

When I had spare issues to give away, a young couple (around 25) met me to take my spares. The current young crowd gets their info digitally. Note that FT's website is no longer, which is a real shame. I enjoy the weird news the most, though. It is the only mag that does this anywhere. There aren't even decent websites that aggregated it so I always find something new every month. There is certainly an audience for all things paranormal today, it's just mostly online, in videos and short web-based writeups, not on paper.

I've vaguely felt that FT had become more sceptical for a while, perhaps a decade or so. That said, I've become more sceptical myself over that period, whether the mag had influenced that or not I don't know.
 
Isn't scepticism built into the definition of 'fortean' anyway? I recall very few truly credulous articles (think there was one about telepathic whales or something years ago which was truly off the wall).
 
Isn't scepticism built into the definition of 'fortean' anyway? I recall very few truly credulous articles (think there was one about telepathic whales or something years ago).

The letters page has always been the credulous aspect. There's been some WELL weird stuff on there. A couple of years ago there was a long rambling letter about a night-time ghostly visitation which was obviously a dream. Probably had cheese for supper.
 
The FT would be more of a draw if they put some giveaways on the front.
I’d buy an extra copy if they had a blister pack of Nails from the True Cross free with an issue.

There was a paranormal magazine around 1997 which gave away a quartz crystal with every copy that they said had been charged up by Uri Geller.

Can't remember the name of the mag, does it ring any bells with anyone?
 
Uri Geller’s Paranormal.

I just searched online, and think it might have been Uri Geller's Encounters, which was published in 1996.

To get the thread back on topic, my attitude to FT over the past few years has been similar to Frideswide's, as posted above : I buy some issues depending on how much the main stories appeal to me.
 
I just searched online, and think it might have been Uri Geller's Encounters, which was published in 1996.

To get the thread back on topic, my attitude to FT over the past few years has been similar to Frideswide's, as posted above : I buy some issues depending on how much the main stories appeal to me.
I admit to adding Encounters 30 seconds after I did the original post but before I saw Kryptonites response.
 
I subscribe to the FT but find less and less in it to interest me these days. I've never really liked Classical Corner but I just grew weary of more about Crowley and the other usual old stuff that's been covered before.

But there again, I've grown bored and jaded about pretty much everything else. Matching my falling interest in the FT, I can't find a newspaper to read or a news programme that gives balanced opinion instead of the musings of some fresher who is apparently qualified to comment on world affairs simply because they have a blog. (And it's probably a criminal offence to call them 'they' now) Today's comedy is so right on and PC, I don't find it entertaining anymore. Modern life is just grinding me down.

You'd think an escape into the paranormal would be a refreshing change from the tedium of modern life but I've come to the conclusion that it's sometimes better to switch it all off and just experience life and draw your own conclusions.

Whine over.
 
The magazine's failure to really capture the wave of the X-files, crop circles, (apart from flogging Schwaa stuff in it's ads), and the second summer of love cost it back then in attracting new readers.
Interesting to hear that they didn't have their finger on the pulse there, I get quite a flavour of that stuff reading 90s issues.
 
Just wanted to chip in briefly.

Thanks to Owen for setting the record straight about Felix. "More Nazis!" was indeed his only comment on FT for the entire time we worked for him and his company. At least they mostly left us alone.

I find Naughty Felid's other comments odd too; FT was full of crop circles and X-Files stuff back in the 90s, although I'm not sure why the 'Second Summer of Love' (people off their tits in a field somewhere) would have been a particularly fortean subject. This was also the period when FT's readership – fuelled largely by the X-Files phenomenon – hit a massive, unsustainable, and never-to-be-repeated, peak.

More importantly, though, if you feel that there are aspects of forteana we're not covering, or covering from the wrong angle, then let us know. I forget to check the forums as much as I used to, so email me ([email protected]).

Better still, pitch or submit some articles of the kind you'd like to see. If you say that you're from the Forums, you will get extra brownie points and possibly even a prompt reply.

Analogue Boy, we feel your pain. It's not easy getting FT out there every four weeks; we get tired and jaded too, so any input from you lot is appreciated, as is (in most cases) your continued support.

The sceptic/believer argument will go on forever. We try to walk the line, entertainingly if possible.

Messrs Brookesmith and Tucker both do so, we think, but some folks' mileage will vary.

Should we have a moratorium on any mention of Crowley (and John Michell for good measure) for a 12-month period? Works for me!
 
Back
Top