By the sounds of this thread - the website seems to make the readers of FT sound more like "Victors R Us"
Blimey - what a load of whinging.
What amuses me is this seeming ability to define what is and is not Fortean. I suppose, by any strict interpretation, the article on the D-Day landings may not be Fortean. Yet, this was one of the most fascinating (to me) articles in FT for some time. If the magazine were to define itself by being about
then I would start to rethink whether I should be buying FT.
The reason why the magazine always worked, and still works, is that it takes a broad church of weird and wonderful items.
Spooks, critters, MIBs, UFOs, ESP, Crop Circles and all the other Fortean classics are interesting - but every month? Would get a bit tiring.
I would sincerely argue that the FT has not changed its profile of articles away from the undefined glory days.
To me, the magazine represents a forum for a questioning mind. If we take a narrow definition of Forteana, as seems to be suggested by many of the above posters, I fear that the magazine would appeal to......
"Anoraks R Us" ??????
As for the comment about the magazines covers. Let me quote...
Ahem - yes - men with billiard balls in their mouths would avert anyone from claiming a magazine is "Crackpots R Us"
Sorry - but any quick review of old covers shows that previous covers were, if anything, MORE "Crackpot" in nature. As I mentioned on the thread about the current issue - the D-Day cover is pretty much the best I have seen so far. Not a crackpot in sight!
But then we don't want articles about D-Day !?!?!?! Damned if you do.......
So, all we prove is that what Barnum said about fooling people was also right about pleasing people.
Currently, FT is catering for my taste very well. Others may not agree.
However, I suspect a silent majority who still understand and enjoy the magazine. I only make this post to show that not all of the FT readers are "disgusted from Tunbridge Wells" whingers.