Suggest Improvements To The Fortean Times

[Anonymous]

I never really know what the Hierophant is on about. He name drops about people I've never heard of.

Maybe it's an indication of real forteanness? If you can understand the Hierophant then you're really hard core!

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

I suspect I'd argue with you on a number of points there (the new species, some of the archaeology, the goldenshot, etc.) but I do agree with this:

FT has to get back to recruiting subjects and research from its readership. I was fortunate in working with the mag in having two articles published in 1994 and 1997, and a few others here have shared the honour of making FT what we would like it to be. I am sure there is plenty more to offer from current readers and board members. There are a few contributors to this forum who I am confident would produce excellent contributions if encouraged. FT could do more to exploit this rich vein of research and ideas.

There is a good pool of people with diverse interests here.

Other things I'd like to see:

1. More use of the electronic versions of legitimtae news servcies. They use Ananova (which is causing me concern - see another thread in this forum) but there are plenty of others that come up here and you could cram the mag with lots of weird goingson (leaving no room for milk crates on the tops of trees). It is the one real difference I notice from the early FTs - density. It often felt like they were fighting to foce all the great material in.

2. I like the roundups on foreign research - it is a genral concern (in a lot of fields not just Forteana) that the language gap often leads to the creation of different zones and I do wonder if we invent the wheel a number of times. I was looking at the FT the other day with a couple of local researhcers summarising various aspects of Argentina's stigmatics and I'd love to see more of this kind of thing too.

Emps

 

[taras]

Yep bring back the "Journal of Strange Phenomena" subtitle!! That made it look good. FT still suffers from people thinking it is just a crackpot mag saying that UFOs exist, when in fact most of the mag is usually debunking.

And yes, I am going to start writing for it. First article will be finished after my exams finish next week.

I'm sure a lot of others from here are articulate and interested enough to write something.

 

[Cult_of_Mana]

...there have been some great cat pictures...

 

[TheOriginalCujo]

I would say that the Fortean in a Fortean article is in the attitude not the subject matter.

I'm surprised at the critiscism of the D-Day issue. It delt with the secrecy and misinformation around D-Day. Surely secret history is as much a Fortean study as alternative history? It was about slight of hand on a massive scale.

I also thought it was well researched, well referenced and well written. We could do with more articles like that.

Cujo

 

[lopaka]

That things aren't as good as they used to be, that the world is in a spiralling decline and that a glorious golden age has just passed never to return seems to me to be an almost constant human belief in all areas of life and throughout history.

Hence the launching of my new periodical, Jeremiad Monthly: Because it Just Keeps Getting Worse

 

[ignatiusII]

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.

Had no intention of defining what would ( or could ) be defined as fortean; merely making what was intended as a ( hopefully ) helpful suggestion as regards the content of current issues of FT: I quite agree that an FT featuring the same subject matter, month after month, would get a bit tedious, however, if 'spooks, MIBs, crypto critters' etc., have to be covered, then perhaps presentations featuring some lesser-known cases would be in order.

 

[ArthurASCII]

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.

IMHO, this thread is admirably fulfilling it's purpose as a forum for suggesting improvements. I may or may not agree each post, but I don't believe that posters who's opinions differ from mine are neccessarily "whingers".

Are you REALLY sure that FT is 100% perfect? I'm willing to bet that the editorial staff would disagree with you

 

[Anonymous]

I too liked the older style magazine with bits stuffed all over the place and a more 'underground' feel to us but that kind of layout probably only appeals to people like us I suspect. To survive in the market place FT has to become like the other magazines and have 'gimmicky' lay-outs (bits of text outside the main body of the work which personally drives me mad), picture spreads, jazzy artwork. Unfortunately it has to evolve to survive.

Some issues I read cover to cover, others I skim read, I'm not interested in all areas of fortena so really I cannot expect the magazine to appeal to me every issue

 

[Anonymous]

OT/

"Victors R Us"

What does that mean ? I keep saying it - over and over again in my head - but it doesn't seem to mean anything.

 

[Anonymous]

I too liked the older style magazine with bits stuffed all over the place and a more 'underground' feel to us but that kind of layout probably only appeals to people like us I suspect. To survive in the market place FT has to become like the other magazines and have 'gimmicky' lay-outs (bits of text outside the main body of the work which personally drives me mad), picture spreads, jazzy artwork. Unfortunately it has to evolve to survive.

Yup. But in my opinion the current design isn't particularly up to date. Sober is definitely the new jazzy.

The in - house art work (illustration) is a completely pointless waste of money. It's also rather cheesy. If they stopped paying for the illustration then maybe they could ditch the idiotic adverts for bongs, swords, goth teeshirts and herbal highs.

EDIT: Just bought had a look through the D Day edition. No full page illustrations. Hoorah. And a photograph on the cover too.

 

[Philo_T]

Originally posted by ignatius:
Had no intention of defining what would ( or could ) be defined as fortean; merely making what was intended as a ( hopefully ) helpful suggestion as regards the content of current issues of FT: I quite agree that an FT featuring the same subject matter, month after month, would get a bit tedious, however, if 'spooks, MIBs, crypto critters' etc., have to be covered, then perhaps presentations featuring some lesser-known cases would be in order.

In True Fortean (tm) nature, I say the mag should do away with the table of contents and page numbers. (Also categorical sections). :devil:


No, really, CC makes my eyes hurt!

 

[Yithian]

OT/ What does that mean ? I keep saying it - over and over again in my head - but it doesn't seem to mean anything.

I guessed he was referring to Victor Meldrew from One foot in the grave - i.e we are reactionary whiners who get overworked at small perceived faults. But i may be wrong.

 

[James_H]

OT/ What does that mean ? I keep saying it - over and over again in my head - but it doesn't seem to mean anything.

victor meldrew - famously miserable & complaining TV character.

on topic:
I didn't like the dictionary of the damned bit - in fact I had to stop reading it because the flowery language and irritating misuse of the word epistemology put me off (in no sense is fort's epistemology "anti-epistomology" - why should it be ). I guess it kind of reads like it was written by Fort himself, on the plus side.

 

[Anonymous]

I would say that the Fortean in a Fortean article is in the attitude not the subject matter.

Maybe. But just how abstract do we want to get? We could, I'm sure, find a fortean angle on anything. But would it make for riveting reading? Try, for instance, Food Manufacture magazine. To me, it's bizarre that anyone could find anything about the subject matter to justify a regular mag, but there you go. Each to their own. But if the latest spray-drying techniques showed up regularly in FT on the basis of whacky presentation or interpretation, I'd have to question if the mag is taking itself or its readership seriously.

Of course everyone has a different taste or idea as to which is and which is not fortean. FT's only concern is that it goes with the consensus and not against it.

I'm surprised at the critiscism of the D-Day issue. It delt with the secrecy and misinformation around D-Day. Surely secret history is as much a Fortean study as alternative history? It was about slight of hand on a massive scale.
Cujo

OK, perhaps FT should also cover every other war or skirmish in the history of the world too? D-Day is covered because it hopes to gain a bounce off a topical subject this month. Fair enough. Sales keep the ball rolling. However, the current Iraq situation has far more currency and weight. We already know full well how much intrigue, sleight and double-cross abounds here, and undoubtedly there'll be more revelations in time to demonstrate the bluff and subterfuge inherent in any enterprise of war.
But it doesn't end there. The same could be said for Sport, for the Stock Market, for tabloid journalism, surely? If you want secrecy and misinformation, why not, for instance, cover the Daily Mirror? Or for strategy and bluff, the World Poker or the World Chess Championships? Or George Bush and the Daily Mirror again?
The reason we don't is that we have some idea of what constitutes forteana.
Now, if Kasparov could be fairly accused of reading his opponents' minds, or it transpired that the Overlord plan and its outcome came in its entirety to Eisenhower in his sleep or through a ouija board, or UFOs increased in frequency over Normandy in the days before the invasion, then that might constitute an FT article.

 

[Bilderberger]

IMHO, this thread is admirably fulfilling it's purpose as a forum for suggesting improvements. I may or may not agree each post, but I don't believe that posters who's opinions differ from mine are neccessarily "whingers".

Are you REALLY sure that FT is 100% perfect? I'm willing to bet that the editorial staff would disagree with you

Good god no - I owuldn't claim it is 100% perfect.

Main reason - I am one of something in the region of 70,000 readers - the magazine will never cater for my tastes alone.

In saying that - I hope I am making my key point. For everyone who wants it to stick to CLASSIC Fortean-type subjects, there will be another who wants more variety..... For everyone who perceives the new art-work as more "crackpot," there will be others who find the recent artwork less "crackpot."

There are sections of FT that I find less appealing than others - but I can understand that others may enjoy those sections. For me to just suggest that they are a bit shit is of no use to anyone.

What I find lacking in much of the above is any appreciation that the magazine has to cater for thousands of people and not just the individual writing the message. If 50% of the criticisms above are constructive - then I WAS MOTHMAN (not Beckjord).

No - much of it is whinging along the lines of "it was so much better in my day....." Lizard pretty much hit the mark with his comments.

Many thanks to those who have explained the Victors R US - 100% correct. Thought it may confuse the Americans - but it was already a very long post...

And, now that I am off again - back to the whingers. Why not just get off your arse and write something - if your articles are good enough they'll get published (although much patience is required). If they're not good enough - post them on this Forum and I shall give them my full "constructive" criticism.

Now, in less than 200 words, could all whingers complete the following...

"If FT was written just for me - it would include the following...."

With all

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

"If FT was written just for me - it would include the following...."

A 20 pound note on the inside cover
A free beer token
A tinfoil hat to stop 'them' talking to me at night.

 

[Anonymous]

If someone whinges about the 'whingers', what does it make that person? And I guess I'm whingeing about the whingers who whinge about the whingers. Goodness, this could get complicated.

 

[Pete Younger]

Originally posted by rjm

A tinfoil hat to stop 'them' talking to me at night.

No proble, check here.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Why not just get off your arse and write something - if your articles are good enough they'll get published (although much patience is required). If they're not good enough - post them on this Forum and I shall give them my full "constructive" criticism.

Tell me about it

That said if people have ideas for pieces and what ideas, input, thoughts, etc. we can start a "Writer's workshop" thread if there is demand.

Emps

 

[James_H]

that could make for some good reading for non-writers, too.

 

[Dr_David_Sutton]

Thanks everyone for the comments and criticisms - most of which are pretty constructive.

All I can say is: we know we can't please all of you all of the time, so we try and please ourselves first (as a bunch of forteans with widely different interests, this should, in theory, make for a wide range of subjects and approaches that will, in turn, appeal to you lot as well) and create the best issues we can.

Obviously, we screw up sometimes, or get the balance a bit wrong; but we do work at it pretty hard and hope that the results will be well received.

At the end of the day, though, it's a bit of a no-win situation trying to second-guess what readers will like. I enjoyed the Jesus in India issue because religion is a subject I find endlessly fascinating; likewise, the D-Day issue was satisfying as it brought together a mass of seemingly unrelated material that shared a thematic core around deception, illusion and belief - core FT subjects in my mind. And yes, I hope non-FT readers with an interest in history DO pick it up (I doubt the story of the deception campaign will get much of an airing anywhere else, and they might find something else they like in Ft with luck). I don;t see a problem with FT being topical and marking anniversaries and so on - especially when we're talking about something as important as D-Day and when we feel there's a story that - probably - only FT would tell.


Couple of other quick points: games/films - it's been said a million times, but they do bring in respectable adverts (I think the ads have been very good lately - with the odd obvious exception - and this is purely because we do review dvds, movies and games).
There's not always enough really fortean stuff to cover, I agree, but we do try to draw attention, at least, to interesting stuff and not just the latest blockbusters. My background is as a film historian, so I can't help wanting to share a few favourites sometimes.

By the way, if any of you London-based types fancy reviewing new cinema releases for us, then we'd welcome your help. It's often hard for us to make screenings because of work - so if anyone would like to have a go (and see some free movies into the bargain) how about emailing/sending me a sample review or two.

Jesus - there was something else I wanted to say, but I'm tired and seem to have forgotten. So I'll leave it at that.

I'm away for the next week and a half, so take care everyone. Owen's around if you need to speak to anyone at FT.

Best

David

 

[Pete Younger]

David, as ever , thanks for the input.

 

[Red__Dalek]

This is what I like about the FT boards. The people from the mag actually make the effort to look at them.

 

[paulsamotis]

Maybe a few less photos of the sensationalist "Bizarre" magazine kind, for example the spate of "two-headed baby" etc photos which my then-pregnant wife found particularly upsetting...

On a happier note, baby Freya is currently my avatar, seen left!

 

[ignatiusII]

Good god no - I owuldn't claim it is 100% perfect.

Main reason - I am one of something in the region of 70,000 readers - the magazine will never cater for my tastes alone.

In saying that - I hope I am making my key point. For everyone who wants it to stick to CLASSIC Fortean-type subjects, there will be another who wants more variety..... For everyone who perceives the new art-work as more "crackpot," there will be others who find the recent artwork less "crackpot."

There are sections of FT that I find less appealing than others - but I can understand that others may enjoy those sections. For me to just suggest that they are a bit shit is of no use to anyone.

What I find lacking in much of the above is any appreciation that the magazine has to cater for thousands of people and not just the individual writing the message. If 50% of the criticisms above are constructive - then I WAS MOTHMAN (not Beckjord).

No - much of it is whinging along the lines of "it was so much better in my day....." Lizard pretty much hit the mark with his comments.

Many thanks to those who have explained the Victors R US - 100% correct. Thought it may confuse the Americans - but it was already a very long post...

And, now that I am off again - back to the whingers. Why not just get off your arse and write something - if your articles are good enough they'll get published (although much patience is required). If they're not good enough - post them on this Forum and I shall give them my full "constructive" criticism.

Now, in less than 200 words, could all whingers complete the following...

"If FT was written just for me - it would include the following...."

With all

As someone who has avidly read FT since the mid-80's, and who has spent not-inconsiderable sums of money in an attempt to complete my collection ( which are all boarded, bagged, and kept in a cool, dry place - hell, even my copies of early 60's Marvel comics don't get that treatment ), I can honestly say that FT is the only magazine that I actually LOVE ( and no, not just on those nights when the girlfriend is visiting relatives ). So it comes as a bit of a shock to me to discover that, despite all that, I apparently never 'understood' it. Right. Anyways....I believe, if memory serves, that the title of the thread was 'Suggest Any Improvements To FT'...and many, apparently not grasping the subtle nuances inherent in the title, actually went ahead and did just that - suggested what would be, in their humble opines, possible improvements to the mag. Not realizing that their opinions, openly solicited by the MB, and freely offered, would be construed as 'whinging'. Whatever. I think everyone who posted offered constructive suggestions and fulfilled the intended objective of this thread rather admirably, and with a noticable lack of 'whinging'. Oh, and BTW - I WAS MOTHMAN!

 

[Bilderberger]

As someone who has avidly read FT since the mid-80's, and who has spent not-inconsiderable sums of money in an attempt to complete my collection ( which are all boarded, bagged, and kept in a cool, dry place - hell, even my copies of early 60's Marvel comics don't get that treatment ), I can honestly say that FT is the only magazine that I actually LOVE ( and no, not just on those nights when the girlfriend is visiting relatives ). So it comes as a bit of a shock to me to discover that, despite all that, I apparently never 'understood' it. Right. Anyways....I believe, if memory serves, that the title of the thread was 'Suggest Any Improvements To FT'...and many, apparently not grasping the subtle nuances inherent in the title, actually went ahead and did just that - suggested what would be, in their humble opines, possible improvements to the mag. Not realizing that their opinions, openly solicited by the MB, and freely offered, would be construed as 'whinging'. Whatever. I think everyone who posted offered constructive suggestions and fulfilled the intended objective of this thread rather admirably, and with a noticable lack of 'whinging'. Oh, and BTW - I WAS MOTHMAN!

One man's constructive criticism is another man's whinge. If stating what an individual doesn't like about the magazine is "suggestion for improvement," then I fall on my sword and publically apologise for my use of the W word.

Hell, we can't even agree on what a whinge is - so how can we ever agree what constitutes bona fide Forteana and the best way forward for the magazine?

I just found the endless (what word can I use instead of whinging?) complaining rather depressing. But, then, perhaps I did miss the subtle nuance of the thread and, by its nature, perhaps I should expect it to be filled with criticism.

Anyway, enough from me. I will shut up now - and promise only to post on this thread should I be offering my opinions on improvement...



P.S. I had failed to appreciate my gross hypocrisy re: whinging about whingers. Rather amusing!

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

One thing I think no-one can complain about is the editor-public communication that happens hear. Its nice to know that at least our views are listened to.

Thanks David!

 

[Anonymous]

but rather disturbing to learn that he thinks he can bribe us with X Files videos.

 

[Anonymous]

I was just hoping David may have addressed the Senders article. Just to tell us in what context the aricle was published.