01-28-2009, 11:25 AM
I prefer to do my own construction, but that is a function of my nature, my circumstances (retired), and my solvency (limited). I would never begrudge, nor judge, those who use common sense and other resources as they deem suitable to find a way to enjoy this great hobby.
As for Kalmbach's editors' decisions to print articles of the kind they do, I suspect that those decisions are borne of the mandates given to them in keeping with running a publishing business. With some room for exploration and creativity, the bills have to be paid. Salaries are owed. When those needs can be met via a certain formula of publishing from month to month, and if it works, I wouldn't stand in their way. I am always in a position to buy their monthly or decline to...which I did this month.
When they realize that their formula, or policies, begin to weaken their business footing, the staff at Kalmbach are sure to make some adjustments if they want to stay in business. Some of that would be preceded by an exploration, perhaps via working groups and focus groups and surveys. At least, so I would surmise. So, I wonder if this particular article isn't either explorative or in response to something they learned from focus group discussions or some other substantial feedback. If so, I would have to conclude that my own tastes are irrelevant, but only in this edition. I do not find, nor feel, that my tastes are not being met consistently, and not even most often. To that end, I am prepared for the occasional foray into new territory, or a reversion into previously covered territory, as long as I can continue to enjoy the magazine. Even so, if the time comes when I no longer purchase it from month to month, I have other avenues of readership.
Finally, as others have pointed out, even a bad article must have something in it that is of value. Not that I feel this was a bad article or a bad move...there was nothing on the cover that appealed to me, so I opted to leave it on the shelf this month. But as Stein has said, no matter the author, the image taker, the planner, the person who drove the last screw or soldered the last feeder, the product has a Gestalt where the whole is greater than all its deficient, defective, commercial, hand-made, or divinely inspired parts. It is what I would look to in a determination of what it could offer me in the published form, not its provenance.
As for Kalmbach's editors' decisions to print articles of the kind they do, I suspect that those decisions are borne of the mandates given to them in keeping with running a publishing business. With some room for exploration and creativity, the bills have to be paid. Salaries are owed. When those needs can be met via a certain formula of publishing from month to month, and if it works, I wouldn't stand in their way. I am always in a position to buy their monthly or decline to...which I did this month.
When they realize that their formula, or policies, begin to weaken their business footing, the staff at Kalmbach are sure to make some adjustments if they want to stay in business. Some of that would be preceded by an exploration, perhaps via working groups and focus groups and surveys. At least, so I would surmise. So, I wonder if this particular article isn't either explorative or in response to something they learned from focus group discussions or some other substantial feedback. If so, I would have to conclude that my own tastes are irrelevant, but only in this edition. I do not find, nor feel, that my tastes are not being met consistently, and not even most often. To that end, I am prepared for the occasional foray into new territory, or a reversion into previously covered territory, as long as I can continue to enjoy the magazine. Even so, if the time comes when I no longer purchase it from month to month, I have other avenues of readership.
Finally, as others have pointed out, even a bad article must have something in it that is of value. Not that I feel this was a bad article or a bad move...there was nothing on the cover that appealed to me, so I opted to leave it on the shelf this month. But as Stein has said, no matter the author, the image taker, the planner, the person who drove the last screw or soldered the last feeder, the product has a Gestalt where the whole is greater than all its deficient, defective, commercial, hand-made, or divinely inspired parts. It is what I would look to in a determination of what it could offer me in the published form, not its provenance.