Re: S & T uses low end paper
- From: Gregory <astronomer_c@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 03:55:02 GMT
Tom Polakis wrote:
> Right! Here's another message thread on s.a.a. about how the magazines
> write only softball reviews, and right under everybody's noses is Alan
> MacRobert's accurate (and often scathing) review of JMI's unwieldy 6"
> binoscope. One did not need to read between many lines to see that the
> binoscope is a mechanical nightmare...
Thank goodness; I had given up hope that MacRobert and the
other S&T equipment reviewers would ever say anything
truly scathing again.
> ...What do you folks want, anyway? Specifically, how would you
> improve the magazine?
I would enjoy a return to a more scientific, less salesy/omigosh
tone in many of the articles. I would like to see a return of the
magazine that so effectively and clearly summarized the findings
of the scientific journals. I really have had enough of how
various authors have celestial objects "kissing", "sporting",
"flirting", "gracing", "cavorting", and otherwise too-colorfully
interacting with other nearby celestial objects, or inhabiting
their respective areas of the sky.
In the reviews, I want something unambiguous, so we don't *have*
to read between the lines. I would like the unjustified hyperbole
removed, so that newcomers to the hobby and to the magazine are
not mis-led, as happens with some frequency in my experience.
So, as you say, let's be "prescriptive" and do a couple
of re-writes:
MacRobert: "The case is big, 36 by 28 1/2 by 13 inches
(91 by 73 by 33 centimeters) including
external hardware, and it weighs 72 pounds
with the RB-66 in it, more than some people
can carry."
Re-write: The case is 36 by 28 1/2 by 13 inches (91
by 73 by 33 centimeters) including external
hardware, and it weighs 72 pounds (32.66 kilograms)
with the RB-66 in it. This is far too heavy for
any but a strong adult to manage for transport,
and is also an unwieldy size and shape.
MacRobert: "Omigod, what a view."
Re-write: A very nice view presented itself, commensurate
with the many such views I have had through
good binoviewers.
MacR: "The little Ring Nebula, the globular cluster M53 --
it was as if I were up there looking out of a window
cruising by."
Re: The planetary nebula M57 and the globular cluster M53
displayed themselves clearly in a fairly sharp, wide-
field (about 1.4 degree) binocular view.
MacR: "The light beams are sent, by way of reflection, to
a pair of eyepieces as show here." (No diagram, just
salesy photos shown).
Re: It's basically two six-inch Newtonian tube assemblies
with two star diagonals attached, as shown here. (Clear
diagram with light paths shown).
Keep in mind, the tenor of this article was generally negative
to begin with, so these re-writes are not as serious as
many I would make on many other, less-critical articles.
For those interested, pick up a copy of Stephen O'Meara's
collection of articles published by Walter Scott Houston
over many years in his column in S&T, and see if you can
detect the voice in those reprints. Contrast them with the
current stuff, or even O'Meara's comments. Scotty's
voice was, in many ways, the voice of Sky and Telescope,
the sort of voice that was also spoken by people like
Leslie Peltier.
I *really* miss the old S&T of 30+ years ago, paper
and all.
Gregory
.
- References:
- Re: S & T uses low end paper
- From: Joe Bergeron
- Re: S & T uses low end paper
- From: Tom Polakis
- Re: S & T uses low end paper
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Seven Pleiades?
- Next by Date: Re: AstroMart Membership
- Previous by thread: Re: S & T uses low end paper
- Next by thread: Re: S & T uses low end paper
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
