CJ>    I sadly have to agree with you here.  It was sold to a German
 CJ> publishing conglomerate a few years back, and the suits probably
 CJ> wanted a fatter margin.  So in creeps an article or two with
 CJ> comparatively little content but an opportunity for pretty
 CJ> pictures, a piece or two less, a slight but noticable dumbing down.

 RJT> That does describe it pretty well.  And it's a damn shame.
 
 CJ> I bet you miss Jeard Walker's helmsmanship at the "Amateur 
 CJ> Scientist" (lots of cool projects there then).

 RJT> Yeah.

 RJT> The thing is,  that's happened to so damn *many* magazines,  in
 RJT> recent years.  Over and over again.  It's almost as if the suits
 RJT> you mention are trying to squeeze what money they can out of it,
 RJT> and then when it crashes,  they just walk away. 

	What conglomerate publishers don't understand is that quality
of a magazine, or ensemble of books, is something that can't be
measured quantitatively.  Yet it is quality that draws customers in the
long run.
	A while back I sold a couple of pieces of nonfiction, and I'll
probably be trying again.  One thing I have noticed is that the length
range of pieces that magazines accept, as measured by their requirements
in marketplace listings by the editor, has nearly halved over three
decades.  Some things cannot be adequately explained in three thousand
words, particularly if one also insists on background explanation and
celebrity-like details.
	A perfect illustration:  the old _Byte_ vs. most Ziff-Davis
computer magazines.	


--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]