We may receive a commission when you use our affiliate links. However, this does not impact our recommendations.
I’m working on an article about making nailed (boarded) furniture. The new format at the magazine has restricted columns like mine to 2 pages and I’m having trouble getting the job done in 2. It could be that I’m naturally wordy. I’ve been teased for this in the past and I’m self conscious about it. What I can say is that Americans are particularly succinct. And Americans like Chris Schwarz, educated and trained as a journalist, make revealing a lot of info in a few words look easy. I clearly lack those skills.
(I was recently sitting in an apartment in Rome reading the back of a box of corn flakes. First, the entire back was filled with print. No toy giveaways, no picture of a soccer player, just a lengthy description of how great you are going to feel after eating the contents. And the words were positively gargantuan! That would never pass muster in the US.)
I think there’s more to this than my personal wordiness. I read a lot of woodworking magazine articles. And many or most don’t go into half the depth and detail that I do. There’s an expression (that I never understood) about the devil being in the details (I certainly hope not).
Here’s the part I need your help with: When I I read an article involving a build, I don’t see much detail on how to push the wood through the planer. I guess there’s a technique to that, where you stand, how you avoid dismembering yourself, etc. Does everybody just know how to do that?
I guess my sense is that when I write about cutting a quick dado by hand, I’m not sure if everybody knows how to do that, that there’s a plane for that or how that plane works.
So the question I have for you is am I wasting your time explaining these sorts of processes? Tell me honestly what you think. My sense is that in print, I’m not wasting anyone’s time. You can always skim. I think I’d feel differently about the subject were it a class or a presentation. Of course, in those situations, I often look to provide even greater detail.
Adam
P.S. I don’t find Chris personally succinct like say, a Texan. He’s just a skilled writer. Even his lengthy tomes have 10 times more info than I could put in as many pages.
Here are some supplies and tools we find essential in our everyday work around the shop. We may receive a commission from sales referred by our links; however, we have carefully selected these products for their usefulness and quality.
Adam,
Your column is the main reason I keep my subscription to Popular Woodworking. Don’t get me wrong, I love the entire magazine. But I keep the subscription because of the Arts and Mysteries.
Spend the money. Print more pages. You guys are a printed magazine. The nature of your particular forum is a respite from the hurried “You got all that? Good ’cause I’m moving on” mentality that can come up too often. Yours is, to me, more of a “I love doing this so why on earth would I hurry through it?” kind of experience.
Don’t change a thing.
Adam, “The Devil is in the details” means that the important stuff is in the details, and miss/gloss over/ or rush through at your own peril (the Devil will pop out at you). I appreciate very much your detailed style. I have often thought as I read an article of how many assumptions were made on the writers part about the knowledge of the readers, and you know what is said when one ASSUMEs! It makes an ASS out of U and ME.
Moving to a max. of 2 page articles? That is a STUPID idea. ie, New kid in the sand box thinks I MUST do something so it appears I am really doing something – even if it is just kicking sand in someone’s face. Again, dumb.
Tell ’em your writing two articles and use 4 pages. 🙂
I’m on the side of more detail. As a still green woodworker, the more I information I can get the better. There seems to be alot that’s taken for granted in many articles that leaves me feeling that I’ve missed something critical at some point, either before reading or during.
I’ve written technical training in a variety of arenas, and I’ve never assumed my audience knew it all. I like it when I find an author who thinks the same way. It’s not insulting, it’s informative.
I fear I come to this discussion a little late but here goes anyway. I find woodworking to be locked up in subtle details that only start to seem important after failing a number of times. The thing that I value most about the videos posted on the website is the opportunity to observe the small details of body position, grip, angle of attack, pace, etc… This relates to an article in that I would love to know what details are at the front of your mind when doing anything with the hope being that you will be thinking about something that I have been too thick to notice and will thus open up my mind a little further. Hope this helps.
Adam,
I feel only you and your editor can judge whether you are presenting the information you want to, in a way you think will work. I am leaning toward the muti-part article if needed. Failing that, fight for more room!
Details, Alex … lots of details
Most Americans have forgotten the value of detail. For some it’s all about sitting back and watching a video – and that is the extent of the amount of effort they want to put into learning something. A few illustrative sketches when needed and challenge the reader to use his brain.
Good Luck,
Chik
Please keep sharing as much detail as possible. I can never say that too much detail was put in your articles. Many technical magazines from the old days ran series instead of cutting down on explanations. I tend to like that approach. Maybe a magazine that features articles on old hand techniques would do well to use this old trick? Just a thought.
Well, now, I like details of process because I don’t know everything I need to know. But I understand 1) the need for brevity and 2) the assumptions you must make with regard to the skill level of your audience. Sometimes there might be a conflict between those two. I especially like the suggestion already made above that you use the web site for enriching details of skills and techniques that may be of use to some (like me) but not to everyone. The web version could have links to process details or even videos without the expense of printed real estate. The magazine and blogs already use short videos very effectively. I would like more of that.
Like so many others, I enjoy and benefit from the detail in your columns. Some are globally useful and my work benefits. Keep as much as will fit. When essential, you can limit some of the detail of ancillary operations, perhaps by cross-referencing (and providing a link) to other columns you’ve done, as you can leave some of the effort to us. We understand you have limits to respect and we can help by contributing a bit of effort ourselves.
The solution is easy: get more than two pages!! That’s an awfully tight restriction for a column that sells the magazine (at least it does for me!).
Adam, I enjoy reading your columns. The work you do is not a “common experience” for most of us. If you have too much material for the new rukes, even after proper editing, then complete the article in several parts, like a chair making column you did recently.
As for the “devil being in the details,” of course, that’s where he is lurking to making the project go awry. For instance, a guy I know recently used biscuits for the first time in assembling a blanket chest. He heard that you have to apply glue to the biscuits to make them expand. So, that’s where the glue was. Not along the entire joint, just on the biscuits. Oops.
In your case, more is more, and I like it. Please include all of the details. We don’t all know just how to do it. My time is valuable and I don’t get to devote as much time as I would like to my craft. Folks like you that have the info and have been in the trenches have that info. It’s a lot more efficient to gather it from you than to spend what’s left of my lifetime searching for it. That’s why I read these magazines to begin with.
Thanks for your efforts.
Mike
I would love to see more detail about both the process, techniques and examples. Is it possible to do a 2 page cut down version for the magazine and then post to this blog a longer version in pdf format that we could down load? In that way, people like myself that are after more detail and clarification can obtain it.
Your piece on sharpening in the magazine left me asking more questions. I read the 2 pages that you had and then flipped it over to get the details around the sharpening skills only to find that the article had ended. I then had to use the 3 small pictures at the top of the 2nd page to try to figure things out.
I would dearly like to see more details and I hope that you can post these on-line and in that way still stay in the good standing with the editors.
Word smithing takes time and a LOT of energy. The same can be said for making videos, teaching classes, or writing a book. I think it comes down to return on investment for both the producers and the consumers. From my viewpoint the most successful purveyors of information take advantage of multiple presentation media, and tailor the level of detail based on the particular format. I think books, classes, and videos are where the details are, and should be expounded upon. Blogs are great for expanding on an idea or for correcting errors or misconceptions, or for “trying out” a new idea or subject before committing to a full blown (expensive) production. The immediate feedback has to be a real bonus. In my opinion the magazine articles are more inticement to the other media formats – when I read an interesting article I like to be able to pursue additional information and detail by visiting web sites and/or purchasing DVDs and books. This may sound blatantly commercial but I think most people are OK with it because it provides them with the freedom to choose what they want to pursue, and hopefully provides an income stream for the people producing the information so they can continue doing it. I agree with many of the other posts that in your articles you should concentrate on the point you are trying to illustrate and not worry whether we (the readers) know everything about the details you are glossing over. Rest assured that we are smart enough that, if our interest is piqued, we will find a source for that information. That is my very wordy two cents worth.
Adam, In response to your questions, first, I appreciate the explanations of how to do operations, Even if it’s an operation I know how to do, I often learn of new or better ways to do something when I read. Second, I would rather have a two- or three-part column over time and get sufficient detail, that to have a single column that is not useful because of its brevity.
P.S. Get and use a correct 18th century reproduction watch and lose the wristwatch. Modern watches and spectacles are jarring in the extreme, akin to seeing a phillips head screw in an 18th century piece of furniture.
Keep up the good work Adam.
Cheers,
John
Whoops, I fell out of the box. How about making PW four or eight pages longer? How much would this increase the newsstand cost? I would be willing to pay a little more for my subscription for a little more woodworking. Between you and the other regulars, maybe the flexibility for an additional page or two is needed.
Adam, in your articles/blog entries you do not have the space to educate readers about a specific technique unless that specific technique is the reason for writing that article/entry. You have to assume(and we all know what THAT can lead to)that your readers have a basic understanding of the how-to, and if they do not they should at least know where to go to read up on those skills.
It is possible to be succinct without being parsimonious.
I am an author of mystery novels as well as a furniture builder/restorer, and during my days in the high-tech industry I wrote/edited technical manuals, test plans and procedural documents and progress reports. Writing is a skill, poorly taught (despite what the teachers claim), little understood and often derided by those who can neither write nor read.
But you do write rather well; you educate as well as entertain, so you’ll get no complaints from me.
I don’t believe Americans are succinct – just the opposite. Perhaps lack of time is the problem – remembering Blaise Pascal:-
Blaise Pascal, 1851: “Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte”
Roughly translated as, “The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.”
So, instead of taking time to polish a piece of writing, the authors rather let their readers take the time to read unpolished drafts.
I agree with the last entry that writing about skills is very hard, and needs space. But without the detail being told consider how much hand-knowledge has been lost. Somewhere in Joseph Moxon’s book on printing is a wonderful paragraph on how to wrap the page cord (even here we can note that the use of the term “page cord” for a type of twine would have been completely lost) around the standing type for storage. The nuance of tucking in the tail at the final corner can only found there. This was very useful for the letterpress printers of the mid 20th century, and hopefully will be again for any later practitioners, should there be another revival of handset type.
The thing is that in print articles there is always a limit to space. If you put something in, you have to leave something else out. You have to concentrate on what it is you are writing about. In this case you are writing about nailed furniture, not how to cut a dado. I would rather see a photo of a historical example of this kind of furniture, than a photo of you using a dado plane, or read more detail about wood movement issues or types of nails for instance, than a description of how to cut a dado. There are hundreds of books out there about cutting the joints. There are not hundreds of books out there on different kinds of nails or, say, choosing stock to minimize the chances of failure when you nail long grain to cross grain, or why some furniture is nailed, and others joined.
But the devil Is in the details. This is what you are struggling with. Cutting a dado is a detail that could be devilish to some people. But there are other sources to learn about that. Which way to orient a cut nail so you don’t split the board, is also a detail, but maybe one for which there are fewer outside sources of information, plus, it is much simpler to say, “turn the nail so that the wedge will act along the grain as opposed to across it,” than to describe cutting a stopped dado with hand tools.
If you have a special way to cut a dado that you think is unique and really good, that might be worth including, but it would be better to write a blog post on the topic and put the link to it in a footnote than skimp on it in the article. The only limit on blog posts is the time you are willing to put into it.
I started to write this yesterday, but ran out of time. I see there have been a lot of comments since then, but somehow, I can’t let this go by without a few thoughts.
First, in my mind, your column is different from most of the “how to” articles in the magazine; in fact, I don’t really think of it as a “how to” column. You provide not a description of the “hows” of woodworking, but information, from a historical perspective, on the “whys” of woodworking. What I appreciate is that your articles provide a well reasoned discussion in which you state “based on my experience, this is how I believe they did it, and this is why”.
If getting too long, perhaps you need to adjust that column to just address a specific theme and defer some other points; but don’t feel the need to fill in all the details outside of the main theme. I think Roy Underhill does this pretty well on his show (he has a similar problem; he picks a particular item he is going to emphasize and glosses over the rest (“we’ve cut dovetails before so I am not going to talk about that this time”). I guess my point is I don’t expect to learn to build a complete project from your articles (although you may provide information in the context of a project); but I look forward to learning about how some aspect of woodworking? Does that make sense?
Maybe you could break it up into two different articles. The first could be a very specific “skills” article – how to cut a quick dado by hand. The second could be more general – how to make a small cabinet. The second article could refer the reader to first article for specifics on how to cut the dado. Or, you could start an online “I CAN DO THAT that using only hand tools manual”, with basic hand tool recommendations & techniques.
I think the key is to focus on the things that make the boarded furniture different from every other project. In that context, planing a dado might be seen as a “commodity” skill. How you actually nail the thing together without splitting every board in sight – that’s something special. Focus on what makes your project unique. If necessary, include “more info” links at the end for ancillary skills.
I usually think of magazine articles as ways to give me ideas. They almost never have enough detail to show everyone how to completely build something start to finish. Some people can, but others cannot because they do not know all the techniques.
Think of it this way. I recall you saying once that you thought sliding dovetails didn’t get nearly the press of through and half blind dovetails. So, if you wrote an article discussing how to build a dresser, would you find it OK to simply state “join the corners of the carcass with through dovetails”? Whereas with the sliding dovetail portion you might want to go into detail? This could give enough detail for most of the audience. If you want details for from start to finish that is what books and classes are for.
So in short, I think common techniques can be glossed over, whereas less common probably need to be described. Unfortunately, how to use tapered nails isn’t something I would consider a common technique. Which means that the technique probably needs to be covered, or you need to reference the technique at another location (previous article published in the magazine, article on the website, etc.). Of publish in two parts. First talk about boarded furniture, different examples, things you need to consider in design, etc. Then for the second article show how to use the nails.
I note that instead of the usual one-liners, your commenters have waxed very lyrical!
To teach a practical task is not easy – many quiz shows use this as a source of amusement in contestants. The teacher must be able to deconstruct the task, and if one has mastery of that task, this is very difficult – just where do you put your left hand, for instance?
That i why videos are so good, as long as they really do show what is going on.
Writing about skills is very hard, and needs space.
You’ve already received a ton of comments. I personally think there is room for both kinds of articles. When it comes to old ways, though, certain key words with regards to ergonomics do help, because we have very few places that we could watch these techniques. Sometimes seeing the action happen is all we need. Case in point: When I was figuring out how to use a plow plane, I would have never gotten it so quickly had it not been for ALF’s video demonstrating the technique. It’s a bit counter-intuitive. On the other hand, I loved your recent, fairly short article about chisels.
I suggest you lobby for more space, perhaps once a year or so, to go into greater detail about an obscure action, and do your best to keep to the entry limits otherwise. You have a leg to stand on, as hand tool woodworking is getting more popular every day, bringing people in who otherwise might have given up from all the dust and danger of power tools.
Give us the details. I have been frustrated much more by the lack of information in woodworking magazines than I have been by an excess of it. I am gravitating toward more hand tool use, but I want to know as much as possible about how a more experienced user did something.
I find detailed descriptions of hand tool methods valuable. I think there hasn’t been enough of this. Even if I think I know how to perform a particular task, it’s likely that your approach is different. I encourage you to find some way to include the details, be in multi part articles or online supplements.
I would rather get a little more information on a technique and have that spread out over several issues then scratch my bald spot trying to figure out how you did that.
Two pages is a moot point. How you get what you want to the reader is what matters. That may take a couple of two page issues to do.
Adam, I have always found it frustrating that magazine articles say thing like “ok, now we will cut the tenon. First set up your dado stack…” What if I don’t have a dado stack, or prefer other methods? I am not looking for specific instruction in how to cut the joint. What I am interested in is what method you used, and other plausible methods. Then you could have a reference to online content about the different methods and how to actually execute them. So, for your dadoes, you might say “I cut mine with a dado plane, but you could also cut the dadoes with a back saw and a chisel or a router plane. For more information on how I cut the joint and some other ways to do it, visit popwood.com,” or something like that. The other information that could be interesting is how you think the original builder might have cut a joint based on the tools typical of that type of craftsman’s kit – i.e. the historical context stuff that always makes your columns and blog posts stand out.
As a subscriber to PW I appreciate detail on tasks that I do not know how to perform. There have been some great articles specifically describing some of these in the past. I think there is also a balance to attain as the more detail in one article the less space for other material. As a writer I think using your words effectively to convey and idea is the first step in striking this balance. The next challenge is to determine what the readers need more detail on. I think somethings you can leave out and some you should cover in detail. There is a middle ground of material that I think can best be covered here on the website. I appreciate the little boxes in the magaizine that point to this information and where to learn more about the techniques used in an article and think it is great approach. If there isn’t anything out there to point to then you should include it in the article.
When my wife came to this country from former Yugoslavia 10 years ago and began writing her dissertation, she cam to realize that her style was what she came to call “Upper Baroque”. She realized that all Balkans seemed to write with a lot of detail, some of which was probably superfluous. Chris has become very efficient in his writing but let’s be straight about the fact that much of the technical stuff has been refined [not sure that’s the word I want here] because significant portions of text have been reused several times. That allows one to cull out the unnecessary. I think details do add to the story if the detail is something many/most folks have never thought about before. If you had an Aha! moment about cutting a dado then it’s probably a detail you ought to include. But if it’s somewhat routine you can safely leave it out.
I think the readership should be questioning the PW publishers & editors why you are being limited to just two pages. I miss the days of the larger and multi-page articles about the joint form and carved chair. Like others have mentioned, I consider your column one of the better ones in the magazine. I was very pleased to see your return a few issues ago but have been a little disappointed by the size of the articles.
Bill
while i grew up watching shows like New Yankee Workshop, I have always been frustrated with the fact that his first cut is always perfect and I spend on hour on test cuts. Of course we all know that it is edited for time, but how much useful info about set up is edited out. I am not opposed to more depth.
If the New Format forces you into a specific size every time the fault is with the format not with you.
One of the things that makes PW so good it is a very dense magazine. I stopped subscribing to the ones I could read cover to cover on the walk from the mailbox. I became weary with 2 page articles that just repeated the photo captions. It appears the intent is to pull in the news stand buyers rather then inform the subscribers.
As to content on the internet that’s ok but will it be available years from now when I do research for a new product?
Adam: when deciding to renew or not to renew, your articles, along with a handful of others tilted the windmill for me. In particular yours as they are always well thought out, well written, biased when needed and unbiased when needed and typically tell a distinct story rather than filling space.
I’m a wordy type as you are so I’ll suggest to you what I fell back on when I had to write histories for inhouse stuff of limited space: serialize it. If it worked for Moxon, it will work for you. Plus it will keep the readership coming back for more. Those one shot articles that end on the last word are not enough to instruct a complex topic.
Photographs and line drawings are very useful but a good text followup is essential in explaining why a process is performed as it is, what options there are and what the history is behind the process.
The basement stairs in my house are held together with cut nails. They’ve been there for just over one hundred years now. Enough about dovetails already. Let’s talk about dados, cut nails, rabbets, old growth, riven wood and all that stuff, aprenticeship, etc. Serialize your writing and tell the powers that be your readership is asking for it.
Adam,
Your article is always the first thing I look for when I get my PW in the mail. What you may think is obvious is normally something many of us may just not have realized. For example… At WIA a few years ago, I saw you take 1/2″ of the edge of a board in about 10 seconds with just a chisel. I was stunned. I know I wasn’t alone. If I recall, someone else in the crowd even wanted you to do it again because he couldn’t believe his eyes. Your articles always bring that experience for me. Perhaps its because I am a beginner, but I don’t think its just that. I think its because you have a great command of the material and have a fantastic way of teaching it.
I also spend a lot of time studying your photos. I learn a lot just by seeing how you arrange your photos. What tools are on the bench? How are you holding the tool? How have you secured the work to your bench? What’s your overall posture? What’s in the background? What similar work may also have sneaked into the photo? I take it all in. It’s amazing how much I learn just from looking at the photos.
So, my advice to you is… Don’t try to fix what isn’t broken. I agree with what has been said by many folks above – I like the level of detail you bring. Of course, this doesn’t solve the problem you face right now… How do you fit that level of detail into 2 short pages? If it helps, I think the web content should support the article, but the magazine content should be able to stand on its own. What value is the magazine if you have to go to the web to get the rest of the story?
I don’t know how helpful that is. Just my two cents.
Woody
Using the dado for example, pictures could go a long way towards describing the setup. Assuming one is interested in boarded furniture, they might have a dado plane, or be familiar enough with hand tools to figure it out, Now if the picture shows clearly the nailed batten and arraingment for cutting that would be fine. In a power tool article they don’t explain how to install a router bit in the router, set a fence on a router table and cut, there are other resources (like the manual, books, internet) for showing the procedures for using the tools. The article is about assembling those tools and operations into a piece of furniture.
Articles that are too step-by-step detailed make it seem like they are aimed at people who don’t woodwork, I’d rather a writer presume a higher level of competency and really show something. I can deal with doing research on this tool or that technique if it means a more advanced article.
Adam –
I think that if the article is about approaching a project with a specific technique, nails for example, then you should go into depth about those techniques. If it is a more general article about building a piece, then you can leave out the specifics on the techniques of a particular task. However, why not use the web for that. Add some identifier that tells the reader go to the website and read or watch more about how to do this specific task. That’s the great part of a magazine having an online component, you can always go into more detail online if needed. I would almost think that more content online would be encouraged.
One of my pet-peeves about woodworking articles are those that do tests on materials, joints, or tools where everything is subjected to the same test. Three-quarters of those articles talks about how they setup the test. Who cares?! Tell me the results, and any surprises that came from them. Put the specifics of how the tests were conducted online.
Jonathan
=========================================
I’ll throw myself under the bus.
Personally, I find most magazine articles to be too vague to be useful. For those who care, that is why I dropped all but Popular Woodworking Magazine (and would drop it in favor of Woodworking Magazine).
Problem (as I see it) is you cannot teach how to “Build a Queen Anne Lowboy” in only two pages.
When I see “cut this, measure that, glue up and apply finish” I move on.
Were I in charge (and no one is that foolish), the topic of nails could be a year long focus with multiple pages. One month its all about cut nails. Next its wire nails. An expose on just how the heck nail gun nails work. When to use a wire or cut nail. How the heck does a nail work with respect to wood movement?
Yes, I could go on.
Dig into the details. Write about a very narrow focus. Keep in mind and reference the dearth of material on the ancillary topics.
Not by expanding upon aspects of techniques, but rather focus on minutia. Give us something we can work with.
I highly regard your works and writings. So I submit this with the utmost respect for what you bring to the table.
Ah, here comes that bus… right on time 🙂
Jim
I like the detail. I may be bored to death by something I long ago mastered, but so what? There are many tasks and wood work philosophies with which I have no experience whatsoever.
I write technical documentation. I learned many years ago that unconscious assumptions will kill you–sometimes literally. I notice these same mistakes over and over and over again in the many woodworking magazines I read.
I was given advice in the Marine Corps that has mostly held true in my life since then: speak to 20% of a live audience, forcing people to ask questions, but write to 80% of an audience, so their questions are always answered by you.
Magazines in general rely on reader self-selection. Finding that 80% mark is difficult, but not impossible.
Magazines frequently publish articles about how to get the most out of tools and machines such as planers, planes, saws and routers.
Therefore you don’t have to mention the ergonomics of how to do such work unless you are writing that specific kind of article.
What you do need to write about is what unusual techniques are needed to do the project you are presenting. Using your example, how to stand in front of a planer could not be considered a unique or unusual method needed for the project you are presenting.
Thanks guys. Good suggestions
I thought one reason PW didn’t rely more heavily on online content is that Chris wanted the magazine to stand alone to some extent. For me, part of the fun of reading magazines is that I get to escape my computer. But I think that changed recently. I recall Chris blogging about it when they stopped doing “Woodworking”.
I know Megan and I pulled some of my sharpening articles apart and added stuff online that appeared on this blog. Maybe we’ll do the same here.
Mark hit the nail on the head….sorry couldn’t resist.
Popular Woodworking could really start to pull away from their competitors by using their online content hand in hand with print or digital subscriptions. You could have your shortened articles in the magazine with links on key terms. Any time you refer to a dado, there is a way for the reader to see how YOU cut that dado. Refer to a dovetail…links to YOUR way of doing the dovetail. This allows the author the ability to focus on what’s in the article, but knowing that a reader will be able to get more information if they need it. Most importantly, if you accomplish a task different than another author, you can both have your own ways explained and documented. That could help many people new to the craft.
The one thing I miss the most about Chris not being at the magazine were the short videos that would help to explain or build buzz about an article or future article. I hope this is something that will start to come back.
Maybe, for tasks like cutting a dado, you could have an online extra explaining this task. This could be done for many typical and routine tasks. The online extras could be written as typical and routine tasks so they may be used by future articles. But then again, I would rather read many pages of your articles. It is too bad that you are kept in a tight box.