Discussion in 'Fortean Times Magazine' started by XEPER_, Mar 25, 2017.
It's the one John Titor brought with him for his holidays.
My copy came quite a while ago, but I was stricken with such a nasty bout of flu I couldn't read it. It was pretty torturous seeing it sitting on my shelf because I was too sick to read
Finally finished it though, and I have to say it's the best issue we've had in ages. I loved the corpse factory and the lost location of the Crucifixion article, and they really should have been the mag cover. The Hierophant's Apprentice ripping apart the whole Sirius thing was hilarious, and I've never heard of the Red Baron shooting down a UFO. The only weak points were the April Fools article (pretty sure it was bashed out in 10 minutes to cash in on April Fools Day) and Fortean Traveller (which was about coffin bells instead of the actual museum).
Also can we appreciate the irony of Jenny Randles talking about how the most UFO cases are people mistaking common things for alien spacecraft, when the majority of her articles are about how Rendelsham was totally not a case of people mistaking common things for alien spacecraft.
I've suspected for a long time now that FT gets paid to shill certain things. Like a while ago we had an article about an upcoming poltergeist film that got raved about, then the next issue it was savaged in a review. Also the guy who wrote Being A Beast had an article in the same issue his book got an excellent review, despite it (and his article) being a badly written mess. I don't really blame FT, it does need to earn money and all, but some of the reviews do make me a bit suspicious.
I think in the above case it was because the writer penning the negative review was not the same as the editor giving the summary and score out of 10 at the end. I know Empire critics don't get to decide how many stars a film gets on their reviews.
Wow, that's strange-- have they admitted this, or did an ex-reviewer say it?
I thought so!
I think it was a current reviewer (at the time, anyway), but true to my fading memory, I can't recall where I read it or from whom. Sorry.
I know what you mean. Over the years we've all come to recognise names of regular contributors to FT and whenever one of them has a book reviewed my eyes skip to the rating. It's invariably a 9 or 10.
Now I'm not saying there's any funny business going on, if they're good enough to write articles for FT there's no reason their books shouldn't be excellent.
But it is so predictable it always makes me just a little bit suspicious!
Oh, if only. Then FT might actually get rich beyond their wildest dreams... rich, rich, I tell you. Some hope.
The case first cited here was actually of an article in one issue and a review in another - by a different writer. Different writers are allowed to have different opinions, I'd have thought. FT has always insisted (see Reader Info page) that it holds no overall editorial position and that opinions expressed by individual contributors do not reflect those of the journal itself. Occasionally you will find points ratings that don't seem to match up with the review - but usually it's because someone in an editorial chair kinda forgot to change the rating in the page template or the old pages copied to start the new issue.
I can remember instances where a regular contributor's latest book got a pretty weak or even a bad review - and I don't think it's necessarily because of internecine rivalries - one man's meat is another man's fall of poisson...
An excellent explanation made all the better by fine punning. Thanks for that.
Separate names with a comma.