I recently came across a blog site that hasn't been upated for many years. Despite this, it had an interesting criticism of book reviews published monthly in RadCom, the RSGB's magazine (that isn't actually for sale on newsstands, and probably wouldn't sell many if it were).
The site makes the general point that RadCom's reviews of books are rarely, if ever critical of anything much, as one expects with normal, independent reviews. The post suggests the reviews are unduly positive, always concluding that the books are worth buying.
I should say at this point that I've written book reviews, certainly with plenty of criticism where warranted, for technical magazines over some 25 years. Many have been used as official reviews by major science publishers. Only once did a review not get published, and that was because I highlighted the complete refusal to mention, in a book about the Hawaiian astronomical observatories, of the vigorous and empassioned protests by native Hawaiian islanders about desecrating their ritual sites. It seemed ethnic battles were just too hot an issue for a modern publisher ever-more desperate for advertising income to get involved in.
Of course, unlike many magazines the RSGB sells most of the books reviewed. Its accounts typically show a large proportion of its income arising from book sales. There have been several high-profile attempts to boost book sales by the RSGB over the past few years, and books have been seen as a way of keeping the bottom line from slipping in the face of falling and ageing membership.
The blogpost made me realise something that was staring me in the face, but had never really dawned on me. I have sometimes bought books from the RSGB, but often find them repeating material found in other books. Many illustrations are endlessly republished, apparently being drawn from a central, shared repository of such images and diagrams operated between the RSGB and ARRL.
A lot of the books are written by the elderly, trying to record their WW2 radio and other exploits before they die, for example. These can be interesting, and indeed should be interesting. But often, they are very dry and extremely old fashioned and almost unreadable in their style.
It seems odd, therefore, that I have yet to read any such criticism of repetition and lack of novelty in the reviews within Radcom.
I had a look at the two latest editions, and can indeed confirm that the same self-congratulatory, uncritical mindlessness continues unabated, several years after G3XLW's blog post.
Indeed, I had to rub my eyes a couple of times when I read the following in respect of 'Get on the Air with HF Digital' (Steve Ford, WB8IMY/ARRL) on page 56 of the June 2018 edition:
'Although primarily for the US reader, as the book is specifically aimed at HF digimodes, most of what it covers...'
Huh? It seems the reviewer believes only US operators use HF digimodes! Where the hell did that come from? One can only assume the review author has spent the last 20 years in his shack, steadfastly refusing to use a computer because the only mode worth using is CW.
I think RadCom should use the same process as most other magazines for reviews. Receive books from publishers, send one to the reader, who then issues an independent review in return for keeping the book for free, no matter what he/she thinks of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment