I’m delighted that Brett has begun comments on the content of various Civil War magazines – in my opinion, they don’t receive enough attention. I would like to talk about assessing these various publications and the criterion we use.
As many know, Civil War Times is the oldest continuously running (since 1962). CWT is owned by Primedia, which also has America’s Civil War. ACW has been around for about 15 years or so. We also have North&South and Blue&Gray magazines.
I’ve noticed Brett’s comment that CWT and ACW are of “lower quality” than the others, and I’d like to discuss that assertion. First, let me say that Brett’s opinion may be shared by many readers, and I certainly don’t fault him for that. Let me also disclose as well, at the risk of seeming biased, that I have written some material for both CWT and ACW. However, I believe that connection also gives me a bit of an angle from which to discuss changes in both CWT and ACW that I’ve seen over the past few years.
Those familiar with these four magazines (the major players in the field) will no doubt recognize that each fills a particular niche in the study and scholarship of the war. Blue&Gray is widely lauded and appreciated for its battlefield and site tours, usually with each issue devoted to a discussion of that topic by one or more of the leading historians on it. Articles are usually footnoted, and the accompanying photographs and maps are first class.
North&South, one of the newest periodicals, discusses a wide range of topics on the Civil War. Therein you’ll find pieces on battles, campaigns, personalities, politics, social issues, etc. Most articles are footnoted. Because there is a wide range of topics in each issue, usually every reader will find something of interest.
Civil War Times has long concentrated on social issues – personalities and politics, with a long history of articles on battles, campaigns, and ephemera by leading historians. America’s Civil War concentrates on battles and personalities. Neither magazine contains footnotes of its material.
Should footnotes be such a primary indicator of “quality” however? I agree that for that smaller percentage of historians, who themselves study one or more topics in deep detail, a list of sources is of immense assistance. I do often hear that magazines such as N&S and B&G are “better” than the others, but what exactly does that mean, and does it mean the same thing for all readers? I truly doubt the latter.
Besides footnotes, let’s look at other qualities that, in my opinion, need to be considered when discussing the relative quality of the magazines. The last several issues of N&S has contained pieces by authors whom I simply don’t recognize. Not that having the “up and comings” (I’m certainly one of them) writing isn’t good, but N&S has seemingly been publishing work by more unknowns lately than ever before. I have heard this same comment by many others.
On the other hand, ACW, under the stewardship of serious historian, author, and preservationist Mr. Dana Shoaf has made some radical changes in the few years he’s been editor. Last evening I went back to the January 2003 issue of ACW, wherein Shoaf states in his inaugural editorial that he intends to change directions with the publication, and he certainly has. Quite a number of nationally recognized historians have been writing for ACW lately. The maps are now done by Steven Stanley, Gettysburg resident cartographer and cartographer of those wonderful maps for the Civil War Preservation Trust. I personally know that other publications are immensely jealous of ACW for having Steve produce its maps. Each issue is richly illustrated with artwork by leading painters like Don Troiani.
Sure, I may sound like an ACW author who is touting “his” magazine with a certain amount of bias, but I’m trying to be objective here. I’ve been reading ACW a lot longer than I’ve been writing for it. And I have noticed the dramatic changes. As for the footnoting, the magazine can be easily contacted (electronically or by letter) for more information about its articles, authors, and source information for the pieces. I for one, for instance, have provided footnoted copies of my articles in several instances when readers have asked me for them.
All I ask is that when we make the general statement that one publication is “better” than another, or of “higher quality,” that we quantify that statement. We must first recognize that each magazine fills a particular niche. We then must look at the quality of authors contributing to the magazines, and the effort behind each topic – maps, illustrations, sidebars – that make up the complete story. In my opinion (and I maintain I would say this if I weren’t writing for any of them) magazines such as ACW have definitely raised the bar lately, and it’s due to both the people behind it, as well as demand by the public.
In summation, each magazine has its good points and its detractive features, certainly. Let’s face it, it’s a business and they’re competing with each other. The folks producing each magazine read those of the others, to see what each is up to lately. Readership is certainly a factor – ACW has something like 100,000 readers, whereas I believe N&S and B&G is about one-tenth of that. That must certainly be taken into account as well.
Footnotes aside, take an objective look at each one. Look at the quality of their content and authors. Consider maps and illustrations, and the implied effort behind each piece. Consider the direction, range, and appeal of each periodical. And if you want more information on a particular piece that isn’t sourced, you’re likely able to get more simply by contacting the magazine. By and large (and maybe this is verified by the readership numbers) most readers would like to have more content, with the ability to then get more source information, rather than having valuable pages taken up with footnotes. I may be wrong, but that may appeal to the majority.
Let’s hope they’re all around for a good long time. If you’ve dismissed magazines such as ACW or CWT, give them a look and decide for yourself. I think it’s terrific that Brett’s doing that here. Conversely, if a magazine like B&G has seemed too specialized for your tastes, you will likely find something in at least one or two issues each year that captures your interest. And continue to watch how each one reacts in the ever-increasing atmosphere of competition and battle for subscription dollars. In the end, it will make all of them better, and will benefit all of us.
J. David Petruzzi
*****
Check out Brett’s list of the Top 10 Civil War Blogs!
Read many Civil War Book Reviews here at TOCWOC – A Civil War Blog!
Check out Beyond the Crater: The Petersburg Campaign Online for the latest on the Siege of Petersburg!
Leave a Reply