I first subscribed to British Birds in 1980 or '81, and doing so
felt like a rite of passage. Now I was a proper birder, a serious one. Forty
years ago the written word was king, and being a BB subscriber
was the only way to tap in to the latest developments in the UK birding scene.
But aside from the practical benefits, there was another reason to be a
subscriber, alluded to by Bill Oddie in his
Little Black Bird Book (published 1980). He wrote:
'The bird magazine. Don't borrow or pinch one. It's not expensive, considering the terrific value. In the same way that everyone should be a member of the RSPB, any birder should be chastised and punished who does not take British Birds.'
And that attitude - that it is somehow a duty to take BB - is one that very much prevailed back then I think. So much so that it has stayed with me to this day, and is the reason why I feel vaguely traitorous being a non-subscriber currently, and why it feels heretical to level any criticism at such an august publication. However, before I go further I need to point out an error in Bill Oddie's three-word description. He called it...
'The bird magazine.'
Not so. British Birds is not a magazine. And to prove it, here is its description of itself...
Not a magazine. British Birds is a journal. And if you think I'm being pedantic, just google 'difference between magazine and journal'. When it comes to BB, while it may not be a full-blown scientific journal as such, you will quickly see that 'journal' fits better than 'magazine'. The meat of BB is its long papers. Their content and style are essentially academic, and they might well be peppered with technical, specialised terminology. It was partially that latter aspect which prompted my fellow blogger Stewart Sexton to post the following on Twitter this afternoon...
For me, the most telling point is Stewart's comment, 'I've tried to persevere but...', because it resonates with my own experience. I also tried to persevere. But...
My first subscription lapsed in the early 1990s. By that time I was phasing anyway, but for some time - years even - I had been mostly just skimming my copies. Some remained unopened for weeks. Relinquishing my subscription went hand-in-hand with my loss of interest in birding, but I had long since stopped enjoying the journal anyway.
A few years after my birding renaissance I resubscribed. From 2007 to 2013 I hung in there. Sadly I found myself struggling with the same old issues. I felt I ought to subscribe to BB, yet enjoyed so little of its content. Eventually I bowed to the inevitable, and haven't subscribed since.
|
|
A small section of my birding bookshelves a few years ago. All gone
now. |
Stewart's tweet above includes a photo of a figure from the latest issue, a statistical graphic depicting daily prey contributions (n=90) of three Common Buzzards to a single nest. The purpose of a 'figure legend' (caption) is to explain the figure clearly and thoroughly, providing readers with all the information necessary to understand the figure without having to refer to the main text. Like Stewart, I was not familiar with a boxplot, nor whiskers, nor interquartile ranges. I know what a median is, and what n=90 means, but that's largely because I did maths to A-level and one year of a degree course in pure chemistry. Boxplots are a relatively recent statistical graphic and were not even in the textbooks of my era.
It is noteworthy that a couple of responses to Stewart's tweet suggest that despite the technical terminology, the meaning of the graphic is not that tricky to understand, surely? Both comments come from individuals whose Twitter profiles include postgraduate educational qualifications.
My point is this. The birder demographic is a mixed bunch. Some are university professors, researchers, professional scientists; some are builders, carpet-fitters, window-cleaners. Some will have spent their entire adult life in academia, many will have left school as soon as they could. But they all love birding. All of them. Like Stewart, I would like to subscribe to 'THE bird journal of record in Great Britain' but struggle to relate to it. Or should I say, it struggles to relate to me? Like Stewart, I tried to persevere, but...
And I am willing to bet there are loads of us in that camp.
What's the answer? You tell me...
Interesting post, as always. Got to admit I much prefer British Birds to Birdwatch & BirdWatching which I used to read, but would now rather learn new stuff than see the same old "what to see here in spring" or "year listing x,y,z". It's also nice to see the sources. Suppose I have a science undergraduate degree though, but can't claim to be an expert or academic. The buzzard article in question was good in that it did explain some terminology when a "proper" journal probably wouldn't, and BB does still have some brilliant 'birding' articles so I think they do try hard to have a range and appeal to as many birders as they can, but it can't be easy! Maybe sometimes more could be explained to help the reader understand. Perhaps a glossary.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, naturalists are scientists - just think of Gilbert White! We may not see it like that but it's true especially if one is a biological recorder. All that data makes a difference. Get what you mean though re careers. Amy
Thanks for your comment Amy, really appreciate hearing your viewpoint. Stewart's tweet picked up on what is really a minor issue. To be fair though, I would imagine the majority of folk who would call themselves keen birders would need to do a bit of research in order to interpret that statistical graphic. I don't mind a challenging read, but still...
DeleteNo, the major issue is something else. To eagerly open a publication, then a few minutes later find yourself sighing with disappointment and stashing it away to gather dust is such a drag. Even more so when it happens time and again.
I suspect BB has changed a bit in the 7 or 8 years since I was last a subscriber, but judging from Stewart's tweet, not enough. That said, I'm not for a moment suggesting it ought to become a Birdwatch or Birdwatching type magazine. I don't buy them either. As you say though, it can't be easy to produce a publication with universal appeal.
Fair enough. I had to remind myself about the stats too (though did cover it at school which may have helped) and google it, but the actual text was fine and explained things. That said, I'm sure many keen birders do read in depth stuff, like say various technical identification literature. It just happens to be the bit of science they understand or want to read!
DeleteThat's a shame but hopefully they've found the feedback helpful and take it on board. Hope some of the recent articles (& similar future ones) are kept as this edition also included one on breeding Spoonbills which I've not read yet but sounded interesting, and I'd like to read about that sort of thing. Maybe other birders don't! I get the digital version so can dip in and out which I find handy. Some of the Dutch Birding articles I've stumbled across online are good, so maybe BB need more original stuff like that mixed in too.
Cheers Amy. In some ways I think it's encouraging that you get enough from BB to keep you happy. I am of an older generation, and BB obviously needs to appeal to younger readers in order to survive. So good luck to it. 😊
DeleteThanks Gavin :) All this talk of journals led me to giving Dutch Birding (the PDF subscription) a go. Looks good but may have to use Google translate for some of the articles! Some is in English though which is handy for me.
DeleteAll the best with Dutch Birding Amy. 😊 👍
DeleteI think Dutch Birding is the answer Gav, so many more photos to help with that "search image" when you need it. Much better ID articles too.
ReplyDeleteWhilst it's nice to hear that mice have been eradicated from an island in the sub-Antarctic region it's not why I subscribe to British Birds.
Cheers Marcus. For some reason I never subscribed to Dutch Birding, even in my super-keen early days. I wonder if they do a free sample copy...? 😉
DeleteI think I subscribed to British Birds in the early 80s. It was very much because, at the time, I felt it was something I "should" do. But it turned out to be a one-year-only thing. Frankly, it just seemed to have nothing to do with whatever it was that birding meant to me. No guilt on my part, and I've never been tempted back. As with so much in this wonderful hobby, each to their own.
ReplyDeleteMalcolm
The only circulation figures I can find online suggest that it peaked at around 11,000 in the late 1980s, compared with 5,250 in 2000. What fortunes it has enjoyed in the subsequent 20 years are a mystery, but the potential readership must be enormous. I can't help thinking BB is missing a trick somewhere...
DeleteI think you hit the nail on the head - "I would like to subscribe (...) but struggle to relate to it. Or should I say, it struggles to relate to me?"
ReplyDeleteThere are two definitions of the word subscribe: paying to receive something and agreeing with the concept of something. In this instance I think you need to be able to tick both boxes, and clearly that's not the case for you, Stewart or many other BB readers. As you very succinctly put it, it struggles to relate to you.
Yep, sadly it does. I wonder if it's simply that I'm not quite the target audience.
DeleteMagazines are collected by people that collect things. Magazines are read by people with an interest and, by nature of the description of 'magazine', they should carry a wide selection of articles for the targeted demographic.
ReplyDeleteHobby mags are relevant for a few years before they start repeating themselves, scientific stuff - well, I know nothing so I don't know how long that will maintain an interest. You just have to find a read that suits you and where you are in your hobby. If you like a magazine but disagree with the direction it's taking, contact the editor who'd probably appreciate the feedback and may drag an article from you.
I just read the Beano nowadays.
British Birds is the closest to what I'd like to read on a regular basis, but there is (or rather, was) too much content that didn't interest me...
DeleteI fondly remember 'Coarse Fisherman' and its ilk. Rod Hutchinson's tales from Savay etc. I wasn't even into carp fishing but loved to read those articles.
Well put Gav. I got a lot of replies telling me how I can interpret that article, but they really missed my point. As a 'field man' rather than an acedemic, I am just not interested in whether two or three Buzzards attend a nest, other than to say 'Ooh I didnt know that' but for me it could have been done in a sentence not a paper. The rest of the edition goes the same way, its not that I am disinterested, its just I dont need that depth. I might do a post too... :)
ReplyDeleteCheers Stewart. It does make me wonder what BB thinks of as its target audience. Clearly you and I are not quite in it, and I would have thought we ought to be. Maybe I'm wrong though, and BB is deliberately aimed elsewhere.
DeleteI haven't read BB but I've read things by BB. His real name was Denys J. Watkins-Pitchford.
ReplyDeleteHa ha! My favourite books as a kid. Read loads of them. I'm sure I would still love 'The Little Grey Men'. Used to get them all from the local library. Hardbacks. They'd be worth a small fortune now...
Delete