Feinder
Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002 From: Land o' Lakes, FL Status: offline
|
[rant] I've been a subscriber to "WW 2 History" magazine for almost 15 years. And have enjoyed almost every issue. However, I was disappointed in the January & February issues. I thought some of the articles were litterally a bit too graphic (particulary the one about the US Airman in the Swiss PoW camp). Don't get me wrong. I thing those accounts need to be told, and in all their graphic detail, so as to preserve what actually -did- happen. However, in my opinion, I consider "WW2 History" magazine to be "history lite". Certainly more than the History Channel. But frankly I don't -want- to read about some of the graphic details that were given in some of the recent articles when reading my WW2 History magazine. If I want the graphic details, I'll pick up a book on PoW camps in WW2, where I would expect to read that. But when I read WW2 History magazine, it's usually in my "library" (aka bathroom), or on the couch while my wife watches some show about home designers and my two-year-old looking over my shoulder asking me about the airplanes and ships. I don't think the articles should have to be rated-G (altho I do read some of them to him). But a few of the articles of late were certainly R-rated (and I don't think I could post the details in this PG-13 formum). I remember sitting with my dad, and reading his old field manuals and the identification sillouttes, and all -his- military magazines and books. It was this interest in reading "WW2 lite" that got me further interested in history, and wargaming. MOST of the articles are just fine. I enjoyed battle summaries of Leyte Gulf and Battle of Buin etc. I wouldn't have any problem with my son reading that when he was say 10-years-old. But wouldn't want him reading some of the aforementioned articles at 10, due to their graphic nature. It's just like I don't expect to see commercials with graphic violence during "Little Einsteins" (my kids enjoy it). Is there a place for graphic violence? Sure. I love to watch CSI as much as anyone, where they show the guy get hacked from the right, and then the boyscout says, "but he was left-handed!" and they show the victim get hacked from the left, and the Grissiom says, "But it was raining!" and they show him get hacked up in the rain. Blood-n-gore is fine. But there is an appropriate forum for it. I dunno. I'm not sure if I'm making my point. I think that the graphic horrors of (any) war need to preserved, if anything to remind us what we're getting into the next time. I think there are plenty of mediums to portray those horrors. But my -expectation- when reading "WW2 History" magazine, is that it is -NOT- one of those mediums. Maybe the new staff is deliberatly trying to change that (they changed editing staff at the new year), and maybe may the new "more in your face" type articles will be norm. I dunno (altho this months articles thus far have been quite good, and not R-rated). And while I'm on my soap-box, I'm also disappointed with the "softer gentler view" in their recent portrayals of the personal lives of Hitler, Himmler and some of the other "bad-guys". These were EVIL men, purposefully bent and responsible for the slaughter of millions. Whatever. -F- [/rant]
_____________________________
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
|