doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com FUBAR spotted in Winter Issue 2011

Theodore Roosevelt
The man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done.

I have submitted 1 article to them. I have several articles in the works. I have met many fine people online as a result. There are others here who have submitted many more. There are some who should submit, but that is their choice.

DGJ does not exercise any editing. They take the articles as submitted and publish them. In my experience they only do layout of photos and may choose to exclude one or more photos if they do not have the room.

So your issue is with the author. In my experience there is no negotiation of payment. In fact, if they pay you, it may take months to receive the check. Given all the research and photos and writing, I figured I was paid something like .50 an hour or .10 a word.

These articles are works of love by the individual authors. Publishing in DGJ will not make you rich or famous. It will cause many sleepless nights as you struggle to be accurate. When completed, you still have to proof read / correct the work. Even with all that, as time goes by, you wish you could go back and "fix" the article with information that has surfaced after publication.


Pete

Presumably many writers and certainly a vast number of historians have taken their chronology of events on the authority of those who claimed to be participants in or eyewitnesses to important doins but got things a bit wrong because they weren't entirely all there themselves (stress, shock, stopped wrist watches, bad eyes, faulty memory, personal agendas, old age). So long as these "scribes" don't all write like that idiot Muderlak, I'll manage to keep my breakfast down. Looking forward to Foxy's Elsie submission which no doubt will be readable after a good pruming and weeding!

jack

I haven't written anything for DGJ in quite a few years. That being said, I don't recall any serious copy goofs on their part. But those do happen, because the articles don't go directly from your paper or electronic submissions to the pages on which they appear, whether it be DGJ or any other publication. So it might have been something Archer overlooked, or it might have happened on the DGJ end. In another publication, I recently had an 11/16 oz .410 load come out as a 1 1/16 oz load. I checked what I submitted, and that one happened on their end, which is not at all typical.

Re payment, if I recall correctly, the last time they published something I wrote, Dan asked me what I wanted for it. I told him and received a check before it appeared--which, as Pete indicated, is not the way it has always worked. But writing in DGJ, you are definitely putting your article on Foxes or whatever under the scrutiny of more people who are Fox experts than is the case in any other publication for which you might write.

Flysheet


I've done my work here.

^^^^^^^^^^^ Epic.

There were some errors introduced into my two-part article on the Fox-Sterlingworth in The Double Gun Journal, Volume Fifteen, Issues 3 and 4, by the Cote's editing. I pitched a fit and they finally hid some corrections on page 120 of Volume Sixteen, Issue 2, and interestingly my name has disappeared from the "In Appreciation" section!!

Dave Noreen

I will say in the current edition their printers did better color than some of their issues. In a couple of older issues the printers they have really done some terrible things to Terry Allen's great photos that go with Tom Archer's articles.

All publications have flaws, in terms of importance the messing up of the date does not materially change the authors actual point that the sinking affected public opinion. I like DGJ and have subscribed for over a decade and though flawed as any product of human effort will be, it is a pleasure every time I get a new one.

My wife refers to it a my "gun porn" which in a sick way may be true. As it is temptation incarnate.

I stand with Drew-----the ones that criticize are not the doers, little men are the criticizers-----big men are not afraid to make mistakes.

I don't care for sloppy craftsmanship, be it from a writer or a gunsmith.