That entire recent and somewhat ugly thread I have to regard as one of those tempest in a teapot situations, as it was mainly generated by a lack of knowledge of the original situation, of the hobby’s and MR’s history and more or less the taking of quotes out of context, or at least lacking in full disclosure of what precipitated them.
Among the things that the OP failed to mention was that there was definitely more than just Mr. Goodfellow’s letter to the editor involved. In fact, Goodfellow’s comments came toward the tail end of several months of complaining letters regarding the recently established Student Fare column in MR.
For the most part, these letters did not denigrate young hobbyists but rather pointed out in no uncertain terms that the magazine did not need a column or portion of the magazine devoted strictly to some specific segment of hobbyists, young or old. Letter writers said that if younger hobbyists wished to be recognized as equals, they need only demonstrate their abilities to model on the same level as everyone else. Many complained that the space devoted to Student Fare could be far better used.
Which brings us to Mr. Goodfellow’s letter. It was far longer and more diverse in subject than the OP indicated. Goodfellow was apparently a seasoned and devoted scratchbuilder…in S, no less, at a time when S scale virtually had no commercial items available! In his letter he gripes about page space being devoted to about any diversion from mainstream model railroading: trolleys, narrow gauge, whatever. He was looking for MR to be more of a craftsman/scratchbuilder’s magzaine…as it in fact had been in earlier years. Thus, his lament about usurping space in the magazine from serious modeling to simply provide extremely rudimentary hobby material, or exhibiting simple loop-on-plywood layouts, when the magazine was already drifting away fr
Good points! I think it was the tone of the letter that really inflamed some of those who posted to the thread. The tone of some of those who posted may have turned up the heat.
I was a student/teenaged subscriber at the time of the 1973 exchange. I was not in favor of Student Fare, but I recall Linn Westcott explaining the reason that MR initiated it and continued to include it: I don’t have his words here, but I recall him pointing out that most younger-than-adult modelers had/have challenges that many adult modelers do not have - lack of a permanent place to build (since they are in their parents’ homes), limited finances (more severely limited than many adults), limited transportation (it was not as common for teens to own cars), limited access to clubs (finance and transportation issues), influence of non-model building parents, and so fourth. He also pointed out that it is important to encourage young people to participate, for the good of all of us.
From the time I started in model railroading, I had viewed Linn as sort of a mentor. He and I never met, but his perspective on the hobby, his open-mindedness (that’s how he appeared to readers), and his published work all resonated with me. I am certain that he is the influence that causes me to be so dedicated to model railroading today. When Linn explained the reasons behind Student Fare, I accepted the column as justified (I usually read it, eventually). On another occasion, I recall Linn commenting on the name of the magazine: (paraphrasing)
I posted early in that thread and didn’t get to check back for a couple of days. Things get outta hand fast, don’t they? I would like to try to bring something good out of all this. The responses, while some being a bit negative, show that the people around here at least have enough passion for the hobby to say what they believe in. I am sure that every body models as well as they can depending on expertise and experience. I had to take a leave for several years some time back, when I did come back to the hobby I feel I knew more and could appreciate what it was about more. I think everyone just learns in their own time. I will be the first to admit I will never be as good as the modelers listed at various points throughout that thread, but that is fine by me.
The letter form 73 is far from the worst thing i have ever seen written to a publication that made it to print.
Yeah, that thread got real ugly, and yes, it was mostly my fault. There’s one post in that I REALLY didn’t expect from a member here that had a pic of a boxcar I put on my layout as an out-of-service boxcar tha’s used for storage. I aplogize for my posts, and for any sore fealings I may have given any1.
Don’t take resposibility for a bad situation when it was not your fault at all - no need to appologize either, young friend.
It all got a bit breath taking there for a while.
Sometimes it’s best just to ignore those guys who want to try and beat the rest of us around the head with what they believe to be their superior knowledge, intellect and skill.