Love the magazine!
Love food in the bush part two, the anatomy and morphology well to my liking
Love the interview with Alan Wood and cant wait till the next issue when he will reveal all about the woodlore knife
Love how the article about a sleeping bag is made interesting by Tony, well done!! However one might say it was about the Nanok!
Not to forget the art of nothing and secrets about photography, already been trying the trics!
havent read the other articles yet!
However I regret to say how I found the article by Mr Montgomery poor (or was that the author of the book/did he review his own book?wasnt clear!). I will reason my opinion:
1. too many vaque words:-
"...can be
slightly unclear"
"...contains loads of ideas..."
I would like to see a more factual approach e.g. stating how many topics the book covers. Approach the subject with determination, it feels like he tickles the good and bad points. More than once in both articles David argues with his own arguments:
"... although that can be seen as a good point again."
2. I felt the same review was printed twice as the same structure was followed:-
"...keeps the book interesting and enjoyable to read."
"make it enjoyable to read, too."
"Some of the projects arent really relevant to bushcraft..."
"Some of the projects arent practical or relevant to bushcraft..."
Appearing as if the analysis was copy and pasted with the examples edited.
With the second book we are presented with the ISBN, not so for Mountainman. Are they the same or does it not exist? this is unclear, for me at least.
Next time I would like to see more variety in structure and sentence build up. Also bring a clear point of view across because right now it apprears that David tries to please the author and the critic of the book.
I would recommend this site:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/, which I use often myself.
Hope my post has helped,
Ryan
