The AARlander: Comments and Discussion

[anonymous4401]

Figure I might as well start this thread so that anyone who wants to comment on and discuss the AARlander will know immediately that this is the thread to do it in.

So what did you think of the latest and first issue? C'mon guys, speak up! Less people have read the latest issue than tune in daily to read ten pictures, ten comment lines and a single paragraph of my CK AAR, and I only update that three times a week! Somebody, anybody make a post that says a lot of words about each article especially mine.

Also so far nobody has PMed in with a desire to write for the next month's issue, so I'll be editing the first post of the issue to make this clear:

The AARlander will always, ALWAYS need writers for its next month's issue. Always. There will never be enough. So hurry up and PM me to sign up!

[Sir Humphrey]

Particulary enjoyed the The Lousy Man Theory of History.

[Legolas]

I haven't had time to read through everything yet, but I have to congratulate you on taking this burden. Some small comments: I would like to see a "CK" or "HoI", or another tag in front of (or close to) each article title, so that I can immediately know what it belongs to, not only from the table of contents. Also, the picture in the "Scramble for Africa" article doesn't work for me.

[TeeWee]

I haven't had time to read through everything yet, but I have to congratulate you on taking this burden. Some small comments: I would like to see a "CK" or "HoI", or another tag in front of (or close to) each article title, so that I can immediately know what it belongs to, not only from the table of contents. Also, the picture in the "Scramble for Africa" article doesn't work for me.

Agreed. Pretag each article with the category it belongs to. For at least one or two paragraphs, I thought Scramble for Africa was going to review an AAR... Oops.

Anyway, will have some thoughts on some of the articles later.

[TeeWee]

OK, I've had some time to stew a bit over the AARLander and will offer some feedback over this issue.

Overall, I think this is a very good first installment. If the AARLander can attract this amount of articles every month, than you'll have created a massive success. I think the quality of the articles is pretty ok, especially since most of us probably do not write reviews or articles about history and writing for a living. The balance of the articles is good as well: multiple articles in all game sections; 4 history sections, 5 reviews, 4 AARLander articles and of course the two columns. For next issue, I'm hoping for a history article or two in the EU section though!

I'm looking forward to see more of the monthly columns to see what kind of subject matter and style they will develop. Is the way they are now grouped (phargle's in CK, Estonianzulu's in EU) something fixed or will they move about? If so, perhaps setting a seperate "regular columns" area or putting them in AARLand section might be better so the reader can find them "instantly" I can't judge them yet as a monthly column, but I can say that as one-off articles, they worked well. Especially Genesis is very well suited to the first edition. Well done.

The distinction between Review and Classic review seems a bit arbitrary as some reviews have been of unfinished but obviously inactive AARs. I'd say if any distinction at all should be made, it should be divided in active and inactive ones. The reviews themselves I think are clear and give me a good impression of the AAR as well as its size. A minor nitpick here: reviews should IMHO always link to the AAR. In Vincent Julien's review of Advantages, there was no link, which makes it impractical.

The history sections were well written but didn't appeal to me personally. Saladin had the most appeal. Perhaps the subjects weren't within my range of tastes? Post-industrial world is not really my strong suit, so that may be a likely explanation.

I thought the AARLand section was great. While I won't comment on my own piece, I thought EvilSanta's piece was brilliant with a good example which actually helps the reader to understand what he's sayingTribolute's piece has (to me) a bit of a strange premise, that is, making an AAR that gets more viewers. However, the tools he's providing are of course useful to make a better AAR as well as a more popular one.

Again, well done everyone! Can't wait for issue 2!

[anonymous4401]

Added a link to 'Advantages' in Vincent Julien's article. The columns will move about depending on what subject they cover. Really though, it's not like each issue will have a hundred articles or the table of contents is hard to figure out. If you want to keep reading a column, go to the table of contents, find it, and click on the anchorlink.

The demarcation between 'regular' and 'classic' is that for the latter the AAR must either be completed or have little hope of returning, and must be a year since the last update. I'll make little regulations like this clear in the AARlander Front Office thread that will go up later.

[canonized]

My own biased comments :

I agree that the quality of the articles that we've all made are more on the amateur side since obviously none of us (as far as I know) have taken up professional magazine writing as a career , but nonetheless I think that overall it was a great first issue . It certainly had a good amount of diversity which surprised me considering the lopsided nature of AARland's viewership or activity at times so I'm glad to see an honest effort to combine elements of each section . I definitely do agree that the true test of the AARlander will be its longevity and its quality over time . If it improves in the long term it'll be a total success and I hope that this thread and all those reading will help contribute to that goal !

[ComradeOm]

Perhaps my opinion is tainted somewhat by the fact that Advantages was the first AAR I ever read but I thought that this was a pretty good launch. The piece on Saladin was a bit short but I suppose that this is to be expected when doing a few hundred word summary of the man. I enjoyed reading the articles and I'm looking for to the next issue. Now that I know the format I might send something in myself.

[Cyrus_The_Great]

Yes I really thought the articles were great. I know my own was pretty bad but I really wasn't sure what style anonymous4401 was looking for in a history article. He sent me some suggestions to fix it, and I apologize, as I was very busy, and was not able to get around to making them, especially with my minimal understanding of what was expected (I will try to do better next time .

I really enjoyed reading The Scramble For Africa and I am now reading the Tower of Fear after reading the review. I look forward to seeing the next issue.

[Snake IV]

A great issue I'd say. I really enjoyed having it to read waiting for delayed and moved airplane shedules from and to cracow. The only cronstructive critisism I can come up with that wouldn't be meaningless nitpick would be that it would be a good idea to save some articles when there are plenty of them for times when they're not so plenty. This issue was really long and few will probably come very close to this lenght. Though I've already told anon this.

[anonymous4401]

new issue well not really havent done everything yet. really tired. everything will be fixed tomorrow. this is practically an august 2 issue but here you can see what we have os far.. alsdo stop using that front ofice thread it was supposted to be a one-post nobody-else-but-me-posts thead with faqs and links. use this threada ndactulaly use it this time. no wonder i only got one guest writer. nobody reads this thing or at least nobody comments. and let me tell you from the work i did ritth now alone that isn't worth it

[canonized]

otsukaresama minna-san !

Let's hope to get more articles for next time !

By the way , Anon's asleep and he's been uber tired so that's why sections of the AARlander's index etc are incomplete . He'll get those finished when he wakes up tomorrow . Go check out the articles though

[Murmurandus]

I did read what's been posted if you're interested to know, anon.

[The Swert]

A great read. Keep it up. Particularly liked Zulu's analysis just to mix things up.

[phargle]

Good work, anon. It looks terrific.

[Amric]

Looking good, but I do have one thing....I'm bald....No hair to really stroke, which would be QUITE disconcerting while playing.... Y'know, until I read your review I didn't even think about the style of how I was writing Anhalt! But stream of consciousness seems to be right on target. An overall well done issue.

[TeeWee]

Looks good again anon. While the amount of articles may be a bit disappointing, the #1 issue set a high standard with the sheer amount of articles.

As you know, I am working on some pieces in hopefully the september issue and at least one more before the end of the year, so I may be some help in the quantity department.

I haven't had time yet to read the AARLander more thouroughly, but will come back for some comments when I get round to it.

Let me stress again: great work anon!

[GeneralHannibal]

I liked it, but it was a tad short on articles. Come on guys, let's give it 10!

For AARland!!!

[coz1]

Finally had a chance to get through all the articles, guys and I have to say this second issue tops the first. It may run shorter on articles, but the quality of each article seems fuller or more fleshed out than in the first issue. Perhaps the regular writers are hitting their stride a bit, which is enjoyable to read.

One niggle I had with the original issue was the same thing I had some issue with in the Advocate - some articles/reviews had already been done in previous incarnations of the AAR newsletter. However, I found none of that in this issue. It makes it more fresh and interesting, frankly. I'd suggest if one of the writers wants to hit on a subject covered before, they might try to incorporate the previous work (or works - God knows we've all written a ton of stuff around here) into the new article. That would help make an old/covered topic more interesting.

I am sorry to hear that with the second issue there are already signs of flagging participation. However, having been through all this before, I'd only counsel that it is inevitable and every great now and then a new writer comes in and joins up. I recall CatKnight joining the team for the Gazette near the end of its run and he really brought a new spark to what I fear was an already rather tired paper. And like I said, the shortness of this past issue really had no effect on me. In truth, it most likely helped me read through the whole thing without taking away from the other things I need to read around here.

All in all, I fine issue and I applaud all of you for the work done here. If I have any real complaint at all, it would still be that I wish the original authors could post their own articles. It really was not that hard to coordinate when we did that in the Gazette. And it makes certain who wrote what. That's just me though, I guess.

Keep up the good work gents.

[TeeWee]

Well, I finally had time to read several articles and skim through the rest. And I must agree with coz1, it is pure quality. I do realize one thing already: I personally like the background articles (history, AARLand articles) much more than the reviews. That's pure personal taste, so take that in whatever way you will.

Writing articles takes some practice, both to actually get something on paper properly and to see what works with your audience. Special mention go to phargle and EstonianZulu.

I like what phargle's doing. The way he's using CK as a carrier for a message far more universal than that is well done. With a very simple example he's gotten to one of the essential ingredients of writing: imagination.

Kudos too to EstonianZulu. I don't know a lot about AAR-land, being active here only since the beginning of the year, but putting AARLand itself in its historical perspective is refreshing and interesting.

To summarize, good work people! I hope that for the next issue I can contribute to the quantity if not quality of the AARLander again.