Lost Art Press

When I finally got the honor of being Frank Klausz’s editor, I was curious as to what sort of manuscript he would turn in. I was curious because I had read almost everything out there with Klausz’s byline on it.

Some of his stories sounded just like he talks. With his Hungarian accent, his pacing and his refreshing bluntness intact. Other stories sounded like Klausz had just graduated from the Iowa Writers’ Workshop.

The manuscript arrived by mail. It was two pages, hand-typed and single-spaced. The text immediately brought a smile to my face because it was pure Klausz. Graceful but firm. No adverbs or complex sentence structures.

I handed it to a junior editor to input the text and clean up any errant typos. A few hours later, he showed up at my desk with an unsure look on his face.

“This manuscript needs a lot of work,” he said. “I might not get it back to you for a couple days.”

Seriously? Two typewritten pages? It should be done before you head home.

“The sentences are just so weird,” he said. “I basically need to rewrite the whole thing so it makes sense.”

You want to rewrite Klausz? So he makes sense? Just type it in, and I’ll do the edit.

I barely changed a word of the manuscript, and I was done with the story before I went home that night.

When it comes to editing, I try to take the lightest hand possible. The goal is to preserve the writer’s voice and even amplify it by removing redundant words and phrases that slow things down.

This is not always possible. Some people simply cannot write in a straight line. The text is circular, like a mandala. And every point they make has three digressions. Or they suffer from explaining things in minute detail for the first half of the manuscript. And then run out of patience for the second (3,000 words on stock prep. And then “…simply build all the doors and drawers. Add your favorite finish. The end”).

I send these writers a copy of “On Writing Well” by William Zinsser (used copies are $1) and ask them to follow this book like it was a holy text.

My approach isn’t the dominant one in woodworking publishing. Most editors try to make the writer’s text as easy to digest as possible – thinking they are doing a service to the reader. What they have really done is taken a Cuban sandwich and reduced it to Zwieback.

Though it makes me crazy, I know that some readers appreciate this sort of editing. 

When I first met the editors of Woodsmith magazine, I was excited to talk to them about their editorial process. They managed to convey immense amounts of information into a small space. Plus they didn’t take advertisements (back in the day). And they had an immensely loyal subscriber base – the most loyal, in fact.

The Woodsmith editors were really nice and open about how they worked. One of the junior editors then remarked: “Well, first you have to learn to speak Don.”

What?

The founder of Woodsmith, Don Peschke, is a bit of a legend in woodworking publishing (ask him about his hot tub). And when new editors came on board they had to learn to write like Don Peschke wrote. So that the entire magazine sounded like Don Peschke.

Oh, so that’s why they didn’t have bylines on their stories.

I totally get their approach. You want to do everything you can to help the reader digest complex technical information. Removing a language barrier is one way to do it.

But not me. I think of visiting Frank Klausz in his shop one time when he was railing against some video he had seen on sharpening.

“I would not sell that,” he exclaimed, “to a monkey.”

I feel certain Don Peschke never said that.

— Christopher Schwarz

The following is excerpted from “The Woodworker: The Charles H. Hayward Years,” Vol. II – Techniques. This article was first published when “glue” was understood to be hot hide glue (or, as it’s called in The Woodworker, Scotch glue). Rub joints work with other glues, but in my experience, not nearly as quickly – hot hide glue has incredibly fast tack. I’ve used glue blocks on several pieces, and for them, I always heat up a little hot hide glue. It’s well worth the (minor) trouble.

– Fitz

Like most other things, glue blocking has its abuses as well as its uses. A typical example is when it is used to replace a properly cut joint in cheap work. If confined to its correct function, however, that of strengthening a joint, it can add very materially to the strength, and is a perfectly legitimate practice.

From the outset we should be clear that the glue block is a rather ugly thing to look upon. It is therefore suitable only for positions where it is not seen, for it does its work chiefly by virtue of its bulk and the extra gluing surface which it provides, and it necessarily leaves a smear of glue at each side (we shall see the reason for this presently). In concealed positions, however, it can increase the strength of a joint very considerably.

As a simple example of its use take the T joint at A, Fig. 1. If the vertical member is subjected to much side pressure it is clear that, apart from the glue with which it is assembled, it has only the resistance of the wood in the joint to prevent movement. If the wood crushes or breaks, the member will give. At B, however, the glue blocks by their bulk offer considerable resistance, and in addition they have mechanical strength in that increased leverage is required to shift the joint. They are virtually like a short stay inserted at each side.

To be fully effective, a glue block should be comparatively short—say an average of about 3 in. One reason is shown at A and B, Fig. 2. At A there is one long block running the whole length of the joint, and its grain runs across that of the pieces that it joins. Consequently the block resists movement in the event of shrinkage, and a split is almost inevitable. If, however, there are several short blocks close together, as at B, the wood is free to contract without resistance from the blocks.

Of course, when the grain of all the parts runs in the same direction there is not so great an objection to the use of long blocks, but, even then, short blocks are generally stronger for another reason. If the wood that is being joined undulates slightly, as at C, Fig. 2, it is inevitable that there will be gaps in places with loss of strength. Clearly, short blocks would conform much more closely to the uneven surface.

Preparation of blocks. The wood should be prepared in a length and cross-cut. Plane the first edge straight, and then make the other square with it, as at A, Fig. 3. Plane the remaining two surfaces (it does not matter if these are not exactly square), chamfer the outer corner, as at B, and take a single shaving from off the inner corner. There are two reasons for the large bevel. It lightens the block and takes off what is otherwise a heavy appearance; and it makes it obvious to the man who uses the block which is the square corner. The purpose of the single shaving from the latter is that sometimes a bead of glue is left in the corner into which the block is rubbed, and the removal of the corner enables the block to clear this.

When cross-cutting the blocks keep the square corner pointing toward you, as at C, Fig. 3. In this way the saw always cuts into both square surfaces. Any rag occurs at the outer surfaces where it does no harm.

Gluing the Blocks. When gluing a block, glue the two square surfaces and rub the block back and forth in the angle a few times, as in Fig. 4. A few examples of the positions in which glue blocks are useful are given in Fig. 5 [at top].

The lipstick making machine that Katherine uses to make Soft Wax 2.0 has been on the fritz. One of the toggle switches started to feel mushy-mushy. Then the heating element wouldn’t turn on.

When it comes to machines and tools, I find that switches are the weakest link. So I took apart the machine’s control panel and found that the toggle switch had melted from the inside.

I could replace the toggle, but I wanted someone else to examine the components to make sure they were sound. Enter Eric Applegate, a local man of many talents. One of the many things he does is build and rebuild machines. And he has a candle-making business. 

So he and his daughter stopped by to evaluate our machine. It’s all good news. The components are good. The manufacturer simply used the cheapest switch available. So now Katherine is back in business. She just made up a batch of Soft Wax 2.0 and posted it in her etsy store.

Notes on the finish: This is the finish I use on my chairs. I adore it. Katherine cooks it up here in the machine room using a waterless process. She then packages it in a tough glass jar with a metal screw-top lid. She applies her hand-designed label to each lid, boxes up the jars and ships them in a durable cardboard mailer. The money she makes from wax helps her make ends meet at college. Instructions for the wax are below.

Watch a video of the application process here.

Instructions for Soft Wax 2.0
Soft Wax 2.0 is a safe finish for bare wood that is incredibly easy to apply and imparts a beautiful low luster to the wood.

The finish is made by cooking raw, organic linseed oil (from the flax plant) and combining it with cosmetics-grade beeswax and a small amount of a citrus-based solvent. The result is that this finish can be applied without special safety equipment, such as a respirator. The only safety caution is to dry the rags out flat you used to apply before throwing them away. (All linseed oil generates heat as it cures, and there is a small but real chance of the rags catching fire if they are bunched up while wet.)

Soft Wax 2.0 is an ideal finish for pieces that will be touched a lot, such as chairs, turned objects and spoons. The finish does not build a film, so the wood feels like wood – not plastic. Because of this, the wax does not provide a strong barrier against water or alcohol. If you use it on countertops or a kitchen table, you will need to touch it up every once in a while. Simply add a little more Soft Wax to a deteriorated finish and the repair is done – no stripping or additional chemicals needed.

Soft Wax 2.0 is not intended to be used over a film finish (such as lacquer, shellac or varnish). It is best used on bare wood. However, you can apply it over a porous finish, such as milk paint.

APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS (VERY IMPORTANT): Applying Soft Wax 2.0 is so easy if you follow the simple instructions. On bare wood, apply a thin coat of soft wax using a rag, applicator pad, 3M gray pad or steel wool. Allow the finish to soak in about 15 minutes. Then, with a clean rag or towel, wipe the entire surface until it feels dry. Do not leave any excess finish on the surface. If you do leave some behind, the wood will get gummy and sticky.

The finish will be dry enough to use in a couple hours. After a couple weeks, the oil will be fully cured. After that, you can add a second coat (or not). A second coat will add more sheen and a little more protection to the wood.

Soft Wax 2.0 is made in small batches in Kentucky. Each glass jar contains 8 oz. of soft wax, enough for about five chairs.