Criticism and Published Material

Jim McDougall · 31st May 2006, 04:36 AM

In the thread concerning a sword of 'the last Armenian king', there was some genuine promise in what might have been a valuable discussion on a very esoteric and most interesting topic. Unfortunately the discussion quickly denigrated into comments and criticism that quickly recalled unpleasantness that occurred several years ago which many of us will be familiar.

Manoucher is unable to post on this forum, so in my opinion it is unfair to criticize here his comments or his published material where he has no opportunity for rebuttal. I completely am in favor of Andrews decision to close that particular thread, and felt compelled to express my personal feelings concerning open criticism of the work of published authors.

Over the years there have been many instances where published works have been harshly criticized in discussions, many of them the works of earlier writers of now venerable resources (i.e. Stone). I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for anyone who has the courage to pour thier heart and soul into a book that represents any degree of passion for the topic they study. These books, as I have always emphatically stated, even though clearly superceded by new evidence and research, served as vital benchmarks to set the course for future study. Other more recent works, such as the volume produced by Anthony Tirri received heavy criticism, though the book represents an outstanding resource for general identification of collectible weapons.

I have contacted Manoucher to congratulate him on the publication of his new book and look forward to seeing this work. He has worked hard and it would appear he has presented a very important resource on these weapons, and has proven extremely tenacious in prevailing in his scholarship in the study of them. I would consider it in the best interest of all of us as sincere students of arms and armour to focus on the strengths and positive material in the work of all authors, and where criticism or disagreement is required, it should be presented only in a constructive and courteous manner, as some of the participants here have obviously accomplished.

I would like to see these forums continue to fluorish in tandem, rather than in competition, and for us all to help each other strengthen our knowledge together.

All best regards,
Jim

31st May 2006, 04:36 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,896	Criticism and Published Material In the thread concerning a sword of 'the last Armenian king', there was some genuine promise in what might have been a valuable discussion on a very esoteric and most interesting topic. Unfortunately the discussion quickly denigrated into comments and criticism that quickly recalled unpleasantness that occurred several years ago which many of us will be familiar. Manoucher is unable to post on this forum, so in my opinion it is unfair to criticize here his comments or his published material where he has no opportunity for rebuttal. I completely am in favor of Andrews decision to close that particular thread, and felt compelled to express my personal feelings concerning open criticism of the work of published authors. Over the years there have been many instances where published works have been harshly criticized in discussions, many of them the works of earlier writers of now venerable resources (i.e. Stone). I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for anyone who has the courage to pour thier heart and soul into a book that represents any degree of passion for the topic they study. These books, as I have always emphatically stated, even though clearly superceded by new evidence and research, served as vital benchmarks to set the course for future study. Other more recent works, such as the volume produced by Anthony Tirri received heavy criticism, though the book represents an outstanding resource for general identification of collectible weapons. I have contacted Manoucher to congratulate him on the publication of his new book and look forward to seeing this work. He has worked hard and it would appear he has presented a very important resource on these weapons, and has proven extremely tenacious in prevailing in his scholarship in the study of them. I would consider it in the best interest of all of us as sincere students of arms and armour to focus on the strengths and positive material in the work of all authors, and where criticism or disagreement is required, it should be presented only in a constructive and courteous manner, as some of the participants here have obviously accomplished. I would like to see these forums continue to fluorish in tandem, rather than in competition, and for us all to help each other strengthen our knowledge together. All best regards, Jim