Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Ian · 31st May 2006, 12:40 PM

I think there is a difference when one rights "professionally" and when one writes as an "amateur" author. Rivkin's example of his own experience is of the "professional" category where he submitted his work for peer review and received an unfavorable response. Professional authors expect and accept (sometimes reluctantly) the opinions of their peers.

However, the amateur or occasional author is not prepared for the unsolicited criticisms that may accompany publication. Such comments feel like personal attacks -- many may be -- and the author's defensiveness is to be expected.

Critics cannot expect the same level of scholarship from a person who is not a recognized expert in the field or an experienced writer, nor, I believe, should critics expect the same freedom to attack the work of an amateur writer as they enjoy when participating in a solicited review. Part of the role of the publisher is to edit the material from an amateur writer and have the work reviewed so that it achieves a necessary standard of professionalism. If the final work has literary flaws, factual inaccuracies, omissions, or other deficiencies, then the publisher must take some responsibility also.

The field of writing about swords, especially those outside Europe and Britain, is not populated with many recognized experts. There are some who are knowledgeable but very few who would take the time to research such a book thoroughly and produce a scholarly work. Robert Elgood is one such person, but I'm struggling to come up with other contemporary authors who have a similar standing in our field. Perhaps Christopher Spring's African Arms and Armour is of similar quality. Going back a few years, we can think of other authors who spent many years to produce lasting efforts (e.g., Rawson, Figiel, and Stone) but they are deceased and it was a case of one or two books from each of them.

There's just not a lot of top talent writing about ethnographic edged weapons. Most of what we have seen in recent years comes from enthusiastic amateurs who wish to share what they have learned. And they get a lot of criticism for their efforts. Should they not have tried to do so? I think we are better off having their efforts available for discussion.

Perhaps the problem is not so much the quality of their work but our expectations of what it should be.

Ian.

31st May 2006, 12:40 PM	#7
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,395	I think there is a difference when one rights "professionally" and when one writes as an "amateur" author. Rivkin's example of his own experience is of the "professional" category where he submitted his work for peer review and received an unfavorable response. Professional authors expect and accept (sometimes reluctantly) the opinions of their peers. However, the amateur or occasional author is not prepared for the unsolicited criticisms that may accompany publication. Such comments feel like personal attacks -- many may be -- and the author's defensiveness is to be expected. Critics cannot expect the same level of scholarship from a person who is not a recognized expert in the field or an experienced writer, nor, I believe, should critics expect the same freedom to attack the work of an amateur writer as they enjoy when participating in a solicited review. Part of the role of the publisher is to edit the material from an amateur writer and have the work reviewed so that it achieves a necessary standard of professionalism. If the final work has literary flaws, factual inaccuracies, omissions, or other deficiencies, then the publisher must take some responsibility also. The field of writing about swords, especially those outside Europe and Britain, is not populated with many recognized experts. There are some who are knowledgeable but very few who would take the time to research such a book thoroughly and produce a scholarly work. Robert Elgood is one such person, but I'm struggling to come up with other contemporary authors who have a similar standing in our field. Perhaps Christopher Spring's African Arms and Armour is of similar quality. Going back a few years, we can think of other authors who spent many years to produce lasting efforts (e.g., Rawson, Figiel, and Stone) but they are deceased and it was a case of one or two books from each of them. There's just not a lot of top talent writing about ethnographic edged weapons. Most of what we have seen in recent years comes from enthusiastic amateurs who wish to share what they have learned. And they get a lot of criticism for their efforts. Should they not have tried to do so? I think we are better off having their efforts available for discussion. Perhaps the problem is not so much the quality of their work but our expectations of what it should be. Ian.