Yeesh. It goes to show that if someone wants to be critical, they don't bother much with the details.
I am not trying to belittle Raymond Sauvage, but to tear down a work by English-speaking authors by referral to Norwegian-language articles, one of which was published
after the book in question, is just ridiculous. Even more so as he wrote, when asked to help locate copies of the articles, that "I think you guys sholdn't put to much energy getting those two articles. One of them is obut the theory of reconstruction versus imitations, the other one is a description of the Norvegian-Rusian sword project." How can it be that the articles he uses in his critique are are ones people "souldn't put much energy into getting?" Then he characterizes the most up-to-date English work (six years old by then) as "out of date."
I guess I am being critical of Sauvage, but that kind of gratuitous, at-any-cost criticism just burns me up.
I am sure that anyone reading any of the works he cited could come up with equally severe, and equally weak, criticsim. It is highly unfair, and small-minded, IMO. And as an aside, I'm not aware that Sauvage has ever written a single word on the subject to contribute to the academic literature. Then again, most literary critics can't write (except a newspaper column) - that's why they are critics and not authors.
I'm a big fan of the philosophy that if you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.
As for Manoucherer, I don't think anyone is accusing him of being less than thorough and comprehensive. Still, it won't surprise me if some finds some fault to harp on. As we say in the legal business, "if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; and if both are against you, just argue."
I must stop, as I am in grave danger of hijacking the thread.
