Criticism and Published Material

[Jim McDougall]

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 These books, as I have always emphatically stated, even though clearly superceded by new evidence and research, served as vital benchmarks to set the course for future study.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

[Andrew]

Jim is, as always, a true gentleman.


Folks, let's not get ourselves into situations where we carry on arguments or differences from other fora. Criticism and spirited debate are fine, just keep it civil and avoid ad hominems.

[Rivkin]

I will be honest with you - I am an idiot, so I have no idea why the thread was locked or what you are talking about right now. Genocide and other things appeared in a swordforum discussion right in the first post, and had nothing to do with our discussion here. Here it was relatively civil.

Concerning criticism of Manoucher, I did not know that he does not post here. There are certain opinions of his which I do not share, and while he always takes a persian point of view, I usually take an opposite point of view. I find a lot of things he says objectionable - he knows about it.
I also honestly believe he is a way, way greater as a scholar than I am.

I find a lot of things I said here and on swordforum _wrong_ and misinformed. Well, we all grow. It is all about personal opinions. Should we not express our personal opinions if it contradicts someone elses ? Obviously holy relics are always explosive as hell, so what. The most strange thing is that none of us is even remotely armenian catholic, so I don't understand the emotionality.

I personally believe the best thing is for moderators to clean up the messages they find offensive and reopen the thread, but obviously what's going to be is going to be. I would like to get response to the questions that were raised concerning the dating and other issues.

[Rivkin]

Ok, here is an example of peer review criticism. It is somewhat on a better side (!!!) negative review of one of my articles:

"Overall the paper is weak in style, content and relevance.... In content and relevance, the paper may have indicated interesting issues, but little is gained from this work.... not new and has been thoroughly studied...It lacks content, style and relevance. I would discourage the authors of resubmitting...."

Now this is not so bad. I skipped all the technical and paper-related commentaries, but trust me - I had received ones 1000% meaner - this is sort of business-like.

Now to my question - does it work differently when one submits to things like Met Journal ? Again, no evil will or hidden direspect, I honestly whant to know what kind of level of criticism one usually sees in the community ?

[Valjhun]

Wonderfull thoughts Jim.

I was not partecipating at that closed therad, however I have a thing to add regarding criticism.

Criticism is GREAT! why? 'cos it helps to achieve better and better solutions for the future editions. As long as it is kept on polite and fair level(and it must be) and that is the hard point. What is politeness/fairness? When politeness is a matter of education, culture and manners, fairness is what we bring in heart as individuals. Well, for example, If someone say that Mr. Authorofabadreference is an idiot is unpolite and unfair, if someone says that Mr.Authorofabadreference's book is a piece of crap is unpolite but fair, and finnaly if someone says that Mr.Authorofabadreference is an incompetent 'cos wrote such a book is polite but not fair. When we don't mention the competency of Mr.Authorofabadreference and we concentrate on his book in saying that it is definetly bad, innacurate, overpriced, and without any competence and lack of practical implementation and we support that with strong arguments? Well what is wrong with that? Criticism is GREAT! remember? Maybe some new author (or why not the same author) looking at that criticism will improve his future work. We are living in great times...

Many of us who bought a vlome for 200$ with depixeled photos, bad descriptions, lack of measures, many mistakes, bad atributions, no descriptions at all and advertised as an ultimate collectors manual for a year before it was pubilcated.... well felt a little dissapointed and why not, angry but that is not a good reason to keep ourselves below the line ofgood taste.

EDITED: I've just read the tread about the sword of the last armenian King and I'm giving full and total support to Rivkin/Ariel, even (or because ) I'm predominantly in a NihonTo business.

[wolviex]

From the Author point of view:

Writing an article or a book is in general a very difficult undertaking. Most of us want to publish something what is the most complete, most 'sourceful' and most actual on the field, and that's why decission to publish may be hard, because it means you have to decide on exact date. You know you will have only some time not entire life to finish the work. After the text is more or less complete it is sent to publisher hands and is verificated by editors who are able to make such terrible things with your text you just can't imagine. From interpratation, to changing of some of the most basis rules! For example: my girlfriend wrote article for the newest Rembrandt catalogue, with description of some of the etchings. Editor changed text without consultation with Author in places where NOTHING should be changed at all like: 'the sitting man' became 'a standing man', 'place' became 'palace' - horror. Editor didn't wanted to show "corrected" text, so it was luck my girlfriend found those errors. But it is not enough, while editor changed some overall thoughts and some of the points in the article!!! Now imagine the Author who is reading review of "his" article/book after edition! So please remember not everything is Author's fault.
Criticism is great, we agree, while it helps author to take a look on some sort of things from different point of view, to find things he didn't think of, etc..., but it is nesessary to let him defend himself during debate. Of course there are many bad and poor books because authors didn't carry it off well.

Rivkin is right: in serious, scientific magazines you can find real harsh reviews, without a pardon! Here I found always only gentleman discussion, with great distance, intuition and comradeship. Normally, we could write serious reviews pointing every error, and it shouldn't be damned by moderators, until reviewer is malicious or incompetent. As an author I always write an article or something else with preparation on criticism, if someone is not prepared for such pain after publish, shouldn't write books at all - it's just a part of author's life. No-one should feel offended if review is sensible and grounded.

Best regards!

[Ian]

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.

[Andrew]

This has, historically, been a place where friends could gather to casually discuss a common, esoteric passion. Have there been arguments, and heated, spirited debate? Certainly. But one of the nice things about this forum is that it is almost completely free from so much that makes similar places on the web so unpleasant. I want it to stay that way.

Were we to abandon this perspective, I predict this place would quickly degenerate and many participants would stop posting. I, myself, have stopped posting on other fora for this reason. We've all seen it.




**Please don't turn this thread into a rehash or discussion about my decision to close the Armenian King thread. If any futher comments are made about that, I will lock this thread. Thanks.**

[wolviex]

Dear Ian!
You touched very interesting and important problems, especially about experts and amateurs. I would like to notice, that weapons-knowledge-field is somehow special between other spheres of collecting. Probably nowhere else between collectors you would find so many (sorry for the word) maniacs and lovers from every field of interest - from history and art history experts to fantasy lovers (sorry to put both on opposed sides - it's not the point). Unlike anywhere else, you'll find many, many amateurs of different arms - that's why every Author should consider and should be prepared for! 70% of his readers will be amateurs not experts, and almost every one of them believes to be an expert (and some of them are) on his field. If the discussion and accusations to the author arise, Author should have a chance to response - that's the main rule, which let the author answer on any objections - or prove his right.

[ariel]

Ian,
I find it difficult to agree with your thesis that only "professionals" should be subjected to criticism. Every person who expresses an opinion, either oral or, more pertinently, printed, passes it to the public domain. From there on, this opinion becomes a fair target to counterarguments and, yes, criticism. This crititism should NOT be directed at the publisher whose role is technical and whose motive is to make money, but to the author himself, who is the source of the presumably fallacious or objectionable content. Even peer-reviewed publications do not enjoy immunity from criticism, whether because of some negligence of the original reviewer or when new data become available.
None of us have seen the forthcoming book by Mr. Khorasani but many plan on buying it (I do).Until this book is out, any critique of it is inappropriate. After that, it will become a fair target and the opinions will be divided, not dissimilar to any other book. An argument that this is a work of an "amateur" that should enjoy relaxed standards of excellence does not appeal to me . I am sure that Mr. Khorasani would also find it insultingly patronizing if a fruit of his 8 year long labor is not viewed as deserving serious treatment. After all, people are still critiquing Dante and Shakespeare, very gifted amateurs by your own definition because they did not subject their works to peer review. Tirri's book was justifiably criticised by people who wanted to have an exhausive academic treatise and justifiably praised by others (myself included) who wanted to see real collector-grade weapons.
The argument about the Armenian King's sword was aimed not at Mr. Khorasani but at the obvious misattribution of this artefact by the museum that fell victim to a legend. I see no reason why the stance by the museum's owners cannot be challenged. It has nothing to do with their religious beliefs or with any revision of Armenian history. It has to do with shoddy scholarship and a lot of wishful thinking. These are legitimate reasons to re-examine the sword and if the bubble of the legend bursts, so be it. I applaud Mr. Khorasani's decision to examine this sword personally. Any final conclusions reached by him and posted on the Internet or published elsewhere will generate controversy, either by the supporters of the legend or by it's opponents. And this is how it was for generations, and this is how it should be.
But the issue is much deeper than that. This Forum's atmosphere is characterized by openness, " no-holds-barred" approach and refusal to bow to any self-appointed "authority". We do not have sacred cows, nor do we venerate cattle breeders. Of course, we all value and respect the experience of some of our members in Moro weapons, Krises, SE Asian arms, Turkish or Caucasian blades etc. I would not dream of keeping a particular opinion about a Dha if you, Andrew and Mark classified it as something different. But, equally, I would not hesitate to challenge you to back up your verdict with reasoned arguments. Such attitude was always accepted by every Forumite as a sine qua non of our small commune.
We can, and should, demand acceptable standards of discourse, but the freedom of expressing one's opinion and bringing up pertinent facts should not be curtailed.
If we enter the slippery slope of agreeing with everything and everybody, subjugating our freedom of expression to whims and fancy of a "guru" and living in fear of offending somebody's ego by challenging his pet idea, we face a real danger of becoming an insipid , mutual admiration group exchanging meaningless pleasantries. And that would be sad...
Best wishes to everybody.
Ariel

[Tim Simmons]

Personally I have found many of the much heralded authors works rather wanting and often limited. Are essays in history really academic research in the field? I often feel I am led a trail to a dead end, particularly when the view on rather historic subjects is narrow and self convinced.

[VANDOO]

THE REALITY OF ALL REFRENCES IS THAT THE MORE BOOKS YOU HAVE READ AND THE MORE KNOWLEGE YOU REMEMBER THE HARDER IT IS TO FIND NEW INFORMATION IN A NEW PUBLICATION. IN ORDER TO WRITE A BOOK ON A SUBJECT YOU MUST USE INFORMATION THAT IS ALREADY KNOWN AND OFTEN PUBLISHED OR IT IS GOING TO BE A VERY SHORT BOOK . IF THE REFRENCES ARE GIVEN IN THE BOOK IT IS NOT PLAGERISIM BUT OFTEN A AUTHOR MIGHT DRAW FROM HIS OWN KNOWLEGE NOT REMEMBERING WHERE HE GOT THE INFORMATION. THAT CAN BE UNIENTIONAL PLAGERISM OR JUST LAZY NOT WANTING TO GO THRU EVERYTHING LOOKING FOR THE INFORMATION OR JUST NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND IT. SO THE MORE KNOWLEGE YOU HAVE THE HARDER IT IS TO GET NEW INFORMATION FROM A NEW PUBLICATION BUT YOU MIGHT GET TO SEE LOTS OF NEW PICTURES.

SO A FELLOW WITH LESS KNOWLEGE IS MORE LIKELY TO GET HIS MONEYS WORTH OF KNOWLEGE THAN THE WELL READ SCHOLAR THE SCHOLAR ON THE OTHER HAND MAY HAVE EVERY PUBLISHED REFRENCE ON A PARTICULAR SUBJECT AND WILL REMEMBER MOST OF THE INFORMATION HAVING READ IT MANY TIMES IN DIFFERENT BOOKS OVER THE YEARS. SO NEW PROVEN INFORMATION IS HIGHLY VALUED BY THE SCHOLAR BUT IS HARD TO PROVE OR COME BY UNTIL WE CAN PERFECT THE TIME MACHINE

[Rivkin]

Nice, well all members of academia have their favorite stories about reviewing process.

In my experience most of "impression negative" reviews usually contain the following, very often all in one set of reviews:

a. The paper is wrong. Since usually reviewer have not really read it, such review usually accomponied by some general statements like the "the method is unsound".
b. No one gives a damn about it. "not of interest to the general community", "used to be a hot subject, but in the past years...". Again there is really no reliable indicator to measure the public's interest in unpublished article, so its a safe bet for the reviewer.
c. It was already done. Again, the reviewer did not really read it, so he will either quote some unrelated article or will just refer you to "works of leading experts in the field".

Now our community is different. First of all there are very few books on our subject and even fewer of them are good. Second our science here, in my opinion, is intrinsically subjective. We usually can not use mathematics and produce "the probability of this sword to be from XVI century is 1 minuls less than 1 in a million". Most of our arguments would not be usable in court. For examples one just has to remember Oakeshott's debucle of accepted positions on origins/dating of certain swords. While we can form an accepted consensus, I doubt we can ever speak of proving something. To top all this, we don't have a truly professional, specialized journal with a strict peer review policy. Most of the articles we use are published in all kinds of historical journals; also they are not being reviewed by specialists in arms in armour, but by specialists in history. Most of us are amateurs (well I am).

The results are there for display.

[Tim Simmons]

I would like to suggest that "specialists" are not always at the cutting edge, burping up history is not research. The amateur has been ahead of specialists in many fields throughout history. The subjects that come to mind are astronomy, paleontology and even Darwin had Wallace, an amateur as an equal and in correspondence with the great man. Many writers/researchers in our area of interest seem to concentrate on the intrinsic value of the materials used and high art styles,{understandably admirable} a relatively narrow outlook rather than the form and its origin and cultural spread and regional relevance.