Criticism and Published Material

[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.

[fearn]

Speaking as another author (although not on swords), I'll respectfully disagree with Valjhun's opinion that criticism is great.

Criticism is simply criticism. On the bad side, it can be a cover for personal (aka ad hominem) attacks, it can be simply wrong, or it can be useless. My favorite example of the last one was a comment I received on my master's thesis draft all too often from one person: "It's wrong. Fix it." If I was lucky, he would at least point an arrow to what offended him, without saying why it did. Given that there were all sorts of possible wrong choices but only one right choice, it took months to get what he wanted. Another reviewer got through the same process by sitting down with me for 30 minutes and explaining what he saw as problems and what he thought I needed to do to fix them. That 30 minutes vs. months dichotomy stuck in my mind. But I digress...

On the positive side, criticism identifies legitimate problems, and ideally (in my opinion), it offers better alternatives. Personally, this last is my favorite, although it can be misinterpreted as egotism on the part of the critic. All too often, something might be objectionable, but there might not be a better option. A critic making the effort to come up with a better alternative can discover that, and shape his comments accordingly.

Finally, criticism can stem from an honest difference in opinion, as Rivkin noted. These are fine, although they can get tedious when they are repeated, especially for years (as in many academic battles).

Obviously, I prefer to see more useful criticism, but that's my bias. There's plenty to disagree with here.

My 0.02 cents,

F

[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

[VANDOO]

I THINK THE KEY IS CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM RATHER THAN PICKING OUT SOME PARTS AND USING SUCH INACCURATIES TO CONDEM THE WHOLE.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE DIFFICULTY INVOLVED IN WRITING A REFRENCE BOOK ESPECIALLY ON SOMETHING AS COMPLICATED AS ETHINOGRAPHIC WEAPONS YOU CAN APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT GOES INTO IT. FIRST YOU WILL HAVE TO USE REFRENCES FROM PREVIOUS SOURCES AND WILL BE EXPECTED TO INCLUDE THE BEST KNOWN SPECIMINS OF THE TYPE. AMONG SCHOLARS THERE ARE OFTEN CONFLICTING VIEWS ON ALL PREVIOUS WRITEN REFRENCES AND ITEMS AND BOTH SIDES WAITING TO POUNCE IF YOUR VIEW IS DIFFERENT.
OFTEN NEW BOOKS ARE JUST A REHASHING OF PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN MATERIAL WITH NICE PICTURES AND LITTLE NEW FIELD WORK. I THINK ITS GREAT IF A AUTHOR ACTUALLY GOES OUT AND RESEARCHES NEW UNDOCUMENTED COLLECTIONS AND TRYS TO RELATE THEM TO THE BEST KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED COMPARITIVE EXAMPLES. ALL REFRENCES ON ETHINOGRAPHIC WEAPONS WILL HAVE SOME MISTAKES, OFTEN DUE TO MISENTERPRTING OR GETTING BAD INFORMATION FROM THE PEOPLE YOU ASK FOR HELP EVEN IF THEY ARE FROM A TRIBE WHO USED TO USE SUCH WEAPONS. STONES GLOSSARY HAS SUCH INACCURACYS BUT IS STILL A MONUMENTAL WORK NOT JUST A MERE REFRENCE AND HAS MORE GOOD INFORMATION THAN MISTAKES.
THE SWORD MENTIONED IN THE OTHER POST HAS BEEN TREASURED AND REVERED BY THOSE WHO BELIEVE IT TO BE THE LAST KINGS SWORD. TO BORROW A KERIS TERM THAT WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE IT A PUSAKA TO THEM AND THEIR BELIEF SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RESPECT REGARDLESS OF ITS ACCURACY. THAT BEING SAID IF THEY ARE WILLING TO LET A SCHOLAR EXAMINE THE RELIC HE CAN MAKE HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS AND PUBLISH A PAPER ON HIS FINDINGS AND HIS OPINION ON THE ITEM. I PERSONALY THINK IT IS GREAT THAT SOMEONE WOULD SPEND THEIR TIME AND MONEY TO GO DO THE REASEARCH NEEDED TO GIVE A GOOD INFORMED ASSESMENT AND OPINION ON THE SWORD.

[B.I]

wow. it seems the sword has stirred up a hornets nest. in hindsight, i would have kept my mouth shut as all i contributed was an opinion and an added diversion which was not needed, nor asked for. i think that any cross-forum discussion must be avoided as there is obvious animosity and issues at hand. in an ideal world, we could flit from one to the other but it seems that by doing so you are only becoming an open target.
i think the world is a big place and enough room for different opinions to happily sit along side each other without butting heads.
i like to think that i take my studies quite seriously, and hold every book in my library quite dear to me. i will buy any book that has anything to do with my subject, whether good or bad as until you have read everything written already, it is then that you can happily discard it all and form your own opinion :-) my library hold most books that are oriental arms related, and many that step into iconography and history.
however, there is a clear difference between what i class as 'academic' and 'picture book'.
i only distinguish this classification after i buy the book, and i never critisize the importance of a book as all have some use (i love good pictures!).
if i pay $100-$200 for a book, then i should be entitled to an opinion on its contents.
if an author considers himself an expert and wants to move the world with his opinions, then he must know that he is up for both praise and rebuke. on the other hand, if a book is written in a general sense, then it should not be rebuked for being too general.
i applaud anyone that manages to publish as this alone is not easy. so, for someone to achieve this, and also to devote an amount of years to put the project together, then he should be commended for doing so.
BUT, his work will, and MUST be up for appraisal. i know many published authors and not one of them will convince me (with a straight face) that he did so for personal gratification. all want to put their opinions forward and any decent author will willingly accept critism for his work, as long as it is constructive.
i think this is the key, as vandoo rightly says. anyone who thinks tirri's book was meant to be academic should read it again. 20-40 words per item can hardly be in-depth academic. this book cant be compared to allens persian steel (for example) which has 600 pages on one specific subject. both have uses but in a different way.
elgood has openly admitted on a number of occasions that he has put forward theories in the hope that they will provoke discussions (for or against) which could further known knowledge by bringing a discussion out in the open.
there are a number of authors that spend their 'careers' devoted to the research and publication of hopefully new material (whether in book or article format). to name a few - alexander, elgood, nicholle, zaky, gorelik, miller, melikian-chirvani etc. also, museum related - stronge, buddle, zygulski (michals friend). then there is related subjects to arms (numerous authors).
none of the authors i have listed write 'general' books on arms (with some exceptions of course). each tries to push new knowledge forward and uses pre-written texts as a foundation to either start from or to argue against. none use known knowledge as an assumption (ahem, with exceptions of course). i travelled to italy to meet an author that spent his whole career searching for publishers to allow him to research a subject (chosen by them). his books catered for not just arms and he dove into subjects he knew little about beforehand, but when he finished, he managed to create theories that stood up on their own.
saying that, there is still always need for generalised books for the novice. i will happily buy these as well as i am of the opinion that if i learn one new thing from a book, then its was worth buying.
i look forward to this new book, and will happily pay the price for it. i will read it from cover to cover and i will have a strong opinion, for or against it. this book has already declared a large amount of images, so even if the text is ridiculous, then at least i will get a chance to see images of swords that are new to me. however, i really hope that i will get something from the literature as well.
the reason this forum is so used, participated on and enjoyed is because it is open to strong opinion, if justified and voiced in a polite way. thats my reason for being here anyway. if i have to sit here with my mouth shut even though i strongly feel that what is being discussed it completely wrong, then it would be hard to participate. you cannot walk on eggshells because of fragile egos (this this i mean all authors). we learn by experience and discussion, not just reading and accepting facts without question.

[wolviex]

Originally Posted by B.I

to name a few - alexander, elgood, nicholle, zaky, gorelik, miller, melikian-chirvani etc. also, museum related - stronge, buddle, zygulski (michals friend).

Dear Brian!
I would be happy if he was, but he is ca 50 years older, and the only name I would dare to use, is 'my Master'

Michal

[Ian]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ariel: I'm not suggesting that only "professionals" should be criticized, but rather that there is a level of expertise expected of them and therefore one may be more critical of the efforts of an "expert" when the effort falls short of an expected professional standard. But is it reasonable to expect everyone who publishes on a subject to be held to the highest and most stringent criticsm as if they were indeed a leading expert? These books, after all, are not scientific journals -- many are closer to works of art and history than works of science. That's not to say that art and history have no standards, but those standards are different and more subjective in nature.

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.

A non-professional writer needs an editor, who should be held responsible for some of the style, accuracy, etc. That editor usually works for the publisher. Good publishers are concerned about accuracy and presentation. Yes, the author is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of his/her work, but editors often contribute as well and share responsibility.

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. ...

Apples and oranges, my friend. The books we are talking about are far removed from peer-reviewed publications and perhaps too subjective to be treated in a similar manner.

Ian.