Criticism and Published Material

wolviex · 31st May 2006, 02:30 PM

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 · 31st May 2006, 03:27 PM

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

31st May 2006, 02:30 PM	#1
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	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.

31st May 2006, 03:27 PM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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