Ed Caffrey's Workshop Talk to Ed Caffrey ... The Montana Bladesmith! Tips, tricks and more from an ABS Mastersmith. |
01-13-2012, 06:51 AM
|
Skilled
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 484
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by podmajersky
Hmm.. interesting discussion. I generally just lurk on most boards and listen to the conversations but thought I would add a new perspective here.
First off Let me state that I do not personally know either Mr. Fowler or Mr. Aplet nor do I currently read the other forum mentioned in this thread.
When I read that letter, what I see is a question to the Editor about the level of editorial oversight and direction at the magazine. I see a letter from a long time subscriber to a publication questioning if the publication is adequately fulfilling the needs of it's readers. Yes the author has some specific issues with the tone and content of recent articles by a specific author as published in said magazine.
Yes the letter indicates Mr. Aplet disagrees with the veracity of some of the claims in Mr Fowler?s articles. It also seems to indicate Mr Aplet has a preference for the inclusion of full and complete datasets, thereby allowing peer review.
Having read some of Mr Fowlers work and having attended a presentation he gave at blade show west it seems to me that Mr Fowler prefers a more anecdotal/"personal narrative" style of writing, with an emphasis on being entertaining and enjoyable to read.
To me the question seems to be where on the spectrum, between "entertainment" and "rigorous peer reviewed journal", Blade magazine should aim for with its content.
Was the letter written to be veiled personal attack against Mr Fowler? Since I am not omniscient I cannot say, but that is not how it comes across to me.
Was posting such a letter on an open forum the wisest move; who knows. Could a better set of words been chosen to get the point across; most likely. Reading the letter suggests it was written with passion, a passion for making knives to the best of one?s ability, focused through the perspective of the scientific method.
Now I know I have written things before very quickly and passionately and used words and phrases that clouded my message, much to my regret. I think most people probably have.
The way I see it the letter can either be read as somebody passionately trying to improve what we do from the perspective they know best or it can be seen as a veiled underhanded attack... I think knife making will be better off if more people choose to see it as the first rather than the latter.
|
That is the best post I have seen on the matter, and believe you have taken it as originally intended by Stacy Apelt.
|
01-13-2012, 09:56 AM
|
Master
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: aiea, hi
Posts: 805
|
|
Nice job podmajersky. I notice, you summed up about 2/3rds. of the letter to Blade by writing 'prefers a more anecdotal/personal narrative style'. You made great points without questioning anyone's rights or accusing of special entitlements. My thoughts all along, a better set of words could have been chosen to get the point across, just as you have done. I wouldn't necessarily agree with some of the conclusions you've drawn from the letter to Blade, but they're entirely reasonable.
Take care, Craig
|
Tags
|
52100, 52100 steel, abs, anvil, art, beginning, blade, forge, forging, hammer, iron, knife, knife making, knifemaker, knifemaking, knives, material, newbie, plastic, post, sheath, stone, supply, teach |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:47 PM.
|