Read the Whole Thing

 Greetings,

I posted a document in October of last year, which I had been working on for a couple of months. It was a recreation of an Elizabethan political pamphlet, which I spoke about on my blog about Elizabethan English you can find that post here. Now, I did this because I wanted to try writing my own Elizabethan political pamphlet and it gave me the chance to have a play with the language, so it was a bit of fun. The reception was not what I expected.

It was thought that I was decrying the use of rubber-band guns (RBGs) on the rapier melee field in the SCA, complaining about their use. I merely used the subject of firearms and their impact upon  swordsmanship, a very Elizabethan political topic as my focus. I however focused the argument primarily on the unreliability of the weapons and their primary source of ignition, black powder. The issue was that most read the first part of the argument, where the initial complaint was made, and did not bother to read the rest where the argument unfolded. This, unfortunately happens with a lot of texts, and I have not been immune.

When I first was introduced to the rapier and all things about it, I went madly searching about for treatises about their use. Well, back in the late 1990s there was the choice of three manuals: Saviolo, di Grassi and Silver. For my initial starting I started with George Silver. I started to read his Paradoxes of Defence, only to find that the man was decrying the use of rapiers and telling the reader how useless they were and other such opinions. I did not finish reading the treatise in that sitting feeling that there was nothing of use that I could find in his treatise, indeed I almost avoided anything to do with the author. 

Some almost ten years later I circled back to his treatises. Had I read further than I did, in among his complaints about the Italians and their practices, there are actually some gems which are quite useful and I have been using in my training ever since. So for ten years I missed out on useful information because I did not bother reading the whole thing because I thought I knew what he was on about from the first part of his treatise.

Don't fall into the same trap that I did and others often do, don't assume that you know what the author is talking about just by what they have said in their introductory comments. This goes once for modern documents, double for any document which is either not originally written in our language, and triple for any which is not in our time. Arguments were formed differently in different periods. In the pursuit of arms of different periods, or indeed the pursuit of scholarship of anything from a different period this needs to be taken into account. Read the entire thing before you make your opinions about what the author is trying to say, and their evidence.

Scholarly articles in the modern world, have an abstract which give the reader a precis of what the writer will be writing about, describing in very general terms the ideas which will be presented and a very basic idea of the argument. This is not sufficient to know the argument presented. 

Scholarly articles are usually set out with an introduction, body and conclusion. Sometimes these are even given headings so that they are easy to find. When a person is skimming through lots of documents it may be sufficient to read just the introduction and the conclusion, but this only scrapes the surface of what the author is speaking about and what evidence they use to support it. Only the basic idea of the argument is then known.

Only through reading the entire document will the reader understand where the reader is coming from, what data they are using as evidence, and how they are forming their argument. This is the only way that the reader can understand whether the argument is strong enough to be supported or not. The paper may be well-written but the data may be rubbish, and you won't know unless you read the whole thing.

In terms of a novel, would you only read the beginning and the end? No, you want to see what trials the character went through and how they got to the end. This is the same with anything else that you read. If you want to make a decent argument about something you need to read the whole thing. If you don't you will make assumptions about what is in there and your argument will be poor, and it will become obvious that you haven't actually read it.

You never know, you might actually find something of real interest in something that you read that you thought at the beginning was not going to interest you.

Cheers,

Henry.

Accuracy is the Best Weapon

Greetings,

The following discussion is about accuracy and the assertion that "accuracy is the best weapon". This will be discussed from three different points of view, all of which are relevant to those with an interest in swordplay. Accuracy is an element of which its importance cannot be denied, but for many where the application of accuracy applies, it is only limited whereas its scope is much wider.

Accuracy is always more important than speed. An accurate thrust which is a little slower is far more dangerous than a fast thrust that does not always find its mark. This is the primary place where accuracy is seen as important in swordplay, but it is not the only place. The same accuracy can also be applied to the cut as well. A cut which can be directed to a specific target each time is more dangerous to an enemy than a fast one that might find its target. Speed can always be solved with timing, accuracy is reliant on itself. The most amusing thing is that the accuracy in attack leads on to a discussion which is often forgotten.

Accuracy must be maintained in the use of the weapon. This means accuracy in technique. It is from here that efficiency is built and from here that real speed is built. When the individual focuses on accuracy of technique they will find that the weapon will be more controllable, thus it will go where they want it to and be more accurate. Due to the accuracy of technique there will be less wasted motions made in the technique, thus it will be more efficient thus it will seem to be quicker. Speed is built more efficiently from accuracy of technique rather than muscle power. Accuracy of technique also means that the fencer will defend themselves better, attack better, and fence better in general. Accuracy of technique should always be the focus when using the sword.

Accuracy is also necessary in the use of research materials. It is vital that a person present what is actually said in the research materials rather than some other interpretation of what is said in them. The skill to present research materials in a usable fashion is one which takes time to hone, and also takes acknowledgement of an individual's personal biases as well, as these will colour the presentation of the research material. Especially where there is some interpretation required from what is presented, as is found in primary source fencing treatises, particular attention needs to be paid to presenting what is in these sources accurately.

Accuracy is also required in arguments. A person needs to say exactly what they mean to say, and the person on the other side of the argument needs to hear exactly what was said. One of the reasons why arguments of an intellectual kind become so heated and become emotional is because people are not accurate in the presentation of their arguments. One side or the other adds or subtracts from what was said by the other party and this is where intellectual arguments degrade into just plain arguments with little point and little intellectual result. In these arguments emotion needs to be removed so that the intellectual side may be maintained. Accuracy is important so that points of view may be presented properly and so that arguments are presented accurately.

Accuracy in all its forms is of vital importance. For the fencer this comes in many different forms, from the attacks made, to research made, to actions performed, to arguments made. Each one must be made accurately so that the fencer can put themselves forward in the best light and in the best manner. Each one takes practice and time to develop, but each has rewards for the person willing to take that time.

Cheers,

Henry.