Book recommendation

[t_niehoff]

I've just read "Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey " by Kennedy and Guo and think it should be required reading for anyone who either practices or is thinking of taking up a TCMA. It puts the TCMA into a solid historical and cultural perspective, dispels many of the myths associated with TCMA and explains when and how they arose in the first place (for example, how Shaolin had nothing really to do with martial art development in China), and so on. A word of caution: this book isn't for larpers.

It can be found on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Martia...8947485&sr=8-1

or previewed on Google books

http://books.google.com/books?id=L5F...esult&resnum=4

[Phil Redmond]

If you read it and recommended it I'm going to order a copy.

[AdrianK]

Oh yeah, I skimmed through this at the local bookstore a little while back. I have a couple of the texts they show in the book.

[anerlich]

this book isn't for larpers

I'm more of a pak'er and a garn'er, so I guess I'm permitted to buy it.

What is a larper, anyway?

[t_niehoff]

I'm more of a pak'er and a garn'er, so I guess I'm permitted to buy it.

What is a larper, anyway?

LARPer is Live Action Role PlayER.

[duende]

I looked at the book and found it interesting. But could not take it serious as historical research or a legitimate "survey" as it claims. As it provided no evidence for it's premise. IE... no references, no citations, no bibliography, nada.

Sorry, this book maybe a good read and provide interesting points, but it is not a myth buster.


Here's a review from amazon.com

However, the book presents itself as almost academic, and in this aspiration it falls on its face. The call for scholarship in martial arts writing is well received by this reader, but the authors do not set an inspiring example. One glaring omission is the complete lack of citation. There is not even a bibliography, despite the fact that the bulk of the work is a series of book reviews. This lack of citation is frustrating for one who would be interested in further inquiry. The presentation therefore fails as academic, and rests in the "wanna-be" category. Better editing -- in English and in ESPECIALLY IN THEIR USE OF PINYIN -- would also help this otherwise rare example of a commendable book on this fantastic subject.

[anerlich]

LARPer is Live Action Role PlayER.

I play the role of a responsible adult at work, and that's live, I guess.

Your post was interesting until you decided to be a smarta$$ with the larper comment BTW. It makes you sound like Basil Fawlty in the Gourmet Night episode, where he puts "No Riff-Raff!" on the flyer advertising the night.

[t_niehoff]

I looked at the book and found it interesting. But could not take it serious as historical research or a legitimate "survey" as it claims. As it provided no evidence for it's premise. IE... no references, no citations, no bibliography, nada.

Sorry, this book maybe a good read and provide interesting points, but it is not a myth buster.

It's true that the book doesn't footnote its references (though it does mention in the text the scholarly sources it is drawing from). For example, it references the chinese scholarly works that refute the Shaolin myth.

Here's a review from amazon.com

However, the book presents itself as almost academic, and in this aspiration it falls on its face. The call for scholarship in martial arts writing is well received by this reader, but the authors do not set an inspiring example. One glaring omission is the complete lack of citation. There is not even a bibliography, despite the fact that the bulk of the work is a series of book reviews. This lack of citation is frustrating for one who would be interested in further inquiry. The presentation therefore fails as academic, and rests in the "wanna-be" category. Better editing -- in English and in ESPECIALLY IN THEIR USE OF PINYIN -- would also help this otherwise rare example of a commendable book on this fantastic subject.

I see the book itself not as a scholarly treatise, but more as a sourcebook that references the scholarly work already done (in China) and compiles their findings. As such, it can direct you to the specific chinese source.

[t_niehoff]

I play the role of a responsible adult at work, and that's live, I guess.

Your post was interesting until you decided to be a smarta$$ with the larper comment BTW. It makes you sound like Basil Fawlty in the Gourmet Night episode, where he puts "No Riff-Raff!" on the flyer advertising the night.

As you seem to be someone who spends most of his postings making smartass jibes -- like this one -- I guess you feel that I somehow infringed on your action.

[anerlich]

As you seem to be someone who spends most of his postings making smartass jibes -- like this one -- I guess you feel that I somehow infringed on your action.

Not really. THanks for your concern all the same.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've just read "Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey " by Kennedy and Guo and think it should be required reading for anyone who either practices or is thinking of taking up a TCMA. It puts the TCMA into a solid historical and cultural perspective, dispels many of the myths associated with TCMA and explains when and how they arose in the first place (for example, how Shaolin had nothing really to do with martial art development in China), and so on. A word of caution: this book isn't for larpers.

It can be found on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Martia...8947485&sr=8-1

or previewed on Google books

http://books.google.com/books?id=L5F...esult&resnum=4

I read that a whiel back on recommendation from David Ross, that sactimonious chi blaster.
I concur, its a great read.

[lkfmdc]

when your sources are primary documents that neither have ISBN information nor are housed in an established, recognized academic institution then you can not cite in the traditional format

For example, the initial literature on the dead sea scrolls. There are no other copies, they weren't housed in a location you could refer to (ie no box and ailse number, etc)

If you found an original letter of St Paul in the dessert, you certainly could write about it, but how would YOU footnote it?

[sanjuro_ronin]

when your sources are primary documents that neither have ISBN information nor are housed in an established, recognized academic institution then you can not cite in the traditional format

For example, the initial literature on the dead sea scrolls. There are no other copies, they weren't housed in a location you could refer to (ie no box and ailse number, etc)

If you found an original letter of St Paul in the dessert, you certainly could write about it, but how would YOU footnote it?

A valid point.
If I recall, Brian mentioned the names of many, many MA and the books they wrote and where he got a vast majority of the info.

[lkfmdc]

A valid point.
If I recall, Brian mentioned the names of many, many MA and the books they wrote and where he got a vast majority of the info.

Yes, Brian, not surprisingly, used teh CORRECT CITATION METHOD for the sources he was using

IE, no ISBN or box/isle/container references then you say "Mr Wong in 1923 in Shanghai self published the mantis boxing book called...."

Really, newbies should not make criticisms on things they don't understand or don't have training in

[t_niehoff]

Really, newbies should not make criticisms on things they don't understand or don't have training in

If that were the case, this forum would be very quiet.