Rating: 
Summary: What's up with the negative reviews?
Review: This book appears to have been targeted by at least one "assassination review" which almost stopped me from buying it. I am not a fencer and couldn't care less about fencing politics but the criticisms about The Secret History of the Sword are so misplaced and egregious that they must not go unanswered. The assassins claim this books is: 1) dull, 2) not about the sword or European martial arts, 3) over intellectual and condescending, 4) so one-sided it "brooks no dissent", 5) for people who believe sword fighting began with the foil and rapier. Dullness is mostly a matter of personal taste, but since this book arrived at my doorstep I have barely been able to put it down. It is full of thought provoking facts and analysis fascinating to students of the combat arts. Is it about the sword or European combat arts? Well, I think the ambush-reviewer would be hard-put to find a page that doesn't mention the word "sword" at least once, and most of the essays refer to European (as opposed to, say, Asian) history. However, it is mostly about the use of the sword; if you want a 200 page book on metallurgy, this is not it. Is The Secret History of the Sword over intellectual and condescending? Well, it does make readers work. The arguments and the humor are often subtle and ironic, so the essays may at first appear disjointed. It is a book that speaks on many levels, and is as much about the mental attitudes that make great martial artists as about the use of the sword per se. As such, it also makes a self-referential argument about how we might think about history and swordsmanship. Is this over intellectual? For some people, sure. But given how few martial arts books are written this way, Amberger's work is a breath of fresh air. As for whether it is condescending, the author's subtlety and ironic humor are if anything a mark of his respect for his readers. He does not browbeat us with repeated statements of his position, and provides us with richly textured arguments that reward many rereadings. Finally, Amberger not only goes out of his way to show many sides of the key debates he addresses (e.g., the issue of whether horses and legs were legitimate targets), but he also shows how the evidence for any argument is ultimately less than 100% convincing - and therefore that there is room for fruitful debate. This hardly strikes me as brooking "no dissent" or favoring the foil and rapier. This is one of the best, most thoughtful martial arts books I have read, and I have only scratched the surface. It may not suit everyone, but it does not deserve to be dismissed as "dull" or "condescending".
Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: This book is interesting, well written, and very funny in a lot of places. It gives interesting insights into the history of western martial combat as well as psychological insights into what is, essentially, a "guy thing". I would recommend this book to anyone who has a basis of knowledge in sword-play and sword-craft beyond the preposterous "Highlander" sequences and the poorly done Excaliber swords currently on the market. If you want to know swords, this is a good book for the history of the art form.
Rating:
Summary: Odd people write odd reviews
Review: This book would get high ratings on any list of 'greatest failures in the area of non-fiction'. It is difficult to see how anyone except the author himself could rave about this and give it anything above one or at most two starts. The little the author has to contribute to the topic would fit in a book half the length and half the price of this longish 'Swords 101' exam paper. It's really little more than that. One wonders where the author derived the stamina from to keep going; maybe he didn't read the manuscript after the first draft so he didn't realize just how he strains the reader's patience. The failure to rework the amateurish arrangement of the argument (if one can really call this hodgepodge of disconnected anecdotes a proper 'argument') would also explain the awkward writing style and the many, many failed attempts at trying to appear funny. Amberger's overambitious project to bring together as many aspects of fencing as possible results in utter failure -- partly because it would take someone with more historical background training to *really* write a history of fencing, not just well-worn anecdotal evidence put together in a fairly random way. Amberger suggests that fencing is an art, but he had better realize that writing non-fiction also requires a minimum of skills and talent. Judging from this book, the author has neither. Hopefully Amberger is better with swords than with words... I hate to put it so bluntly, but this book is just plain bad. Take my word for it.
| 
