Alrighty, please indulge me while I respond to the rest of the attack.
My review:
silence882 said:
The Paphiopedilum Grower's Manual, by Lance Birk (2004) - A lot of information, but there's no way to know how accurate any of it is. There are no footnotes or even a bibliography. I never reference it. Also, the color of the photos is off. It's not worth the money.
There are lots of allegations made about me, so here we go:
Lance Birk said:
I am really tired of you continuously trashing my book with your stupid and mostly self-serving comments every time the subject arises. What is it with this compulsion you have to display your own limitations? Your failure to recognize the accuracy and quality of my work simply displays your ignorance, your lack of experience and your irresponsibility.
Gonna need more info on this one. I can't figure out how my review or my general dissatisfaction with the book qualifies as 'self-serving', 'displaying my own limitations', 'irresponsible' or 'ignorance'. Is the point here that no one who is not self-serving/irresponsible/ignorant could possibly dislike your book?
Lance Birk said:
There is a reason why both my editions became two of the best selling orchid books in history; it is because they offer innovative ideas that work. My book is the one that changed orchid growers; from being killers of orchids (see your own tag,”Paph Assassin’), into SUCCESSFUL orchid growers, and my 1st edition book was the tool that initiated the change. Mine was the first book written in English to list and to show photos of all the known paphiopedilums. More importantly, it is unique, as no other book has caused such a revolution in the cultivation of virtually all types of orchids. But first you need to actually read it.
Speaking of self-serving, this is quite a paragraph. I don't believe you've had nearly as much impact or deserve nearly as much credit as you give yourself.
The man I pay homage to (and wish I had had the chance to meet) is Jack Fowlie. He resparked the interest in the slippers when he took over as editor of Orchid Digest in the 1960s. His series of articles (which I only have about half of) describing his trips to the habitats of paphs and phrags are the best reference material I have yet seen.
Lance Birk said:
Your comments that my book is a “rant,” and that “the information is available in a dozen other places” acutely displays more of your ignorance. You just don’t get it! I suggest you read the Bulletin and the Orchid Digest and The Orchid Review issues published BEFORE your frame of reference (your own birth date), and become an educated person. Most books on your list came after my book. Many have copied me (without citation), as have other recent authors who now take my principles of culture and apply them to numerous other genera of orchids.
I didn't call it a 'rant' here, but I have used that word describing it elsewhere. I believe I said something like 'aside from the species pages, the rest is either available elsewhere or a rant.' I can't speak to who copied you or who use your principles of culture. I am mainly concerned with the verifiability of data. As with the info in your book, you've given no references and provided no examples that would let me confirm what it is you're saying about plagiarists.
Lance Birk said:
One of your main complaints seems to be that my book has no bibliography. Let me spell this out for you: A bibliography is for authors who employ other people’s ideas as the foundation for their work. I have read (at least once) almost every piece of literature ever written in English (and some in French), and then discarded most of it because I found it just a lot of replicated, bogus data that mostly leads to the death of our cultivated orchids.
My paph book is based on PURE research. Pure research is where you start from scratch and then go out to find what works, on your own. My research on paphiopedilums was done both in the greenhouse and from the jungle; it is something no other person has ever done. If you are unable to comprehend it, then I think you have the problem, not my book. Many thousands of orchid growers have found it offers them great success.
A bibliography is for authors who use any data from another's work. The fact that your book is based mainly and almost entirely upon your own observations doesn't mean that the data taken from elsewhere shouldn't be cited. A freshman in high school is taught never to use someone else's data without properly citing the source.
Under each of the species, one of the headings is 'Introduced by:'. This is data that can only come from research and yet, no sources are cited. How am I to know where you got the information so that I can check the sources? Habitat data is also listed for each species. I realize that you've seen almost all of them in situ, but have you seen them all? The ranges are listed as well. Are you saying that the ranges are just where you have seen each species? The same goes for the elevations where each has been found? It could be that the ranges and elevations are where you have found the plants, but how am I to know?
As an example, the first edition lists habitat data for Paph. delenatii, a species which wasn't recollected after the '20s until the early '90s. No source is cited and you obviously hadn't seen them in the wild, so where did that data come from?
You list the range of Paph. viniferum, a plant that, as far as I know, has only been seen in the wild by collectors (and maybe not even then, the variety appeared amongst a batch of callosum that were not necessarily in flower when collected). Where did the range come from that's listed in your book?
Robert's example of flat out wrong information is yet another question mark with regards to the books.
Lance Birk said:
Your comment, “None of his information is ever cited.” is a correct assessment. Mine is a CULTURAL book, not one about taxonomy. This is spelled out quite clearly in the Introduction (both editions), something you yourself could have read, had you bothered; and I put photos in my book for readers to see what each species looks like and to compare with those they have.
I realize this is a cultural book, which is why I wouldn't expect meticulous citations. A bibliography, though, would be the bare minimum.
Lance Birk said:
I accept your criticism about a few of the color photos. Since I chose to keep the cost of printing low, while still producing a high quality art book, I was forced to accept some discoloration caused by the flow characteristics of inks and by the physical placement of the photos in signatures. I wished photos in mine were as excellent as Cribb's 2nd edition paph book, but I didn’t think it would sell very well at well over a hundred dollars if I demanded such perfection. I believe most readers agree, (ask Phil Cribb).
While I agree that Averynov’s book is superb, most people will agree that the quality of photos in my book are quite a lot better. Still, his are more than acceptable to most everyone, and I noticed you failed to criticize them in your commentary. The major point you fail to notice is that just about every orchid grower is more interested in learning how to grow their plants well, than they are in reading taxonomy.
Saying that the 'color of the photos is off' in the second edition of your book was an understatement. I don't know the quality of the originals, but the reproductions of many of the species and in situ photos are horrible. The photos in the books of Averyanov et al, Braem, and Cribb, however, are superb.
Lance Birk said:
This is why my book remains a best seller.
Out of curiosity, how many copies of each edition have been printed and sold? And how does this compare to other slipper books as well as general orchid culture books? I assume you have these numbers?
Lance Birk said:
Meanwhile, stop trying so hard to impress people by your acquisition of book lists and a Web site displaying other people’s data, and instead, go learn what orchids require in order to prosper, and then learn how to grow them because right now you understand neither. Only then might you become knowledgeable, and your opinions actually mean something.
All science is based on the data previously collected by others (e.g., "If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." --Newton). I haven't been to Asia, so all I can do is gather and summarize reliable information. Your book, without sources, doesn't qualify. My interests and site aren't cultural, obviously, as no advice in that respect is given.
And of course, the key question: if you don't care about my opinion, why the attack? Your entire message smacks of arrogance and has done nothing to rebut my criticisms or convince me that I'm wrong. I do realize, however, that there are some people who are so full of themselves that they take any criticism as a personal attack and respond maliciously. I guess that's you.
--Stephen
