Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Arrows => Topic started by: SamIAm on January 18, 2014, 11:30:43 am
-
I'm still a beginner in this craft, made a couple of bows, made a few arrows but still learning; lots to learn. But here's something that I'm either very confused about or some "expert" has gotten it completely wrong. I'm studying the process of arrow making and reading all I can about making matched arrows and proper spining. In volume 3 of the TBB, page 230, the author states in describing a drawing "A) the arrow hasn't enought spine, or is too limber, and shoots left. B) the arrow has too much spine, or is too stiff, and shoots right." Excuse my french but that is ass-backwards to several other articles that I have read and contrary to common sense. If the arrow is too stiff, it will shoot left because it can't bend around the handle. We're talking right hand shooters here. I know there are different ways of looking at things and I'm hesitant at being too critical. Tell me where I'm wrong. :(
-
Maybe they shoot right handed with the arrow on the right side of the bow. Yeah seems weird.
-
Just looked it up. The diagram as the arrow in the left side of the bow, not the right. Could be a misprint that hasn't been caught. I've seen that a lot in some books.
-
Your thinking is correct. Must be a misprint ,or a left handed shooter
-
Your thinking is correct. Must be a misprint ,or a left handed shooter
As I said, the diagram has it for a right hander. It can only be a misprint.
-
Well thanks for the comments. It obviously is a mis-print and that's what sort of miffs me. I know people make mistakes, I make more than my share but this sort of error in a reference book such as the TBB should not have made it to press. Some editor should have caught it. It's the sort of thing that confuses beginners. Truthfully it's not the first confusing and seemingly contradictory material I've read in the TBB but mostly I attribute that to my lack of understanding and my difficulty of following someone's presentation. There's a lot of good stuff in the series but there's a lot that's difficult to follow. Have to just take what I can and leave the rest for a later time. Sorry, had to rag.
-
You sir are not the first nor will you be the last to see the error .
I repeat often the phrase " it ain't hard to mess up .!"
Have fun
Guy
-
You are all correct about the need for better editing. The whole concept of striving for clear, concise, accurate communication is dying. I've read a lot of books in my 65 years and the quality of writing and editing has faded on a parabolic curve during that time.
Part of the change is the result of publishers knowing that most readers are not sophisticated enough to notice the poor writing. Knowing that, they let more get by, which perpetuates--even accelerates--the problem.
There are lots of errors in the TBB series but the series was, to cut a little slack, written as a popular look at the subject. If the volumes were prepared as text books--going through several edits and peer reviews--each volume would cost $100 or more.
For that matter, I have a new textbook for a class I am taking. It cost $65 used. I have found a couple of typographic errors in the first chapter and the writer is certainly not brief in making his points.
For contrast, read a book written before 1960. You will find clarity, brevity and accuracy. Even a typo is rare. It is a cliche that every generation of elders thinks the new generation is falling short of the standards. In some cases, we can show undeniable evidence that that is true.
-
Reminds me of the Mayan calendar. The high priests were able
to map the movement of celestial bodies and record it to a
precision that rivals modern technology. How they did so is
still a mystery. Later priests drunk on their own power and
prosperity they continued to keep the "records", but they
gradually became a nonsensical string of random symbols.
The priests were no longer willing or capable to do the
rigorous work their forebearers had practiced.
Japbow.
-
Well put Jim. I match you in years and I do agree.
-
The editing process leaves a lot to be desired. Not just typos but facts. Good post Jim.