Brent,
Well, I'm glad I'm not alone in my response to this article (and to the general standard represented in ABS Journal). I can understand why publishers and editors are fearful of having high standards, but I insist that there is no
good reason to tolerate poor standards.
I receive my share of poor articles for BTO Journal and when I communicate to the author that it does not meet with our standard, I don't shoot myself in the foot! Rather, I ensure that poor articles don't get published and the good ones do. Publications are not harmed by a practice of warning off poor writers and poor photographers. In fact, the opposite is true.
The bottom line is that most bonsai publications are not produced by professional publishers and editors. Instead, they're produced by enthusiastic bonsai enthusiasts who have the time and inclination to work on a publication. Non-professionals bring a host of irrelevant and less-than-excellent elements to their work. That is a simple truth and while there is no reason to criticize people for not being trained professionals, there is every reason to criticize poor results. The results are the only thing that matter (to consumers of a product).
In the end, I can understand having to, by necessity, publish a less-than-excellent article now and then. BUT, that is not the same as publishing a harmful and/or irrelevant one. Articles that teach nonsense or which run counter to advisable methods are harmful and have no business in any publication. I hope that ABS soon learns to recognize this distinction.
Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
www.andyrutledge.com/palaver/main.htm
zone 8, Texas