PDA

View Full Version : Disappointing book



Bradenn
28th February 2003, 12:23
A story:
A couple of months ago I was really excited to see a new book in the store. Classical Fighting Arts of Japan by Serge Mol.
I skimmed through it.
Writing style looked good.
Loads of history.
Nicely laid out.
Beautifully illustrated.
I bought it.
THE END

Epilogue:
I took it home read it and returned it for a refund in disgust a few days later.

Sequel:
Yesterday, a friend who didn't know the story gave me a copy as a belated birthday present. I now have the dilemma of whether to keep it or exchange it.

Why was I so dissatisfied?

The book makes no mention at all of Hatsumi-sensei or even Takamatsu-sensei. "No big deal" some might say. After all it is not a Ninjutsu book. BUT the book gives Kukishin Ryu and various branches a lot of coverage. Also mentions Shinden Fudo Ryu, Takagi Ryu and Yoshin Ryu and various branches. And all this without once mentioning Takamatsu?

It does actually acknowledge the existence of kosshijutsu and koppojutsu but can't leave it at that. Oh no, it has to state that schools incorporating kosshijutsu and koppojutsu in their curricula are on the fringes. It then states that Gyokko Ryu, Koto Ryu and Gyokushin Ryu are usually situated in the "realms of Ninjutsu". Besides for this rather patronising treatment, it is not even factually true. Gyokushin Ryu as I understand is a Ninjutsu not Koppojutsu school.

I don't think that the world revolves around the Bujinkan. Not every book is obliged to include it. But to publish a book meant as a "complete guide" and omit mention of Takamatsu-sensei and Hatsumi-sensei even when Shinden Fudo, Kukishin etc are discussed seems very unprofessional to me.

Could it be ignorance or is there a deeper agenda here?

I doubt it is the former because the author comes across as very intelligent and clearly a lot of research went into the book.

Eric Baluja
28th February 2003, 12:41
I don't know if I'd call the book disgraceful. There are certainly issues regarding all the unreferenced information in the book, and it's probably true that the author inherited some degree of bias from his teachers, but I think as a whole the book still has worth. You can disagree with the omission of certain information, but I don't think that's a fatal flaw.

Just an opinion, anyway...which is ultimately what almost any book about a subject as nuanced as classical Japanese martial traditions is going to be.

Bradenn
28th February 2003, 13:06
Waterstones gives 28 days to return books. As long as they are in perfect condition, no questions asked!

Maybe it is required by the European Union Court of Human Rights? :)

Bradenn
28th February 2003, 13:11
Even better if you're a speedreader:)

George Kohler
28th February 2003, 13:52
Originally posted by Bradenn
Gyokushin Ryu as I understand is a Ninjutsu not Koppojutsu school... and omit mention of Takamatsu-sensei and Hatsumi-sensei even when Shinden Fudo, Kukishin etc are discussed seems very unprofessional to me...

Yes, the author does seem to have some bais based on his two teachers.

As for Gyokushin ryu, the school he was referring to is a koppo school. It is not the one that Hatsumi sensei received. This school is from Ueno Takashi and was given to him from his Grandfather. As far as I know, both schools are related.

Again, the Shinden Fudo ryu it referred to was the taijutsu school, and not the dakentaijutsu school that belongs to Hatsumi sensei.

fifthchamber
28th February 2003, 14:52
Hi Braden,
Further to Mr. Kohlers above post the Yoshin Ryu is also NOT the school that was passed down through Takamatsu Sensei....The Yoshin Ryu in question was created slightly later than the Takagi Yoshin Ryu by a man named Akiyama Shirobei...The history in the book by Serge Mol is correct on that school as far as I know.
I think that more books like his are the way forward....There is nothing else of any worth out there and so anything is a good starting point IMHO....
Bias or no. Besides, if you can read any Japanese it helps to compare the lines listed by Mol with others using Kanji...A total picture would be very hard to publish and the best way to find more out is to expand the resources you look at...Is it easy? No...But it is worthwhile.
Regards

Bradenn
28th February 2003, 15:00
Originally posted by fifthchamber
Hi Braden,
Further to Mr. Kohlers above post the Yoshin Ryu is also NOT the school that was passed down through Takamatsu Sensei....

George, Ben

You're right that the schools in the book may not be the ones passed through Takamatsu.

Fine.

But that begs the question, why are none of the Takamatsu schools mentioned?

Why does it seem every Kuki-something-or-other Ryu or Takagi-whateveryoucallit Ryu is given a mention EXCEPT for Takamatsu's?

The omissions can't all be accidental?

George Kohler
28th February 2003, 15:58
Originally posted by Bradenn
But that begs the question, why are none of the Takamatsu schools mentioned?

Why does it seem every Kuki-something-or-other Ryu or Takagi-whateveryoucallit Ryu is given a mention EXCEPT for Takamatsu's?

The omissions can't all be accidental?

Hi Branden,

I agree with you. All I was trying to do was correct a few things that you said.

Bradenn
28th February 2003, 16:00
Thanks. I do appreciate your input.
It is hard to keep up with all the different branches and variations.

George Kohler
28th February 2003, 16:02
Originally posted by fifthchamber
Further to Mr. Kohlers above post the Yoshin Ryu is also NOT the school that was passed down through Takamatsu Sensei....

Hi Ben,

I think he was referring to Hontai Yoshin ryu.

pete lohstroh
28th February 2003, 20:55
This is a very good book though it is not all-inclusive. No English books I have read on this subject are perfect but, this one is pretty good.

There is plenty of controversy in realm koryu bujutsu and Tanaka Fumon is no stranger to this either.

R Erman
1st March 2003, 03:04
Takamatsu-sensei was mentioned in the book--in one line, I think. There was no mention, however, of the branches he passed down. Nor the important role he played in the preservation/passing-on of the Kukishin ryuha. It is an obvious bias considering the number of students Takamatsu had.

Super Trooper
3rd March 2003, 22:39
I just have a few questions. Why does everyone get so upset about Ninjutsu being recogized by the outside world? If Hatsumi doesn't care why should everyone else? I don't want offend anyone, it just seems that everyone takes this stuff so personally.

George Kohler
3rd March 2003, 23:06
Originally posted by Super Trooper
I just have a few questions. Why does everyone get so upset about Ninjutsu being recogized by the outside world? If Hatsumi doesn't care why should everyone else? I don't want offend anyone, it just seems that everyone takes this stuff so personally.

Super Trooper,

It is E-Budo policy to sign you name on your posts.

Personally, the book doesn't bother me.

Super Trooper
3rd March 2003, 23:50
Sorry I forgot. Thanks.


Julian Calabrese

Noodles
4th March 2003, 03:37
Julian, the issue here seems to be that those who have read this book (and I, unfortunatly, ain't one of them) are annoyed? confused? angered? that Takamatsu-sensei WASN'T mentioned in the book for his contribution to the continuation of traditional ryu-ha. If anything, this thread is more annoyance that the Takamatsu-den arts aren't being spoken of more, not annoyance that they're being spoken of. Hope I'm right and hope that helps. :p

God'zilla
2nd April 2006, 19:37
Yes, the author does seem to have some bais based on his two teachers.

As for Gyokushin ryu, the school he was referring to is a koppo school. It is not the one that Hatsumi sensei received. This school is from Ueno Takashi and was given to him from his Grandfather. As far as I know, both schools are related.

Again, the Shinden Fudo ryu it referred to was the taijutsu school, and not the dakentaijutsu school that belongs to Hatsumi sensei.

Mr. Kohler, although I may be mistaken, being away from my usual desk, I believe that M. Hatsumi presents koppojutsu of Gyokushin ryu on his Quest DVD "Bujinkan Koppojutsu". Is this correct?