From time to time, new ideas take shape in my mind, only to be set aside again after brief reflection. One such idea was to write well-founded reviews of publications related to the history of martial arts. However, the central conflict lies in my own attitude: I cannot—and do not wish to—gloss over the truth. My aim is to offer honest assessments, even if they may occasionally be perceived as uncomfortable.
There is a well-known phenomenon in public discourse: during international football tournaments, millions of “national coaches” suddenly emerge—people who otherwise show little interest in the sport but express their opinions with great confidence. A similar accusation could perhaps be made about me. However, I have a broad base of sources at my disposal; I have read many of the relevant works myself, and others are in my personal library and can be reviewed at short notice.
What strikes me is the increasingly frequent use of terms such as “well-researched,” “no source left out,” or “extensive literature review.” These expressions suggest a thorough academic engagement which, upon closer inspection, often proves unsubstantiated. It raises the question of whether all relevant sources were truly identified and correctly understood.
Should I decide to pursue the writing of reviews more regularly, it would likely not be without friction. Authors might feel personally attacked by critical comments, and readers, too, could view my open approach with disapproval. Honest criticism is often praised in theory, but in practice, its consequences are not always welcomed.
A comparison from everyday practice: in the field of karate, it is not uncommon for videos of kata performances to be critically discussed on social media. In many cases, this is even encouraged by the performers themselves, who, by sharing such recordings, actively seek feedback—both positive and critical. In this context, a conscious engagement with content is sometimes explicitly desired.
In the world of book publishing, however, a comparable level of openness is still rare. Critical reviews—especially negative ones—appear to be unwelcome. Rather than a nuanced examination of content and methodology, there is often a prevailing desire for praise and superlatives, which do not always correspond to the actual quality of the work.
Karate Kenkyū Shitsu 