Re: CAT: Phil William comments

Ah, let's poke a stick down this hole and see what comes out!  The comments
in response to my question about Thornbird have been very interesting.
Dennis Stoneburner and Anner Whitehead have been the most illuminating for
me.  Clearly I need to study Thornbird at closer range--maybe grow it
myself for a while.

As a biologist, I've published more than 120 scientific papers, book
chapters, etc.  Some of these have been roundly criticized and condemned by
my colleagues.  In each case, I tried to remember that it was the work that
was being evaluated, not me personally.  Some of the harshest critics of my
scientific work are also good personal friends.  I expect that my iris book
is going to be roundly trashed in some quarters.  So be it; that's the
chance you take when you publish.

But I realize that outside the professional world (and yes, within it as
well) personal advocacy plays a big part.  It is very hard to separate the
work from the worker, the maker from his art.  And as I know from
experience, much effort is required not to see criticism of one's work as a
personal attack.

My comments on Thornbird may have seemed intemperate to some.  But they
were a legitimate evaluation of an iris that was introduced to commerce and
so put out there to be judged.  I really admire and respect the Schreiner
family, but I take no umbrage at all at Dennis' comments on Victoria Falls
and other Schreiner award winners.  Similarly, I meant no disrespect or
attack on the late Monty Byers.  I don't know anything about Byers except
that he died recently and that he had produced some wonderful irises.  I
think it is legitimate to argue about Thornbird being one of them.  By the
way, I think Mesmerizer is terrific and worlds above Thornbird!


Bill Shear
Department of Biology
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney VA 23943
(804)223-6172
FAX (804)223-6374
email<bills@hsc.edu>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index