Now that I have used up the better part of my dictionary, it's time to get on to the hard core content of TATC. Don't be alarmed, this post will be rated for all audiences. (and don't forget to continue with Part 3 at the end)
Allow me to first say that anyone who seeks to enhance the general pool of knowledge of hand tool work gets my most sincere approbation for swimming against the tide of electrons that have so engulfed our world. In my personal research into all sorts of new, not new, older and really older books, I have found that we have lost more than we have retained. Your average re-enactor knows this full well. Inference and reading between the lines is much the manner in which we try to understand what our fore-craftsmen learned by example rather than by guesswork. We're left with comparing multiple written source as well as the physical evidence left by those old guys. It's good stuff, don't get me wrong, but it's not first person.
Warning: Soap Box Statement!
Such is the problem I have with a vast majority of today's writing. There is a need to be Right to the detriment of all others who are Wrong. Most of what we read and do, if you are reading this in English, is based upon the British/American history of tools, trades and industries. If you look into other European and then to Asian craft practices, you find that all is not golden that appears to be gold. There's more than one way to skin a knuckle.
Back to TATC. There is much good in this book in the way of introducing all sorts of hand tools, many of which people either take for granted or may not even have thought of as related to woodworking. How many of you own a few pairs of dividers and actually use them? Or a two or four fold boxwood rule and put it to daily use? The TATC will bring tools such as these back into use, of this I have no doubt. Perhaps you will even learn how to lay out a diagonal, an octagon, sub-divide a board or scribe a profile using just these two tools. Those old guys took this for granted and so often there is little attention paid to tools such as these in their writings.
When writing of hand planes, chisels, saws, etc., Chris does much to de-mystify the myths that have evolved as of late. At the same time, he does introduce new mythologies that have the liklihood of propogating further through the doing of craft. I'ld like to ask all who read this blog to remember that what any author writes is their perspective and not the last perspective. That goes for my words too. Or, as Stephen asks: can we trust what you say as it's written on the 'net? Perhaps that is why I get migraines...
In boiling TATC down to it's elemental components, I find the content to be of value, well worded if often PG-17, and indicative of the importance of doing craft as a boon to the mental, emotional and physical aspects of life. At least for those who find they need such an angle, be it obtuse, right or acute. I tried to read Soul Craft and found it to such a self-involved read that I couldn't finish it. Clearly, I was too self-involved to devote the time necessary to finishing the book.
Here's the rub. Read TATC for the purpose the book was written: to advance the interest in hand tool woodworking, to cause people to think of why they do what they do and to examine, from the author's perspective, what drives him to Make. At the same time, read TATC with an eye or two to the fact that there are also statements of finality that are not supported by history.
Mostly these statements have to do with the nomenclature of tools, a topic people have been arguing over for decades. The more influential the author, the more likely it will be that readers take what is written at face value and further propogate misnomers and misconceptions. You could easily say the same of my words.
Mind you, I'm not finding fault for fault's sake. Chris knows there are problems with the first edition of the grammatic, spelling and layout sort. It's one of the toughest part of self-publishing, to sit back after the work is written, edit and re-edit until those errors are corrected. And still those nasty problems with surface years later as some eagle-eyed reader finds that misplaced period.
Two examples to support my thesis.
P.221: Speaking of coarse and fine lead screws on auger bits, Chris states that coarse are for soft woods and fine for hard woods. There were and are at the least three basic types of lead screws, each of which is designed for the type of work at hand as well as the speed with which the hole is bored, not just the species of wood. Are you boring deep holes in oak, in end grain, in douglas fir timber frames, in cabinet quality woods? Each may require a coarse, medium or fine thread. The mitigaging point (ha! a pun) is not so much the type of wood as it is how fast you need to bore the hole, how precise and how deep. And I'm not even getting into triangular lead points, scotch augers and the rest of the pack.
P.92: Speaking of rabbet planes, Chris describes five types, Straight, Skew, Standing, Standing Fillister and Moving Fillester. His descriptions are good but not to be taken at face value. What he calls a Standing Rabbet, is a Fenced Rabbet. A Standing Fillister is not called so due to the presence of a nicker, it is essentially a Fenced Rabbet with an integral fixed depth stop that cuts one type of rabbet of a given depth and width. Why all the differences in name and form? Largely because craftsmen had personal or regional preferences that stuck with them. Planemakers sales lists most often listed a basic form with add-ons such as nickers, exotic woods, boxing, etc.
I'm not picking out two minor instances to say "Aha! I am right and Chris is wrong!". I am saying that what Chris writes of is from his experiences as an avocational woodworker, journalist, educator and author. A patternmaker, a rough-in carpenter, a finish carpenter and an architectural millworker will all have slightly different methods, preferred tools and even names for tools. The guys I worked with called nippers, cross-cutters. Another bunch called them nail pliers. Their purpose was to pull finish nails from the hidden side of a board so as not to damage the face side but everyone called them something different.
For a book as influential as TATC is sure to be, I would have liked to have seen more research and cross-referencing within a wide variety of authorities before statements are offered. When statements of finality are made, it's good to temper that finality with facts that are accurate else you continue or create a mythology. For the reader of TATC, I recommend enjoying the book, learning from Chris's journey and losing any fears or hesitations one has over using hand tools. Don't take what is written as the only or the best way to do something. Read the book, then read more, take classes, watch videos, do it yourself and make mistakes and do it again. Join forums, mail lists, whatever floats your boat and just remember that it's supposed to be fun if it's avocational, efficient if it's money-making and soul satisfying no matter what your end point is. An index would have been a usefull addition to, but that's just the librarian in me nit-picking.
Till next, Gary
