All Hans Konig's hype, and all the king's men, couldn't put humpty hoffmeister's collection book together again after RK knocked down with fact and truth its value, its importance and its bogus Elena Tsavera pseudo-scholarship text
Almost as if on cue, that rag hali has published under its “Letters and News” rubric what RK might characterize as a weak attempt at counter-punching our extensive and detailed critique of the Tsavera text in peter hoffmeister, the scheister from Coburg Germany, collection's publication.
Part one of that critique can be found here:
and the 15 others, each dealing with a chapter in the book here
Included are scans of each chapter’s pages at the end of each installment, and we urge all readers who have yet to study it to do so now.
RK provided voluminous proof of our comments unlike Rothberg and Konig, the book’s reviewers; forget about frau Elena Tsareva and hoffmeister, the scheister, who pull more opinions out of their hats than a 100 magicians along with about as much veritas.
Concerning this latest ‘review’ written by Hans Konig, one of the few remaining old-time collectors from the generation before RK’s, we have to first wonder if what Konig wrote should be considered a “letter” or is it “news”.
Of course the editors of that rag hali don’t make it clear, nor do they often make distinction between what is “news” and what is “hype”.
To say that rag hali is fact and truth challenged is indisputable and should now be apparent to its most ardent supporter, and there are not that many of them left according to their subscription rolls of serious established collectors.
And wadda ya know, such is the case with anything to do with the hoffmeister publication, and hali’s role in, at the least, trying to sell copies to make the almost usurious cut they demand to sell a book in their magazine.
But this, and other issues we could mention, is definitely not the reason RK is publishing Konig’s “letter/news” or our forthright comments.
Already Michael Rothberg has weighed in with his ‘review’ in the pages of a previous edition of that rag hali, and it is ostensibly at Rothberg Herr Konig aims most of his effort.
God Forbid that rag hali will ever mention RK and our far more truthful, and should we say knowledgeable, takes on what an author like Comrade Tsavera published, not to mention any of the other issues RK has illuminated.
We are not surprised, as why would they considering we show for all to see how disingenuous, self-serving their policies are and how decidedly ignorant their editors are when it comes to anything but new rugs or “Classical” carpets.
But again we tangent so let’s dig into Konig’s attempt to diffuse the decidedly critical comments Rothberg wrote and obviously that rag hali seems to feel they need to assuage.
First off RK did not know Konig was such a fan of Turkmen weavings?
What possibly could have provoked the man to bother to write this you might ask?
Our if on cue comment was, of course tongue in cheek, and we are pretty sure michael, little lord franses, who has been Konig’s stable boy for 4 plus decades, is behind this ‘letter’. It has his fingerprints all over it, afterall franses is now where the buck stops at that rag hali.
Konig starts off praising Rothberg’s “…serious and well-founded” review and agrees with his praising (hoffmeister) “…the collector’s, effort, endurance and good taste.”
Now please, Herr Konig, these are nothing but hollow platitudes – how about some comments about the pieces said collector “endured” for?
And what really did hoffmeister, who inherited all his money from his family, have to endure?
Opening his wallet; get real, Konig, hoffsheister endured nothing but you are making that rag hali’s readers “endure” your disingenuous shilling. SHAME, shame, sir.
RK has stated most of the hoffmeister collection is at best B- minus, and those rated above that threshold are few and far between.
Maybe Herr Konig has not read RK critique and if any readers know him please direct him to do so, he might learn something.
Since Herr Konig does not mention even one of the hoffmeister collection pieces let RK be the first to ask, as surely none of the editors at that rag hali appear to have done so: How do you feel about them, Herr Konig?
Mentioning a few examples might carry far push than your hollow words of praise, or are none worth the effort and all you could do is issue a friendly pat on the back to the “enduring” collector?
Seems to us all Konig is doing is his “job” as a shill and hyping the book. How else could his words below be interpreted, especially since Tsavera’s text is as weak as over-cooked spaghetti and the majority of the pieces far from best of type, or even second or third.
“…the book should be a welcome addition to any nomadic and tribal weaving enthusiast’s library…”
But, again, Konig is merely doing his job, trying to talk up the ‘good points’ in Rothberg’s review and avoid mention of the ‘bad’ ones.
Let RK do a little translating of hali speak here – good points are those that do not show the weaknesses, and the bad points are ones that do. Kinda like 1984 newspeak: Good is Bad; Truth is Lies, etc.
And Konig’s calling Tsavera’s sometimes bordering on stupid, totally undocumented and unsupportable chapter headings “charming” grinds to dust any credibility Herr Konig might bring to the table as a capable and honest reviewer.
Konig agrees it’s Rothberg’s “…critical remarks that require further comment”, leading readers to think Konig will honestly deal with them – fat chance as all he does is avoid doing so like the plague.
Blowing a paragraph on the lack of more than one small map, “…it is not sufficient for a work of this intellectual level to contain only one small general map…”, Konig then steps up to the plate and fires off this blatantly dumb comment:
“A more detailed map, or maps, will certainly be required for the next edition of this book.”
Is this man geriatric, Alzehiemered out, or what?
Please, Herr Konig, wake up and smell the flowers – the hoffmeister books sales, we are sure, are in failure territory and there will NEVER be another edition.
And you can take those word to the grave with you, mein lieber Herr.
We then read “Many of Rothberg’s remarks refer to ‘surprises’ or ‘assertions without explanations” again leading the reader to believe Konig will mention and deal with them.
Fat chance redux; as Konig, like an amateurish magician who can’t help but expose the cards hidden in his sleeve, tries to turn them around with this sophomoric not so slight of hand rejoinder:
“There is one positive ‘surprise’, the attribution of the eagle-group 1 to the Imreli”.
Sorry, but is Herr Konig really such a dummkopf?
Has Dr jon thompson’s now disregarded and completely ignored (by anyone save Tsareva) ancient attempt to assign Imreli provenance, based on no credible evidence and shaky to the max documentation, suddenly morphed into proper scholarship allowing Tsavera to get away with the same comical nonsense?
And then worse, Konig turns from wannabe magician to wannabe ventriloquist putting the following words into Rothberg’s mouth, someone if Konig already does not know is no dummy.
“And while some(Rothberg) comments seem to raise a doubt, they are not intended as criticism but as a desire for more information, which would have meant long footnotes.”
Sorry again, Herr Konig, but this is plain stupid, nothing more than a school-boy’s excuse “the dog ate my homework”.
Trying to explain away Tsavera’s multitude of undocumented stabs in the dark with the big bad footnote boogeyman, when she could, and should, have done so in her text reeks of idiocy and complete disrespect for the intelligence of the readers of your “letter/news”.
And let RK mention your characterizing the text of the hoffmeister book as being on an “intellectual level” is just as laughable, particularly since you, like the author, do so without providing one piece of documentary evidence to support your “opinion”.
Plus speaking of opinions: If you think it Tsareva’s ideas are “charming”, so be it, but remember, mein Herr, charming ain’t intellectual.
And as far as dumbbell assertions go, since when does a “publisher” decide how many pages a book will have, or what is on those pages.
Herr Konig: isn’t supporting evidence, reference, etc important, particularly to a book on this “intellectual level, especially when the points offered are new, unusual and in this case appear to be nothing but fiction presented as fact….eerrrrr “charming stories”
And, mein Herr Hans, RK knows a thing or two about publishing a book, it’s the content and not the publisher that determines how many pages, the size and all the other variables that constitute book production.
Konig fails as a magician or a ventriloquist but as a comic he is gaining traction.
Not to be called short of documentation here, Herr Konig gives “two reasons” for the books lack of supporting documentation.
The first we just mentioned but it is his second we find to be enormously absurd.
“Second, as the bibliography shows, most sources are in Russian, as between 1900 and 1950 most research on Turkmen rugs was done by Russian scholars who, with their colleagues in other countries, continue their work to the present day.”
This is blatant hyperbole: Either Hans Konig is as we suggested above geriatric, or he has been living in a cave to not recognize the INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION Russian authors from that period have garnered for themselves due to their shoddy and unprofessional “scholarship”.
Perfect example of those who continue doing so is Elena Tsareva whose “charming stories” about Turkmen rugs might fly in a children’s book but in a publication Herr Konig, known to many as supposedly an uber-collector, believes is on a high intellectual level they are sorely deficient and deserve to be characterized as such.
And just because Konig does not take exception to Frau Tsareva’s “charming story” about a “sun-god ” or a cosmic “spinning wheel” does that mean everyone should swallow these silly undocumented notions as fact?
Konig then tries to open up on the dating game in Turkmen rug studies; but, alas, he’s just as gullibly entranced with hoffmeister’s highly questionable dating of a number of illustrated pieces as he is with Tsareva’s “charming stories”.
According to Konig, so much for that thorny issue, just believe what you read and don’t question it… “the dating of the Hoffmeister Collection seems reasonable.”
Were Konig’s final shot even partially on target RK would not have bothered to call him out on all the other absurdities he voices.
But, regrettably, it is like the rest of Herr Konig’s words…nonsense presented as fact.
“I know that Michael Rothberg’s review will provoke much thought and debate among Turkmen fans as the book itself is already doing.”
If RK’s look at Herr Konig’s letter/news does not convince you he is nothing but an unpaid shill, with words as hollow as Tsareva’s, my advice is to forget about trying to learn or read about Turkmen rugs and spend your time trying to fathom Mother Goose and Little Red Ridinghood.
Hans Konig should be ashamed to have penned such a poor attempt to prop up a pseudo-scholar like Elena Tsareva, and to pump and hype a publication as weak and unscholarly as the hoffmeister collection effort.
Uber-collector or not, he has sullied his name and reputation.
Here is Konig's complete "letter/review"