Porteek's writing is noted for careful analysis and his focus on considering several explanations, listing his sources and providing reasoning around their reliability. In this he is usually contrasted with [[Ludoh]], who was a more prolific author of the era, but whose sources are rarely listed and who tends to state hypotheses as fact. None of Porteek's sources have survived, but the list of sources is at the very least helpful to realize the extent of early Tarnarian literature that was lost, most probably due to the spread of [[Mōroh]]. | Porteek's writing is noted for careful analysis and his focus on considering several explanations, listing his sources and providing reasoning around their reliability. In this he is usually contrasted with [[Ludoh]], who was a more prolific author of the era, but whose sources are rarely listed and who tends to state hypotheses as fact. None of Porteek's sources have survived, but the list of sources is at the very least helpful to realize the extent of early Tarnarian literature that was lost, most probably due to the spread of [[Mōroh]]. |