I know he is considered another father of history and especially the father of historiography. From what I researched and analyzed, his main argument is that history should be taught as a cycle as patterns are shown of how dynasties rise and fall. Especially throughout Chinese history. In each cycle, there are lessons about the values of society that should be taught to rulers in order to govern well. These sections covers smaller, overlapping units dealing with famous leaders, individuals, and major events of significance in chronological order. Even accounting for lower class people, he does take care to make sure he does his research. Sima decided to keep moving forward even after his castration which amazes me because this individual seems even more superior than Herodatus.
I am unsure what to criticize in his argument of cycles because it makes a lot of sense that history should be taught as a cycle as empires have risen and fallen. The examples are common history and in his method, Sima wanted rulers to learn from his records and govern well in response to the past cycles. Sima however implies there is never a long-lasting change. As it doesn’t take account for any long-lasting changes that alter civilizations and changes their directions.
I am a little lost but I want to ask if there is any criticism against Sima Qian that makes sense.
I would guess that the English-language scholarship on this is probably pretty sparse. To really delve into the historiographical conversation on these topics, you'd probably have to look at the Chinese literature.
I think you may be missing an element of these “cycles.” Sima Qian wrote that as time goes on, the power and influence of the ruling family does begin to decline, but also notes that a virtuous ruler who could apply the techniques of proper governance would be able to stop the decline, and restore power and influence to the ruling family. The “cycles” occur when no sagely ruler appears to save the dynasty. In the Shiji, Sima is implying that if a ruler is able to learn proper governance (in part through reading the Shiji, of course), they could prevent their own decline, and allow the dynasty to prosper.
As for criticism against Sima Qian… well, of course there’s quite a lot of it. A simple modern criticism might be that his emphasis on teaching morality and methods of proper governance often overshadowed whatever the original historical narrative may have been. We might also question how “evil” many of the last rulers of various dynasties really were, as this was very likely an exaggeration or invention of the succeeding dynasty, to gain support for themselves. If you are more interested in historical criticism, you’re more likely to find people making minor corrections to the history, or re-examining certain events to present their own interpretations and lessons to be learnt.