Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- gutting [2022/02/02 11:04] – ↷ Page moved from draft:reckoning_with_matter:gutting to gutting histscilitadmin
+++ gutting [2023/11/29 12:51] (current) – histscilitadmin
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 D. Using the intro and the endnotes/footnotes/bibliography/images, identify the main kinds of sources used for the argument (any particularly key archives/collections/authors/documents?)
-E. Using the intro and acknowledgements, identify the author’s key interlocutors. From what academic traditions/schools/etc do they come, on whom are they building on, and against whom/what are they positioning themselves?
+E. Using the intro and acknowledgements, identify the author’s key interlocutors. From what academic traditions/schools/etc do they come, on whom are they building, and against whom/what are they positioning themselves?
 F. Go online and look up some reviews of the book. Jstor is a good starting point, and most major history of science books get reviewed in Isis at some point. Very quickly skim a couple reviews to confirm/revise your impressions of C-E.
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 https://librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/how-to-gut-a-book/
+http://wcaleb.org/blog/how-to-read
 A more relaxed reflection on the practice of book gutting is https://www.jstor.org/stable/41399968