Suggestions to medical writers / by George M. Gould.

  • George M. Gould
Date:
1900
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Suggestions to medical writers / by George M. Gould. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    154/196 page 150
    Collaboration-Books.—In the preface to one of the least defective of modern composite books we find the fol¬ lowing words as the best excuse the authors can adduce for their work : “ It is unnecessary to discuss the ‘ collaboration-method ’ em¬ ployed, which has too often demonstrated its value to need either defense or explanation in this place, except to point out its great¬ est use, and the one to which no doubt it is indebted for its suc¬ cess—namely, that by its means the student gains the point of view of a number of teachers, reaping, in a measure, the same as would be obtained by following courses of instruction under dif¬ ferent teachers.” We feel constrained to point out what we think are some fallacies lurking in this statement. It would be true if the authors treated the same subjects ; but it is plain that when they treat wholly different subjects the student learns only the opinion and teaching of the single author who writes on a single subject. It would also be true if the editors dared or would be allowed to so edit and trans¬ form the articles as to make them fuse into an organic or a homogeneous unity. When an author signs his article he would not allow an editor thus to make over his article. The result is that the whole body of teaching of the work represents the scientific and therapeutic results and beliefs of no one brain, and not one of the hundred separate authors would entirely, or frequently even in great part, assent to the teachings of the articles bound up with his in the same volume. This seems to us an argument against the modern composite book, in which the multi¬ tude of authors preserve their distinct and separate indi¬ vidualities. There are other objections to the composite book of the type criticised : Confined as he is to a definite and altogether too limited space, each author must deal in too many glittering generalities. To the student or practi¬ tioner the articles are not helpful; they do not enter into those details of diagnosis and treatment which are pre-
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image