Timeline for What's "the archetypal book" called?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5 at 20:44 | comment | added | Pilcrow | I concur, "seminal" is not the right word. To use the OP's example, C# in Depth is almost certainly not a seminal book: it presumably does not contain any tremendously original, never-seen-before ideas about C#. | |
| Sep 5 at 20:42 | comment | added | yshavit | "... understanding of the field" — typo, sorry! | |
| Sep 5 at 6:00 | comment | added | yshavit | And similarly, a seminal book may no longer be the authority. Origin of Species is itself a great example: certainly a seminal work, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a biologist who would say "just read that and you'll have a pretty solid interesting of the field." | |
| Sep 4 at 20:23 | comment | added | Brian | The word "seminal" is specific to books which act as an originator of major idea. Hence, seminal books are a subset of "books [that set] the standard of a field." Other (newer) books can set the standard of a field without being seminal. See also Meriam Webster: "containing or contributing the seeds of later development." | |
| Sep 4 at 12:16 | history | edited | Graffito | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 4 at 10:59 | history | edited | Graffito | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Sep 4 at 10:51 | history | edited | Graffito | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Sep 4 at 10:43 | history | answered | Graffito | CC BY-SA 4.0 |