Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconLiterature Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gossmann 2003[edit]

Is Gossman 2003, Lionel Gossman, Anecdote And History, History and Theory Volume 42, Issue 2, pages 143–168, May 2003 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2303.00237 ? Jens Østergaard Petersen (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallace Stevens[edit]

Anecdotes are always based on real life; an example is Wallace Stevens's "Anecdote of the Jar," discussed in Frank Lentricchia's essay, "In Place of an Afterword--Someone Reading," from Critical Terms for Literary Study (Chicago, 1995), p.429.

Lentricchia writes: "There's a little story once told by Wallace Stevens that I have to replot as I retell it. The story (Stevens's and mine) is actually an 'anecdote': from the Greek, anekdota, meaning unpublished items. More familiarly, in English, a small gossipy narrative generally of an amusing, biographical incident in the life of a famous person whose biography's broad outline has long been a matter of public record. And more: this biography is often--when the famous person is also exemplary--a concentrated representation of the idealized story that a culture would like to tell about itself. Like all anecdotes, then, the one I have in mind can't work as an anecdote unless it somehow tells a story beyond the one it tells." The forest's edge 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Famous thermodynamics anecdotes[edit]

--Libb Thims (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stupid Evidence?[edit]

I'm sure there's a much better word for "stupid evidence," as well, I don't think stupid a neutral stance on the topic. "Subjective Evidence" or "Circumstantial Evidence" would be much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]