Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

No, unfortunately, I got stuck pretty soon because I couldn't find any references on a fact most consider insignificant, but is actually pretty important for my case. There's only one book that can help me right now, and I need to get it from the institute. If that doesn't do anything, I'm out of ideas. To my shame, I even looked it up on Wikipedia in hope to find any further references, only to find that the only work cited is a textbook I've been using all along... and that one doesn't have any proper citations either!
 
Oh of course I do visualize them. But that's exactly the reason why I hate seeing actual visual stuff of horror, my imagination is far superior but I know that it's my imagination. For actual visual stuff that's not the case.

Don't think I'm truly afraid of visual horror, I most of the time don't give a damn. But not a pleasant view to see, especially when you don't WANT to see such thing.
There's a good number of great (classic) horror films which are known for the things you do not see. From the seventies and onwards, horrors got more graphic. It won't come as a surprise that I prefer the older stuff. The suspense, the dark streets, the shadows, the sounds (of e.g. footsteps), the stories ....
 
That's a drag!

Edit: I have to agree with Foro. The things that you don't actually see are far more frightening than a puddle of blood or guts hangings from the ceiling.
 
For one thing: As you described yourself, it helped you to find out something.
And for the rest: I like it a lot. Very informative. (naturally, not enough to write academic papers).
 
I even looked it up on Wikipedia in hope to find any further references, only to find that the only work cited is a textbook I've been using all along... and that one doesn't have any proper citations either!
That's not a cool outcome, but this sounded to me that Wikipedia helped you drawing this conclusion(?)
 
What conclusion? No, I already had read that part of my textbook. I was hoping that whoever wrote the Wikipedia article might have put in another reference, and he didn't.
 
"the only work cited is a textbook I've been using all along"

I thought it (also) was cited somewhere else, sorry.

I'm not sure you understand my problem. The textbook is just a textbook. It is a book written to give a basic introduction into a topic. That means that anything written there is just a very abbreviated presentation of facts researched and published elsewhere. It doesn't go into detail, especially not in my case, and therefore also doesn't cite any additional literature. As I said, I'm stuck on something most people consider insignificant, but I think is of prime importance for what I'm trying to do. I used Wikipedia to look if the guy who wrote the article related to my problem used any other literature that might be helpful to me, but he didn't. The article didn't mention my problem either. So my problem right now is that I hope my problem is addressed in another book I'm thinking of, or else I'm going to have to sift through hundreds of journal volumes to see if there's anything relevant in there.
 
I see it now. I read too quickly and thought that the book from the institute turned out to be that textbook. But I am glad for you, it isn't that terrible.

I hope they have the book. And if not, perhaps some of the journals can be searched full text, somewhere online?
 
I hope they have the book.

They have the book (unless they lost it), but I don't know if it's going to be of much use to me.

And if not, perhaps some of the journals can be searched full text, somewhere online?

Some yes, others no. I've actually already done a full text search on JSTOR and Google books and found one article that could be of use. Unfortunately, there is still a big number of relevant journals not digitised, and that's where it gets tedious.
 
I see. :/ Crossing my fingers!

I am curious what it is what you are looking for. Even though I am not into your subject, I am pretty good in searching.
 
Back
Top