Very Short Introduction Oxford Complete

1. Oxford Short Introductions List
2. Very Short Introduction Oxford Complete Works
3. Very Short Introduction Oxford Complete Pdf
4. Oxford Very Short Introduction List
5. Very Short Introduction Oxford Complete
6. Very Short Introduction Oxford Completely

There is no shortage of major reference works on the history of classical literature, and large textbooks in English for use in college rooms or classrooms are also readily available. In our department, we have been working for years now with Richard Rutherford's Classical Literature, a Concise History (Blackwell, 2005), a useful and reliable guide for newcomers to Greek and Roman literature, particularly non-classicists. In nine of Rutherford's chapters, each one devoted to a major genre, Greek and Roman authors and their works are presented both in their generic context and in a larger historical perspective.

But although Rutherford's book claims to be ‘concise', it is still a textbook of some 350 pages. This proves to be quite a challenge to many of our students, who would perhaps prefer a somewhat smaller volume. Now, Oxford classicist William Allan has published a nice little volume that may serve such needs. In no more than 125 small pages, Allan manages to show the highlights of ancient literature, much along the same generic lines as Rutherford.

After an introductory chapter on such inevitable general notions as genre, imitatio/aemulatio, Greek influences on Roman literature, and the transmission of texts from antiquity into the modern age, eight truly ‘concise' chapters are devoted to what Allan obviously considers to be the most important genres. These are: epic, lyric and personal poetry, drama, historiography, oratory, pastoral, satire, and the novel. An epilogue, a useful list of items for further reading, and a short index conclude the volume. With its modest price and convenient size (two general features of the Oxford ‘Very Short Introductions') it seems excellently suited both for undergraduate students and for general readers. Allan writes in a pleasant, light style, with the occasional touch of wit and irony, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of tediousness and abundance of facts and numbers.

牛津通识读本 Oxford Very Short Introduction. An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by interacting with this icon.

Meanwhile, one may wonder how the huge field of classical literature can be encompassed in so few pages. How to deal with, say, the whole of epic (that is: Homer, Apollonius, Virgil, Ovid, and 1st century Roman epic) in less than 20 pages and still produce a text that is instructive and readable? In his introductory chapter, Allan appears to be aware of the difficulty of his task, but he refrains from complaining, and the volume has much to offer that is good, or even very good. Even within the space of just a few pages a scholar may express some ideas with which to open his reader's minds.

For instance, the chapter on drama contains some acute and sensible remarks on Greek tragedy that actually made me reconsider the whole genre. Allan points to ‘human suffering' and the intense emotions it arouses as the main connecting elements (rather than to such artificial construct as the Aristotelian ‘rules'). He also has some sensible observations on Senecan tragedy. Likewise, one can find fine remarks on Roman elegy giving a Roman male reader ‘the frisson of the loss of power and self-control which was a crucial part of his identity' (p. 51) or on Roman comedy, in which ‘normality' always prevails in the end, whatever the absurdity of the action (as with Plautus' clever slaves outwitting their masters) (p. 68-69). Indeed, not much room is needed to catch what is truly essential.

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars. The Meaning of Life: A Very. Perhaps it explains the oddly-worded (presumably computer-generated) note at the top of OUP's VSI page today: 'There are 519 primary works and 518 total works in the Very Short Introductions Series'. Of course both of these books should be listed here on the Wikipedia main page. I'll let others decide how. Apr 18, 2021 The ‘Introduction' explains that global warming is the most important science issue of the 21st century, challenging the very structure of our global society. The problem is that global warming is not just a scientific concern, but encompasses economics, sociology, geopolitics, local politics, and individuals' choice of lifestyle. Global warming is caused by the massive increase of. Viewing lists of titles on Very Short Introductions. Click on the link to browse the full list of all titles currently in Very Short Introductions. The list of titles can be refined by subject using the filter on the left hand side. You can also browse to each subject area using the drop down menu at the top of the screen.

Many other examples could be added here. I mention some fine pages on Greek lyric (Archilochus, Sappho), and some well deserved attention for the historical prose of Cato (p. 83).

It goes without saying that the strict limits of space have forced the author to make clear choices that may often have been rather difficult to make. The exclusion of Christian texts (Greek and Latin), and even of all texts after 200 A.D. may be such a painful decision. One can of course regret the absence of Augustine, Ammianus Marcellinus, or Nonnus, apart from a casual mention, but it does not seem fair to complain here, as the choice seems legitimate. (However, if Christianity is left out, so should be the very last remark in the book, which alludes to Christianity ‘rising in the east' in the time of Apuleius, a rather misleading suggestion).

Driving games for mac. Things are somewhat different, perhaps, if we look at what has actually been selected in this book. For instance, one may wonder why Allan zooms in on ‘pastoral' as one of his eight genres. Surely, even with the example of Virgil's Eclogues looming large, the genre can hardly be argued to have been so important as to deserve this prominent place. On the other hand, the ancient novel (ch. 9) has very rightly been given a chapter of its own (the scholarly emancipation of the genre finally seems complete), but was it fair to give it just as much, or as little space as the whole of ancient oratory (ch. 6, counting merely 10 pages)?

I hesitate to refer to Allan's academic reputation as a specialist of Greek tragedy and epic, but a reference to this expertise is to be found at the back cover of the book itself. Now does this explain why in this short book poetry seems to be preferred to prose, and Greek literature seems to be dealt with somewhat more lovingly than Roman literature?

In terms of prose, I fail to understand the complete absence of chapters on (Greek) philosophy and (Roman) technical prose. A survey of ancient literature without even a paragraph on Plato's refined dialogues? Nothing on Marcus Aurelius' introspective meditations? No mention of Cicero's philosophical works? And how to explain the total silence on important Roman authors such as Pliny the Elder or Suetonius, to mention some of the most obvious absentees? Even in the smallest of introductions these authors would seem to merit a brief mention.

The list can be prolonged and includes some disturbing names. Let me be clear: the silence on Roman prose authors such as Nepos, Varro, or even Curtius Rufus is a loss that we may graciously accept. But how could Allan leave out a poet of such popularity and influence as Martial? Surely, in the relatively ample and truly fine treatment of Juvenal (p. 112-116), Martial might easily have been named.

On account of these surprising omissions, I find it impossible to prescribe the little volume to my students as their main textbook. It will have to remain a ‘recommended' title, a minor companion to larger textbooks such as Rutherford's. That is a pity, since the small volume contains so much that is sound and good. One may perhaps hope for a second version, in which some of the choices are rethought and some of the imbalances redressed. Out with Pastoral, I would say, and in with a small section on Serious Prose.

As it is, William Allan's short introduction is excellent in what it actually does present: the major names and works of, let us say, the ‘highest genres', and with its pleasant style it is likely to inspire readers to look for further reading. This is particularly welcome for beginning readers, who will greatly profit from the thoughtful observations made by Allan. But there is definitely room for improvement too.

Oxford Short Introductions List

[For a response to this review by William Allan, please see BMCR 2014.08.54.]

Advertisement? List? Noteworthy?[edit]

I don't see how this is any more of an 'advertisement' than any of the other semi-gushing articles on book series in Wikipedia. Sure, it's promoting them, but just writing an article is promoting it in a sense. Again, look at any of the others and explain to me how they're different. BTW, I wrote the original article and I'm not on the payroll of Oxford. Revolver 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Very Short Introduction Oxford Complete Works

Of course it's an advertisement. This 'article' is exactly like a page in the OUP catalog. *Why* you want to write ads or free catalog copy for OUP if you're not on their payroll is a different question. Microsoft office for a mac free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.206.111 (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I found this page very useful in a non-promotional way. Specifically, the fact that the British history VSIs are from the Oxford Illustrated History (of which there is a much newer edition), and that the Past Masters ones are 20-30 years old. --50.100.52.181 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be good if this page had more information about authors and how this body of work came together. I had a cursory look at it and it does seem that this is a very commercially focused product. It's too bad. it's a really great idea as a collection of work. Nimming (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually find this page very helpful since this is the only place (besides the list on Goodreads [here], which has some mistakes) where I can see all the numbering and the 'previously published as'. I corrected some of the new titles, but the numbering after 425 (Plate Tectonics) still needs further confirmation. Zen Light (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are these numbers being sourced from? Neither the web or print publication dates listed on the OUP site match up with the ones in this article. 2602:306:C4CB:4B40:9AFC:11FF:FECD:BFAC (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Every book has a number printed on its spine, which is unfortunately not listed on the official website. Some titles also have the complete numbered list published so far printed at the very end, which you can find on Amazon preview or google book preview. Zen Light (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this page very helpful. Maybe, though, we should make a separate List-class article for all the volumes and then an article about the series. More than 400 items is a lot to put in the body of an article. Pages about television shows with only a few dozen episodes have separate pages to list them. --StringRay (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This article on a product is unsourced, other than to the producer. The producer happens to be an august publisher; if it weren't for this, there probably would have already been calls either (A) to demonstrate noteworthiness via independent commentary or (B) to delete. So where's the independent commentary? -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

15 October 2017 - An editor called Aureliano Babilonia has helpfully removed these two notices. However the article remains a bit of a stub compared to what it could be, especially with the extra commentaries/sources that are available. I will add a note about this below, under 'Additional sources'. Michael Hampson (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

VSI 60 ((William) Shakespeare)[edit]

The original VSI 60 was Germaine Greer's Shakespeare. (I found it a disappointment, not really fitting the VSI concept. Having been carried forward from the Past Masters series, it analysed Shakespeare as a philosopher, and assumed detailed familiarity with all the plays.)

There is a new book in the series, William Shakespeare, by Stanley Wells (much more in line with the VSI concept, giving some background and biography and introductions to all the main works).

Very Short Introduction Oxford Complete Pdf

Having cleverly avoided duplication of titles ('Shakespeare' versus 'William Shakespeare'), OUP then re-uses the series *number* 60, evicting Germaine Greer from the numbered canon. I do not know of this happening to any other title. Perhaps it explains the oddly-worded (presumably computer-generated) note at the top of OUP's VSI page today: 'There are 519 primary works and 518 total works in the Very Short Introductions Series'.

Of course both of these books should be listed here on the Wikipedia main page. I'll let others decide how. Or anyone brave enough can just go ahead and do it.

Here's a photograph of the spines of both books: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/michaelhampson.co.uk/VSI60.jpg

Michael Hampson, 23 September 2017

Thank you. Yes, I just went ahead and did it.

I wonder whether an article on this series is merited. (See below.) If it is merited, I wonder whether the list within it is merited. If the list is merited, it seems odd to me that ISBNs aren't provided. Anyway, I've provided them for this pair as the reader might find them particularly helpful.

Your photograph VSI60 is of interest. I'm no copyright expert but I think that it would not violate the copyright of either OUP or the designer(s) of the covers. If you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, it could be used here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Go right ahead if you wish to use it. I took the picture, so I have the right to say that I waive all rights. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/michaelhampson.co.uk/VSI60.jpg - Michael Hampson, 28 September 2017

Thank you for the friendly gesture, but this would not work. You can upload it yourself. This is likely to be a frustrating experience; but when you've done it once, the second and subsequent uploads become routine and easy.

A commonsense reaction would be 'Oh FFS, this humdrum photo took mere seconds to set up. It has no artistic or other distinction. Anyone could have taken it. So if you want it, stop wasting my time and add it already.' I'd sympathize. But common sense and copyright law are related only tenuously, if at all. -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VSI60.jpgMichael Hampson (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources and potential expansion of article[edit]

The article has been tidied up, and two of the three notices have been removed (thankyou to those responsible, October 2017), but as a result it has become a bit of a stub (ie very short, appropriately or not), and still relies heavily on OUP sources. Might someone like to go ahead and expand it using these additional sources (and any others that anyone can suggest)? This would deal with a whole range of criticisms: stub, noteworthiness, single source, advertisement etc - and could justify the removal of the one remaining notice. Michael Hampson (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The New Yorker (dated 16 October 2017): https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/how-to-be-a-know-it-all

The BBC: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170825-an-easy-way-to-read-more-each-year

Eye Magazine from 2003: http://www.eyemagazine.com/opinion/article/the-learning-brand-50

History Today magazine in November 2009 https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-212105782/a-fairly-short-introduction-to-very-short-introductions

Oxford Today magazine: http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-07-03-very-short-introductions-very-big-success-it-presents-its-500th-subject

The Bookseller magazine https://www.thebookseller.com/news/oups-very-short-introductions-hit-400

And finally .. US Supreme Court Judge Chief Justice John Roberts reads them for pleasure: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-30/chief-justice-says-pop-references-can-help-convey-message

Michael Hampson (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Very Short Introductions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224101632/http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academic/series/general/vsi/9780199590599.do?sortby=pubDateAscend&page=32&thumbby=10&thumbby_crawl=10 to http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academic/series/general/vsi/9780199590599.do?sortby=pubDateAscend&page=32&thumbby=10&thumbby_crawl=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, 'External links modified' talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these 'External links modified' talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}(last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Oxford Very Short Introduction List

Driving games for mac. Things are somewhat different, perhaps, if we look at what has actually been selected in this book. For instance, one may wonder why Allan zooms in on ‘pastoral' as one of his eight genres. Surely, even with the example of Virgil's Eclogues looming large, the genre can hardly be argued to have been so important as to deserve this prominent place. On the other hand, the ancient novel (ch. 9) has very rightly been given a chapter of its own (the scholarly emancipation of the genre finally seems complete), but was it fair to give it just as much, or as little space as the whole of ancient oratory (ch. 6, counting merely 10 pages)?

I hesitate to refer to Allan's academic reputation as a specialist of Greek tragedy and epic, but a reference to this expertise is to be found at the back cover of the book itself. Now does this explain why in this short book poetry seems to be preferred to prose, and Greek literature seems to be dealt with somewhat more lovingly than Roman literature?

In terms of prose, I fail to understand the complete absence of chapters on (Greek) philosophy and (Roman) technical prose. A survey of ancient literature without even a paragraph on Plato's refined dialogues? Nothing on Marcus Aurelius' introspective meditations? No mention of Cicero's philosophical works? And how to explain the total silence on important Roman authors such as Pliny the Elder or Suetonius, to mention some of the most obvious absentees? Even in the smallest of introductions these authors would seem to merit a brief mention.

The list can be prolonged and includes some disturbing names. Let me be clear: the silence on Roman prose authors such as Nepos, Varro, or even Curtius Rufus is a loss that we may graciously accept. But how could Allan leave out a poet of such popularity and influence as Martial? Surely, in the relatively ample and truly fine treatment of Juvenal (p. 112-116), Martial might easily have been named.

On account of these surprising omissions, I find it impossible to prescribe the little volume to my students as their main textbook. It will have to remain a ‘recommended' title, a minor companion to larger textbooks such as Rutherford's. That is a pity, since the small volume contains so much that is sound and good. One may perhaps hope for a second version, in which some of the choices are rethought and some of the imbalances redressed. Out with Pastoral, I would say, and in with a small section on Serious Prose.

As it is, William Allan's short introduction is excellent in what it actually does present: the major names and works of, let us say, the ‘highest genres', and with its pleasant style it is likely to inspire readers to look for further reading. This is particularly welcome for beginning readers, who will greatly profit from the thoughtful observations made by Allan. But there is definitely room for improvement too.

Oxford Short Introductions List

[For a response to this review by William Allan, please see BMCR 2014.08.54.]

Advertisement? List? Noteworthy?[edit]

I don't see how this is any more of an 'advertisement' than any of the other semi-gushing articles on book series in Wikipedia. Sure, it's promoting them, but just writing an article is promoting it in a sense. Again, look at any of the others and explain to me how they're different. BTW, I wrote the original article and I'm not on the payroll of Oxford. Revolver 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Very Short Introduction Oxford Complete Works

Of course it's an advertisement. This 'article' is exactly like a page in the OUP catalog. *Why* you want to write ads or free catalog copy for OUP if you're not on their payroll is a different question. Microsoft office for a mac free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.206.111 (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I found this page very useful in a non-promotional way. Specifically, the fact that the British history VSIs are from the Oxford Illustrated History (of which there is a much newer edition), and that the Past Masters ones are 20-30 years old. --50.100.52.181 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be good if this page had more information about authors and how this body of work came together. I had a cursory look at it and it does seem that this is a very commercially focused product. It's too bad. it's a really great idea as a collection of work. Nimming (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually find this page very helpful since this is the only place (besides the list on Goodreads [here], which has some mistakes) where I can see all the numbering and the 'previously published as'. I corrected some of the new titles, but the numbering after 425 (Plate Tectonics) still needs further confirmation. Zen Light (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are these numbers being sourced from? Neither the web or print publication dates listed on the OUP site match up with the ones in this article. 2602:306:C4CB:4B40:9AFC:11FF:FECD:BFAC (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Every book has a number printed on its spine, which is unfortunately not listed on the official website. Some titles also have the complete numbered list published so far printed at the very end, which you can find on Amazon preview or google book preview. Zen Light (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this page very helpful. Maybe, though, we should make a separate List-class article for all the volumes and then an article about the series. More than 400 items is a lot to put in the body of an article. Pages about television shows with only a few dozen episodes have separate pages to list them. --StringRay (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This article on a product is unsourced, other than to the producer. The producer happens to be an august publisher; if it weren't for this, there probably would have already been calls either (A) to demonstrate noteworthiness via independent commentary or (B) to delete. So where's the independent commentary? -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

15 October 2017 - An editor called Aureliano Babilonia has helpfully removed these two notices. However the article remains a bit of a stub compared to what it could be, especially with the extra commentaries/sources that are available. I will add a note about this below, under 'Additional sources'. Michael Hampson (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

VSI 60 ((William) Shakespeare)[edit]

The original VSI 60 was Germaine Greer's Shakespeare. (I found it a disappointment, not really fitting the VSI concept. Having been carried forward from the Past Masters series, it analysed Shakespeare as a philosopher, and assumed detailed familiarity with all the plays.)

There is a new book in the series, William Shakespeare, by Stanley Wells (much more in line with the VSI concept, giving some background and biography and introductions to all the main works).

Very Short Introduction Oxford Complete Pdf

Having cleverly avoided duplication of titles ('Shakespeare' versus 'William Shakespeare'), OUP then re-uses the series *number* 60, evicting Germaine Greer from the numbered canon. I do not know of this happening to any other title. Perhaps it explains the oddly-worded (presumably computer-generated) note at the top of OUP's VSI page today: 'There are 519 primary works and 518 total works in the Very Short Introductions Series'.

Of course both of these books should be listed here on the Wikipedia main page. I'll let others decide how. Or anyone brave enough can just go ahead and do it.

Here's a photograph of the spines of both books: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/michaelhampson.co.uk/VSI60.jpg

Michael Hampson, 23 September 2017

Thank you. Yes, I just went ahead and did it.

I wonder whether an article on this series is merited. (See below.) If it is merited, I wonder whether the list within it is merited. If the list is merited, it seems odd to me that ISBNs aren't provided. Anyway, I've provided them for this pair as the reader might find them particularly helpful.

Your photograph VSI60 is of interest. I'm no copyright expert but I think that it would not violate the copyright of either OUP or the designer(s) of the covers. If you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, it could be used here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Go right ahead if you wish to use it. I took the picture, so I have the right to say that I waive all rights. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/michaelhampson.co.uk/VSI60.jpg - Michael Hampson, 28 September 2017

Thank you for the friendly gesture, but this would not work. You can upload it yourself. This is likely to be a frustrating experience; but when you've done it once, the second and subsequent uploads become routine and easy.

A commonsense reaction would be 'Oh FFS, this humdrum photo took mere seconds to set up. It has no artistic or other distinction. Anyone could have taken it. So if you want it, stop wasting my time and add it already.' I'd sympathize. But common sense and copyright law are related only tenuously, if at all. -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VSI60.jpgMichael Hampson (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources and potential expansion of article[edit]

The article has been tidied up, and two of the three notices have been removed (thankyou to those responsible, October 2017), but as a result it has become a bit of a stub (ie very short, appropriately or not), and still relies heavily on OUP sources. Might someone like to go ahead and expand it using these additional sources (and any others that anyone can suggest)? This would deal with a whole range of criticisms: stub, noteworthiness, single source, advertisement etc - and could justify the removal of the one remaining notice. Michael Hampson (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The New Yorker (dated 16 October 2017): https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/how-to-be-a-know-it-all

The BBC: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170825-an-easy-way-to-read-more-each-year

Eye Magazine from 2003: http://www.eyemagazine.com/opinion/article/the-learning-brand-50

History Today magazine in November 2009 https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-212105782/a-fairly-short-introduction-to-very-short-introductions

Oxford Today magazine: http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-07-03-very-short-introductions-very-big-success-it-presents-its-500th-subject

The Bookseller magazine https://www.thebookseller.com/news/oups-very-short-introductions-hit-400

And finally .. US Supreme Court Judge Chief Justice John Roberts reads them for pleasure: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-30/chief-justice-says-pop-references-can-help-convey-message

Michael Hampson (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Very Short Introductions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224101632/http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academic/series/general/vsi/9780199590599.do?sortby=pubDateAscend&page=32&thumbby=10&thumbby_crawl=10 to http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academic/series/general/vsi/9780199590599.do?sortby=pubDateAscend&page=32&thumbby=10&thumbby_crawl=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, 'External links modified' talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these 'External links modified' talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}(last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Oxford Very Short Introduction List

Very Short Introduction Oxford Complete

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug) 14:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

For Dummies?[edit]

RubyJester has added a 'See Also' section that includes the following two items:

• For Dummies, a similar series of introductory books
• Rough Guides, whose non-travel books also cover culture and science

Very Short Introduction Oxford Completely

Discuss!--Michael Hampson (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)