The Anatomist: A True Story of Gray's Anatomy
When I started reading “The Anatomist: A True Story of Gray's Anatomy” I didn't find it interesting, I don't know if it was because it was a book about another book or because I thought it was going to be like Gray's Anatomy the show but it wasn't. However, the first thing I noticed about this book was the illustrations, they were magnificent. The bibliography was the other thing I noticed, I always knew that you needed sources to make a good book, but Bill Hayes had eight pages of sources! This made it where I could trust that the things I read within this book were correct. The facts in this book are true. Hayes set out to write a biography of Henry Gray, of “Gray's Anatomy", he discovered close …show more content…
It is amazing that he did everything he could to get the information he needed for this book. In trying to understand what Henry Gray did, Hayes put himself through Anatomical Dissection classes, getting a "feel " for the raw material which Gray and Carter transferred to paper. He definitely shifts back and forth between the two narratives. At some point this made it hard for me to understand who he was talking about, but then it got easier. Through out the book Hayes often used analogies such as: “The building was set well back from the street, and, just as the ear canal leads to the eardrum, one passed through a long, narrow alley before reaching the main door.” If he didn't use the analogies it would have been harder to comprehend what he was talking about. So, I'm grateful for him taking the time to write the book so that even if you don't know anything about anatomy you can still understand it. While reading through the book I got the sense that what Hayes wrote about mostly coincided with what Henry Carter wrote in his diaries. Though in the book title it says “A True Story of Gray's Anatomy” I feel that I hardly learned anything about Henry Gray. I learned more but Henry Carter
When I started reading “The Anatomist: A True Story of Gray's Anatomy” I didn't find it interesting, I don't know if it was because it was a book about another book or because I thought it was going to be like Gray's Anatomy the show but it wasn't. However, the first thing I noticed about this book was the illustrations, they were magnificent. The bibliography was the other thing I noticed, I always knew that you needed sources to make a good book, but Bill Hayes had eight pages of sources! This made it where I could trust that the things I read within this book were correct. The facts in this book are true. Hayes set out to write a biography of Henry Gray, of “Gray's Anatomy", he discovered close …show more content…
It is amazing that he did everything he could to get the information he needed for this book. In trying to understand what Henry Gray did, Hayes put himself through Anatomical Dissection classes, getting a "feel " for the raw material which Gray and Carter transferred to paper. He definitely shifts back and forth between the two narratives. At some point this made it hard for me to understand who he was talking about, but then it got easier. Through out the book Hayes often used analogies such as: “The building was set well back from the street, and, just as the ear canal leads to the eardrum, one passed through a long, narrow alley before reaching the main door.” If he didn't use the analogies it would have been harder to comprehend what he was talking about. So, I'm grateful for him taking the time to write the book so that even if you don't know anything about anatomy you can still understand it. While reading through the book I got the sense that what Hayes wrote about mostly coincided with what Henry Carter wrote in his diaries. Though in the book title it says “A True Story of Gray's Anatomy” I feel that I hardly learned anything about Henry Gray. I learned more but Henry Carter