Book Reviews 185 to special-collections materials—specific information that is often why the material is special in the first place—from users, and highlight the need for special-collections professionals to take an active role in cata- log development to prevent this. The authors go on to discuss the in- creasing standardization, after an absence thereof, of archival descriptive standards via DACS (Describing Archives: A Content Standard) and EAD (Encoded Archival Description), and the commercial and open-source software solutions available to museums to publicize description of collections most often relegated to internal databases. Additionally, the authors discuss the ability to harvest and share metadata and the use of “social cataloging” to make searching across digital collections possible. Chapter 6 focuses on “digital preser- vation 2.0.” Here, the authors note that cultural heritage professionals “have a unique viewpoint and skill set that equips them to take on the challenge of preserving digital materials,” and that the community must be part of the digital preservation movement, particularly for 2.0 materials, which are dynamic, rather than static. The many issues in this area, including those of mass digitization, copy- right, and cost and scale of projects, are addressed, with an exhortation at the end: … when will cultural heritage professionals, the people who will, ultimately, be responsible for the long-term preservation of dynamic materials, acknowledge the ele- phant in the room? … If the cultural heritage community does not make a concerted effort to catch up, we are in danger of losing a significant part of our history, as surely as if we were burning family papers after the death of a loved one[.] Appendix 2, “A Digital Preservation Primer,” provides practical advice on achieving the above, with lists and de- scriptions of tools and services available to facilitate digital preservation. Special Collections 2.0 is well written, reaching those with little knowledge of Web 2.0 technologies without condescend- ing to those more experienced in Web 2.0; extensive bibliographies of both print and online resources close each chapter. This book is vital reading for current and future special-collections professionals: not merely as a guide to improving col- lection access and promotion, but as an exhortation to become a driving force in the larger Library 2.0 effort.—Deborah DeGeorge, University of Michigan. Brent L. Pickett. Historical Dictionary of Homosexuality. Lanham, Md.: Scare- crow, 2009. 280p. alk. paper, $85 (ISBN 9780810859791). LC 2009-004763. The central dilemma confronting an author of a reference work on homosexuality is the inherent historicity of sex and gender categories. How can one assemble a com- prehensive dictionary of homosexuality if the category itself is historically contin- gent? Pickett, a political science professor at University of Wyoming/Casper College Center, acknowledges this challenge in his introduction, pointing to the difficulty of “identifying the precise scope of the sub- ject matter…the apparently simple ques- tion of what counts as homosexuality ends up being extraordinarily complex” (xxxi). Pickett deals with this complexity by draw- ing some rather stark lines. For example, he excludes coverage of transgender and transsexual histories on the grounds that sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct categories with distinct histories. And yet, the Stonewall rebellion—led largely by transsexuals and transvestites, though largely marshaled to explain gay and lesbian history—receives coverage, as do berdache, transsexual, and trans- vestite. Even for Pickett, the boundaries cannot hold. Despite this (perhaps inescapable) weakness, Pickett’s historical dictionary will fill a need in smaller collections that do not support LGBT or Queer studies programs but do want to provide stu- dents with a general reference text about 186 College & Research Libraries March 2010 homosexuality across time and place. The bulk of the book consists of 200 pages of alphabetical entries that range from key figures (Radclyffe Hall, Michel Foucault), organizations (Mattachine Society, Log Cabin Republicans), and moments (Stone- wall, the passage of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) in LGBT history, as well as more general references tied by Pickett to the subject. For example, Pickett includes entries for individual countries, including China and Great Britain, and briefly sketches the historical trajectory of LGBT lives, laws, and rights in each. Entries are brief but substantial enough to provide useful framing for students seeking brief intro- ductions to topics in this field. Pickett’s supplementary materials are perhaps as valuable as the entries them- selves. The front of the book features a list of relevant acronyms and a useful chronology that indicates the author’s em- phasis on legal milestones and progressive history in six brief pages. A bibliography follows the entries. Pickett helpfully or- ganizes his list of references by subject, and while his selection of key texts would certainly spark debate among scholars (Pickett’s references are overwhelmingly drawn from U.S. theorists and historians, for example), they will provide beginners with a solid orientation to many of the touchstone publications in this rapidly ex- panding field. Print bibliographies quickly become obsolete, of course, but Pickett’s culling of texts to 2008 will itself constitute a useful historical document. In an era when print reference texts are a hard sell in any context, the real value of a subject dictionary like this one is the access it gives researchers to authoritative, objective snapshots of a field of study. And perhaps this is why many reference texts are produced not by single authors but by editors who seek contributions from a cross- section of scholars and researchers. The need for multiple perspectives is particular- ly acute for a field as interdisciplinary and evolving as lesbian and gay history. Writ- ten by a political scientist writing in a U.S. context, this dictionary unavoidably bears the marks of its author’s position: Interna- tional histories are told in comparison to a progressive political narrative particular to U.S. gay history, and coverage of literary, cultural, and theoretical issues suffers from what some might see as an overemphasis on key people and organizations involved in political struggles for equal rights. The Historical Dictionary of Homosexuality presents a fairly narrow perspective that is best supplemented by a broader work like Marc Stein’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered History in America (Cengage, 2003) or David Gerstner’s International Encyclopedia of Queer Culture (Routledge, 2006).—Emily Drabinski, Long Island University, Brooklyn Campus. James Kearney. The Incarnate Text: Imag- ining the Book in Reformation England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl- vania Press, 2009. 328p. alk. paper, $65 (ISBN 9780812241587). LC 2008-050863. After finishing James Kearney’s The Incar- nate Text, several powerful passages linger, but one more than the rest. Laying the groundwork for the idea of the “incarnate text,” Kearney expounds on a sermon preached by the Bishop of Rochester, John Fisher, around 1531–1534. In dramatic fashion, Fisher likens the crucifixion of Christ to a vellum manuscript book. The boards, or covers of the books, comprise the cross. The vellum leaves, the “blessid body of Christ” (5). The ink strokes of the text, the lashes on Christ’s skin. The red ink used for capital letters, the blood from Christ’s wounds. The comparison is star- tling. As Kearney notes, modern readers live in a time when the book is viewed as “a vehicle for the transmission of text” not “an instrument and not an icon,” not “a part of the world of bodies and things” (6). The audience for Fisher ’s sermon, whether hearing his words or reading them in print, would have understood the comparison, but perhaps would not have know how to act on it. At that time, the Protestant Reformation was boiling on the Continent and simmering in England. The idea of “sola scripture” or “scripture alone”