As a former ebook maker, I wonder how to link those page-number refs to the endnotes. That would be a bit of wonky work (i know the folks at PRH making ebooks and they are exemplars of wonkdom; not every house is as lucky). The point being that a well made ebook should have a link from the text to the note and back again, which is easy to do with plain old numbers (text ref 1 goes to note 1, note 1 goes to text ref 1). But how to accomplish that with page numbers and text snippets? There are probably automated ways to do that, but I never reached that level of wonkhood.
I don’t mean to just shrug my unnecessarily mentioned shoulders and say “I dunno,” but in fact I dunno. I especially dunno the extent to which the process was automatic or had to be done by hand. I do know that my colleagues spent a good bit of time doing QC on ebooks before they went out into the world.
I find an acceptable compromise for books of the academic sort with massive citations is to place them at the end of each chapter, if it is unacceptable to have them all at the end of the book. That way a normal reading experience may be enjoyed, with the ability to skip over the mass of notes (possibly spotting the occasional chatty or informational narrative style note).
Useful and well put. Btw, in the para beginning “Superscript numbers, by the bye” you seem to be using two different numbering systems in the embedded list.
I'm embarrassed I didn't notice that. (Good joke.) That is typically relegated to movie comedies with some dork who enumerates reasons, advice, steps, whatever, with "Number one: . . . And B: . . ." etc.
I love footnotes. The more, the merrier. (But I'm not a professional.) My senior thesis in college was a fifty-page essay with 111 footnotes. I've written songs with footnotes. (Okay, song (singular) with footnotes.) (I also (and this is (I'm sure) unsurprising) enjoy nested parentheticals.)
My emails often have footnotes. If there's only one, I'll use an asterisk, but otherwise I tend toward superscript numbers. (Fortunately, they never enter into the thousands.)
As I navigate between being painfully obvious and pointing arrows of explanation at everything I say and, on the other hand, being utterly obscure and esoteric, I decided (correctly or not) that “Too many notes” needs, as they say, no introduction.
I've written a short story collection with footnotes, I confess. It was a sort of homage to Captain W.E. Johns, whose stories would often include footnotes like: "Biggles previously encountered the scar-faced man with the broken nose in 'Biggles and the Corsairs'."
I used to love that sort of stuff when I was a kid, and it made me excited about footnotes generally, for a while.
“…asterisk, dagger, double dagger (or crossed dagger), section sign (which I tend to refer to as “thingie,” since I can never remember what it’s called), parallel lines, and pilcrow (a.k.a. paragraph sign)….”
Sorry, this is apropos of absolutely none of this, but that list reminded me of a doily my mother once crocheted: single crochet, double crochet, treble crochet, double treble crochet, triple treble crochet.
I mean, really. “Triple treble.”
Something about “dagger, double dagger.” I kept looking for “treble dagger”, etc.
Oh, she's fascinating! And the Lambert bio is, as I recall (it's been a long time since I read it, but clearly I liked it enough to want to hold on to it forever), first-rate.
I have mixed preferences regarding footnotes and notes. I'm reading Virginia Woolf's diary and appreciating its footnotes. Her very extensive social, family and professional connections are briefly explained without me having to keep turning to the back of a somewhat unwieldy book - 6.5 inches by 9.5 inches in hardback, whatever that size is, and 400+ pages. I estimate her address book must have been just as large. It's miraculous she had time to write at all.
And with footnotes I need only one bookmark which means other bookmarks aren't falling out, which would be a nuisance.
But reading the notes at the end can be a pleasure on its own, like reading an index.
Is past midnight and my ability to focus isn’t what it ought to be, so my thoughts wandered to your use of “hearken back” which per M-W dates from 1900 while “hark back” dates from 1824 so (just wondering) why would one choose the newer version over the older one? Again, nothing to do with your very fine thoughts about notes.
As a former ebook maker, I wonder how to link those page-number refs to the endnotes. That would be a bit of wonky work (i know the folks at PRH making ebooks and they are exemplars of wonkdom; not every house is as lucky). The point being that a well made ebook should have a link from the text to the note and back again, which is easy to do with plain old numbers (text ref 1 goes to note 1, note 1 goes to text ref 1). But how to accomplish that with page numbers and text snippets? There are probably automated ways to do that, but I never reached that level of wonkhood.
I don’t mean to just shrug my unnecessarily mentioned shoulders and say “I dunno,” but in fact I dunno. I especially dunno the extent to which the process was automatic or had to be done by hand. I do know that my colleagues spent a good bit of time doing QC on ebooks before they went out into the world.
I find an acceptable compromise for books of the academic sort with massive citations is to place them at the end of each chapter, if it is unacceptable to have them all at the end of the book. That way a normal reading experience may be enjoyed, with the ability to skip over the mass of notes (possibly spotting the occasional chatty or informational narrative style note).
I find that very college-textbooky, but better that, certainly, than filling every text page with citations and other unreadable stuff.
1. Whew
Noted.
Useful and well put. Btw, in the para beginning “Superscript numbers, by the bye” you seem to be using two different numbering systems in the embedded list.
Oh, that’s just one of my little running gags, and I get to see who’s paying attention!
I'm embarrassed I didn't notice that. (Good joke.) That is typically relegated to movie comedies with some dork who enumerates reasons, advice, steps, whatever, with "Number one: . . . And B: . . ." etc.
Well, I like to think that I can outdork any mere movie comedy dork!
Ah, I thought it must be a joke, but the point wasn’t clear from the context so I thought I’d mention it. Thanks.
I love footnotes. The more, the merrier. (But I'm not a professional.) My senior thesis in college was a fifty-page essay with 111 footnotes. I've written songs with footnotes. (Okay, song (singular) with footnotes.) (I also (and this is (I'm sure) unsurprising) enjoy nested parentheticals.)
My emails often have footnotes. If there's only one, I'll use an asterisk, but otherwise I tend toward superscript numbers. (Fortunately, they never enter into the thousands.)
I love how how you've attributed the title quotation without, as far as I could see, actually mentioning it.
As I navigate between being painfully obvious and pointing arrows of explanation at everything I say and, on the other hand, being utterly obscure and esoteric, I decided (correctly or not) that “Too many notes” needs, as they say, no introduction.
Again I'm slow. Oh, well, that explains the cover photo.
I've written a short story collection with footnotes, I confess. It was a sort of homage to Captain W.E. Johns, whose stories would often include footnotes like: "Biggles previously encountered the scar-faced man with the broken nose in 'Biggles and the Corsairs'."
I used to love that sort of stuff when I was a kid, and it made me excited about footnotes generally, for a while.
I'm always somewhat disappointed when none of the citational notes include "backwater niblets", especially in biographies.
(Pre-ordered Elizabeth McGovern's book earlier this week and look forward to hearing/reading your conversation with her.)
“…asterisk, dagger, double dagger (or crossed dagger), section sign (which I tend to refer to as “thingie,” since I can never remember what it’s called), parallel lines, and pilcrow (a.k.a. paragraph sign)….”
Sorry, this is apropos of absolutely none of this, but that list reminded me of a doily my mother once crocheted: single crochet, double crochet, treble crochet, double treble crochet, triple treble crochet.
I mean, really. “Triple treble.”
Something about “dagger, double dagger.” I kept looking for “treble dagger”, etc.
It seems I need to know considerably more about Nazimova and, I think, right away.
Thanks again, Benjamin. And Sallie.
Oh, she's fascinating! And the Lambert bio is, as I recall (it's been a long time since I read it, but clearly I liked it enough to want to hold on to it forever), first-rate.
I have mixed preferences regarding footnotes and notes. I'm reading Virginia Woolf's diary and appreciating its footnotes. Her very extensive social, family and professional connections are briefly explained without me having to keep turning to the back of a somewhat unwieldy book - 6.5 inches by 9.5 inches in hardback, whatever that size is, and 400+ pages. I estimate her address book must have been just as large. It's miraculous she had time to write at all.
And with footnotes I need only one bookmark which means other bookmarks aren't falling out, which would be a nuisance.
But reading the notes at the end can be a pleasure on its own, like reading an index.
Is past midnight and my ability to focus isn’t what it ought to be, so my thoughts wandered to your use of “hearken back” which per M-W dates from 1900 while “hark back” dates from 1824 so (just wondering) why would one choose the newer version over the older one? Again, nothing to do with your very fine thoughts about notes.