Which is not to say that my work doesn’t often have such notes, only that I recognize they’re indulgent and a bad idea. I’ve always felt that the material should either be in the main text–because it’s important–or not be there at all. Endnotes are a pain, as everyone here has already noted–and I wish to echo the people who object to footnotes with any header other than “notes for pages xxx-yyy.”Ī side benefit to footnotes is that it will discourage you from having too many discursive notes, which are really not very good practice. In history, they’re impossible, since it’s hard to cite archival material in text. ![]() I find in-text citations clunky and distracting. ![]() Not surprisingly (since I’m a historian) I agree with Another Damned Medievalist. * A book without references, but with an online hypertext version in which readers who want to chase references can find them. * A further reading section at the end of each chapter, in place of references * Footnotes for explanation only: this leaves open the question of how to deal with references * The standard endnotes setup with explanatory notes and references listed at the end of the book This is much better than the all-footnotes system used, for example, in legal writing.įor a popular book on a technical subject like “Zombie economics”, there are a few options, which can be mashed up in various ways. In academic work, I’m used to the Harvard format where explanatory notes are placed as footnotes, and references cited in the body of the text as “Quiggin (2009)”, then listed in full at the end. To start with, I want to distinguish between explanatory notes, spelling out a point that is marginal to the main text and references giving authority for some claim made in the text, or examples or a person making a claim that I may endorse or criticise. But now that I am writing a book I have to decide whether I have to swallow my pride and use them, and if not, what alternative to adopt.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |