Book notes

[gcdugas]

I'm torn. At times I prefer end notes because you don't stray from the author's pedagogical flow and I don't get tempted to go down rabbit trails. Other times I prefer footnotes because the info is available instantly at a glance. Particularly when it is just citing an outside source etc. What do you think?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Footnotes. I hate it when Google preview shows a book that uses endnotes and those pages are not in the prefer!

 

[ZackF]

End notes. Footnotes clutter up things.

For example I going through Assimil’s “German with Ease”. The grammar notes are important but they clutter up the pages leaving less room for the text in language. I would prefer the notes be at the end of the manual or at least the end of a weeks lessons. All of the Assimil books are irritatingly laid out that way. This makes for much more flipping while your trying to listen to the target language. It is not as if one is going to reading grammar instructions while listening.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Yes and corrected it seconds after I posted.

 

[Logan]

It depends. If the notes contain information that are of interest (or commentary) then footnotes are preferable to having to flip back and forth to the end.

If it is information like due diligence sources that only a narrow subset of scholars will ever care about, get them out of the way of the vast majority of readers by sticking them in end notes.

The absolute worst are the chapter end notes. Having to find a small section at the end of the chapter (rather than a large section at the end of the book) is a pain.

 

[gcdugas]

It depends. If the notes contain information that are of interest (or commentary) then footnotes are preferable to having to flip back and forth to the end.

If it is information like sources that few people except due diligence that only a narrow subset of scholars will ever care about, get them out of the way of the vast majority of readers by sticking them in end notes.

The absolute worst are the chapter end notes. Having to find a small section at the end of the chapter (rather than a large section at the end of the book) is a pain.

Wow. Maybe we need to break it up into three options, footnotes, chapter end notes and book end notes.

 

[ZackF]

None of us agree. The poor publishers. In the future, electronic books should allow one to set his preferences.

 

[iainduguid]

The choice is invariably by the publisher not the author. The dictum I grew up with was "Authors (and readers) prefer footnotes; publishers prefer endnotes". This was particularly true prior to computerization. I'm sympathetic to Logan's distinction: there is some information that is necessary (for copyright reasons etc) but not really relevant to the reader. That goes better in an endnote. But if you want people to read it (which most authors do, otherwise why have the footnote?) then footnotes are undoubtedly better. Both are infinitely preferable to the awful MLA style.

 

[Polanus1561]

No problem for Logos books which displays notes on touch

 

[Jack K]

It should depend on the book and its likely reader. Although endnotes are usually easier for a publisher to deal with, ideally the author and publisher should put themselves in the mind of their reader and choose whatever option they think most helpful to the reader, not to themselves. This means that a highly academic book, for instance, should probably use footnotes because the reader will more likely appreciate being able to see something like source citations at a glance. But in a popular-level book, the reader will probably prefer an uncluttered page that puts citations in the back.

A skillful writer or editor will be aware of whether the book is using footnotes or endnotes and will also adjust the main text accordingly. In a book with endnotes, for example, it's usually unhelpful (and lazy writing) for an author to use notes to make side comments on what he's written. An author should either find a way to include the side comment in the main text (if he deems the comment worthy) or else leave it out entirely (if it is unworthy). He shouldn't make the reader hunt for a side comment in the back of the book. He should use endnotes only for necessary source citations and other material he doesn't really expect readers to look up and doesn't care if they read or not.

Along these same lines, an author using endnotes might decide to give a tad more information in the main text than he might if there were footnotes right there on the same page. Let's say the author is making a point he borrowed from Calvin. Knowing that his full source citation will be in the endnotes, the author might choose to introduce his point with a phrase like, "John Calvin wrote in his Institutes that..." In this case, the author has judged that it's appropriate and/or helpful to give credit to Calvin and to quickly tell the reader, who might be curious, which of Calvin's works contains that point. The reader is served by getting just enough information without the clutter that comes from having a full source citation on that page.

So you see, it isn't just a matter of footnotes or endnotes being better. A good book will choose with the reader in mind and then adjust where necessary to make that choice always work for the reader.

There are even books where I've used both endnotes and footnotes. These were the sort of books where source citations worked best as numbered endnotes. But these books also contained a few spots where other helpful information needed to be more visible than endnotes yet still worked best as a note rather than as part of the main text—so that material went in as asterisked footnotes.

The overriding rule should not be to blindly apply one choice or the other, but to do what it takes to serve the reader.

 

[Taylor]

At times I prefer end notes because you don't stray from the author's pedagogical flow and I don't get tempted to go down rabbit trails.

Let no man say when he is tempted to rabbit trails, I am tempted of the author: for the author cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own scholarly lust, and enticed.

 

[py3ak]

In a book with endnotes, for example, it's usually unhelpful (and lazy writing) for an author to use notes to make side comments on what he's written. An author should either find a way to include the side comment in the main text (if he deems the comment worthy) or else leave it out entirely (if it is unworthy).

I come to this point of view more and more. Citing your sources for rigor and honesty is good, and Jaroslav Pelikan found a good and unobtrusive way to do that which does not interrupt the flow of the text; but his citations are strictly of sources. Footnotes (or mini-essay endnotes) are often a way to shoehorn in irrelevant remarks that pad your word count or make you seem more learned.

Some ancient texts need footnotes in order to elucidate things for today's reader; but when an author writes his own footnotes, there's room for much more ruthless pruning than usually happens.

 

[VictorBravo]

Footnotes (or mini-essay endnotes) are often a way to shoehorn in irrelevant remarks that pad your word count or make you seem more learned.

I like "discursions" for those stray mini-essays. Sometimes they are formatted in a sidebar; other times at the end of a chapter. Makes it easy to know what you are getting.

But I always call them divertimenti in my mind. .

 

[py3ak]

I like "discursions" for those stray mini-essays. Sometimes they are formatted in a sidebar; other times at the end of a chapter. Makes it easy to know what you are getting.

But I always call them divertimenti in my mind. .

Dr. Venema has a whole classification system--aside, footnote, sidebar, digression.

 

[jwithnell]

I like footnotes. If an author is new to me, my willingness to accept his conclusions will be, in part, measured by his sources. As for "sidebar" information, if I'm really digging into a subject, the extra info is helpful.