NF Footnotes - or endnotes?

[Eleanor Rose]

@luinrina, I enjoy reading through detailed explanatory notes at the end of a book. It almost always leads me to read another book or article.

 

[luinrina]

I have read books in which the author puts the appropriate notes and bibliography and the end of each chapter.

I've never before seen such a format. Are there still footnotes within the next like in other books, only the sources are listed at the end of the chapter instead of at the end of the book? Do you have a title as an example?

I'm not sure I'd be happy with such a book. Wouldn't the bibliography especially be pretty much the same for all chapters (if we take one of Rhea's series as an example)? I think I'd then rather have the bibliography at the end of the book instead of after each chapter. But I could of course be totally wrong as I'm having some difficulties imagining it.

Such a format would be a feasible option if it's a collection of essays on the same topic by different writers, though.

On e-books, footnotes are by far the best because navigating back and forth between text and notes can be confusing.

I agree, footnotes in ebooks are great. Just a couple clicks and voila. Easier than flipping back and forth in printed books.

 

[Jimklag]

I've never before seen such a format. Are there still footnotes within the next like in other books, only the sources are listed at the end of the chapter instead of at the end of the book? Do you have a title as an example?

I'm not sure I'd be happy with such a book. Wouldn't the bibliography especially be pretty much the same for all chapters (if we take one of Rhea's series as an example)? I think I'd then rather have the bibliography at the end of the book instead of after each chapter. But I could of course be totally wrong as I'm having some difficulties imagining it.

Such a format would be a feasible option if it's a collection of essays on the same topic by different writers, though.

The genre I have seen this in most is a book of essays or shorter articles such as almost every book edited b Gary Gallagher. He will take a major campaign and divide into sections with a different historian writing each essay.

 

[luinrina]

Since the vast majority of readers do not look at footnotes (or only one or two of them), I think most readers prefer them at the end of the book. When I start to read a book whose notes matter to me, I place my bookmark at the proper place in the endnotes and have no problem finding the correct note when I want to check. What I do not like is having only one note number at the end of each paragraph and that number referring to many sources -- facts should be noted, not paragraphs.

I do that too with the second bookmark; makes the flipping forth quicker. But it's still a nuisance IMO.

Your post got me thinking: How do you read books like Rhea's for example? Do you stop and read the sources whenever you encounter a footnote or do you just read the narrative and ignore the footnotes for now, leaving them for later? I'm hesitant doing that as I'm afraid I'll miss some interesting background information in-between the sources. On the other hand, if I read the notes later, I could always go back to the chapter and find the place again where the footnote was made.

 

[luinrina]

What I really dislike are foot/endnotes that have several citations for one paragraph. Now I have to figure out which one is the source.

Not sure I fully understand what you mean. Do you mean the following? E.g. Rhea writes a longer paragraph with several things happening, like Grant contemplating attack strategies, Meade having a fit over Sheridan galloping off with the cavalry, and Hancock ordering his men to dig in. At the end of that paragraph is a footnote. In that footnote then are listed three sources, but each source is only for one of the things happening in the paragraph?

My newest book will have some hybrid that has parenthesis with the source and page # right after the statement.

That is also an option, but I suppose it depends on how much citing you do. If you cite after every sentence, I think the text would feel quite disjointed. If you only cite after every other paragraph or so, it could be quite viable. Good luck with your book!

 

[DaveBrt]

Your post got me thinking: How do you read books like Rhea's for example? Do you stop and read the sources whenever you encounter a footnote or do you just read the narrative and ignore the footnotes for now, leaving them for later? I'm hesitant doing that as I'm afraid I'll miss some interesting background information in-between the sources. On the other hand, if I read the notes later, I could always go back to the chapter and find the place again where the footnote was made.

If I want to check the source, which is rare, I will do so at once so that the fact and the source are connected in my memory.

 

[DaveBrt]

Not sure I fully understand what you mean. Do you mean the following? E.g. Rhea writes a longer paragraph with several things happening, like Grant contemplating attack strategies, Meade having a fit over Sheridan galloping off with the cavalry, and Hancock ordering his men to dig in. At the end of that paragraph is a footnote. In that footnote then are listed three sources, but each source is only for one of the things happening in the paragraph?

Yes, though in your example, they may all be from one source. I am really upset when there are six or eight references with no clarity as to which goes with which fact.

 

[luinrina]

@luinrina, I enjoy reading through detailed explanatory notes at the end of a book. It almost always leads me to read another book or article.

Me too, Ellie. Freeman's explanatory notes are sometimes more interesting than the narrative itself, as were Bud Robertson's notes in the Stonewall bio.

 

[JOHN42768]

Preference would be on bottom of each page. end of chapter or unit and lastly at end of book. If something strikes you while reading I want to check it while still fresh in my thoughts. If it might be technical or specifications, the end of the chapter or unit is best. End of book if I want to research further into question.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

Since the vast majority of readers do not look at footnotes (or only one or two of them), I think most readers prefer them at the end of the book.

Good point. There are some books that I have read every footnote which is why I prefer on the page.

 

[Deleted User CS]

I concur with the majority of posters whereby footnotes should be at the bottom of the page. My computer automatically does it for me. I think a proper bibliography broken up into sections for primary and secondary sources is also important. The primary source bibliography should be very precise in identifying the materials cited in the text. Some authors just simply name the collection instead of specifically indicating the file from which the citation originated from. David.

 

[mofederal]

I prefer footnotes, unless there is an extra long footnote, and I have seen some very long ones. The advantage is you can see the footnote immediately and read it and continue on in the book.

 

[Yankeedave]

Footnotes. But copious amounts of either will do. And maybe allow for enough context to be gathered by the reader. Lots a reforence material.

 

[huskerblitz]

I don't mind footnotes if they are kept relatively small. Otherwise, it is really distracting to the text and would just be better as endnotes. I honestly don't mind endnotes and flipping...keeps reading fluid and then all of the notes are together in one location.

 

[Pat Young]

I am in a field (law) where footnotes are extremely common and I hate them. Sometimes there is only a line or two of text and then just note after note.

I much prefer endnotes.

 

[GrantCottage1885]

After a chapter or two I can usually get a feel for how the author is using the sources and the general validity of sources selected. I care less about whether it's endnotes or footnotes only that they are well used. That being said I have found some endnote systems horribly inefficient, leading to me having to number the pages myself (ahem Chernow's Grant). I like the system occasionally used where the endnotes have page span delineations for quicker reference (as opposed to simply chapter number or name). I have also had books where the footnotes took over the pages and seemed more distracting, especially to the casual reader. Annotated works are of course where footnotes make the most sense. Since I read pretty much exclusively non-fiction all of my books are "reference" books and so I appreciate good clear primary sources cited, you would expect this of a scholarly work to prove primary source review, I do not like having to waste my time going through multiple secondary sources to trace the primary (ahem Chernow's Grant). Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

 

[MaryDee]

A footnote fan here. I detest having to use two bookmarks and flip back and forth between text and endnotes! That goes extra if the author includes extensive comments in the endnotes, which some do. (Personally, I'd rather see those comments in the main text.) One of the worst examples is Coddington's The Gettysburg Campaign, in which some of the comments in the footnotes (especially about Dan Sickles) are more interesting than the main text and should not be missed. However, Coddington is not otherwise a good example, since it was written well before the advent of the personal computer---we can't blame the author or his ten-fingered typists or the publisher for using endnotes!

With modern manuscripts being generated on a computer, having footnotes at the bottom of the page is no longer the horrendous typing chore it was when I was back in college (1950s) typing on a manual portable typewriter (especially the semester when I had to write five term papers). The computer does it all!

I believe that in most instances it's the publisher that determines the format.

 

[Yankeedave]

I find myself having to label my book markers.

 

[jackt62]

With footnotes, it is very easy to glance down on the page to see a citation. Not so with endnotes. For convenience, I usually don't refer to endnotes until I complete a full chapter. In any case, footnotes or endnotes are an absolute must for any historical work.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I MUCH prefer footnotes, and have been quite insistent that all of my recent books be published with footnotes rather than with endnotes. A review of my published books since about 2010 will indicate that they pretty much all have footnotes and not endnotes.