NF Footnotes - or endnotes?

[luinrina]

I think everyone agrees that footnotes are a must for a good book on the ACW. We like to trace the source of information, and see for ourselves whether we come to the same conclusion as the author or not. And sometimes footnotes contain not only the sources but background information that wouldn't have fitted in the actual text.

There's an old thread about footnotes in the Ballot Box forum, but I decided to start a new thread instead of posting in the old one as I want to expand the discussion.

As readers, what are your preferences regarding footnotes? Do you like them at the bottom of the page or at the end of the book?

I personally prefer them at the bottom of the page as it is easier and quicker to find both the footnote and where I stopped in the text to continue reading. If I have to flip to the end of the book, it's much more cumbersome IMO and takes up more time. It's especially a hassle when I read in the tram and have to keep a finger in the page I'm reading or losing the page (or the bookmark).

What about our authors: Do you prefer writing the footnotes at the bottom of the page or at the end of the book, and why?

How much say does the publisher have in footnotes vs. endnotes? Or is that solely a decision made by the author?

I've been wondering about that one especially. I'm currently reading Rhea's Overland Campaign series and was pretty surprised that whilst The Wilderness still had footnotes, Spotsylvania / Yellow Tavern is now sporting endnotes. A glance in the other books of the series promise more endnotes to come. While endnotes are better than no notes at all, I now often wonder why Rhea didn't stick with footnotes at the bottom of the pages. It would make reading his books much easier for me. But was that solely his decision or did the publisher order a switch to endnotes?

What are your preferences – as readers and/or as authors? Looking forward to the discussion.

 

[CSA Today]

I think everyone agrees that footnotes are a must for a good book on the ACW. We like to trace the source of information, and see for ourselves whether we come to the same conclusion as the author or not. And sometimes footnotes contain not only the sources but background information that wouldn't have fitted in the actual text.

There's an old thread about footnotes in the Ballot Box forum, but I decided to start a new thread instead of posting in the old one as I want to expand the discussion.

As readers, what are your preferences regarding footnotes? Do you like them at the bottom of the page or at the end of the book?

I personally prefer them at the bottom of the page as it is easier and quicker to find both the footnote and where I stopped in the text to continue reading. If I have to flip to the end of the book, it's much more cumbersome IMO and takes up more time. It's especially a hassle when I read in the tram and have to keep a finger in the page I'm reading or losing the page (or the bookmark).

What about our authors: Do you prefer writing the footnotes at the bottom of the page or at the end of the book, and why?

How much say does the publisher have in footnotes vs. endnotes? Or is that solely a decision made by the author?

I've been wondering about that one especially. I'm currently reading Rhea's Overland Campaign series and was pretty surprised that whilst The Wilderness still had footnotes, Spotsylvania / Yellow Tavern is now sporting endnotes. A glance in the other books of the series promise more endnotes to come. While endnotes are better than no notes at all, I now often wonder why Rhea didn't stick with footnotes at the bottom of the pages. It would make reading his books much easier for me. But was that solely his decision or did the publisher order a switch to endnotes?

What are your preferences – as readers and/or as authors? Looking forward to the discussion.

I prefer footnotes endnotes for their convenience, for publishers, especially the more recent, endnotes appear to be more convenient.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

As a reader I prefer footnotes simply for the convenience.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

I prefer footnotes since they are on the same page I am currently reading. There is usually good information in the footnotes/endnotes beyond the sources of information.

 

[John Winn]

I prefer footnotes also because I don't have to keep flipping pages.

 

[Coonewah Creek]

I prefer footnotes too, but I suspect that part of the shift to endnotes is that it's easier to convert to e-book format using endnotes. After all, e-books have no true "bottom of page" so where you placed them within an e-book would still appear a bit arbitrary depending what format and reader you were using. The e-book would still use a "hot-link" to and from the endnote just like it would the footnote so you could read it in a pop-up or whatever by using the link function. Just my 2-cents...

 

[luinrina]

I prefer footnotes too, but I suspect that part of the shift to endnotes is that it's easier to convert to e-book format using endnotes. After all, e-books have no true "bottom of page" so where you placed them within an e-book would still appear a bit arbitrary depending what format and reader you were using. The e-book would still use a "hot-link" to and from the endnote just like it would the footnote so you could read it in a pop-up or whatever by using the link function. Just my 2-cents...

Good point. I honestly hadn't considered where ebooks come in. It definitely makes sense that endnotes are easier for ebook conversions. I think one could still have a printed version with footnotes and an ebook version with endnotes, but I suppose the layouting is cost-intensive and publishers don't want to do the work twice if they can have it done once and publish both printed and ebook from that.

 

[Virginia Dave]

I think everyone agrees that footnotes are a must for a good book on the ACW. We like to trace the source of information, and see for ourselves whether we come to the same conclusion as the author or not. And sometimes footnotes contain not only the sources but background information that wouldn't have fitted in the actual text.

There's an old thread about footnotes in the Ballot Box forum, but I decided to start a new thread instead of posting in the old one as I want to expand the discussion.

As readers, what are your preferences regarding footnotes? Do you like them at the bottom of the page or at the end of the book?

I personally prefer them at the bottom of the page as it is easier and quicker to find both the footnote and where I stopped in the text to continue reading. If I have to flip to the end of the book, it's much more cumbersome IMO and takes up more time. It's especially a hassle when I read in the tram and have to keep a finger in the page I'm reading or losing the page (or the bookmark).

What about our authors: Do you prefer writing the footnotes at the bottom of the page or at the end of the book, and why?

How much say does the publisher have in footnotes vs. endnotes? Or is that solely a decision made by the author?

I've been wondering about that one especially. I'm currently reading Rhea's Overland Campaign series and was pretty surprised that whilst The Wilderness still had footnotes, Spotsylvania / Yellow Tavern is now sporting endnotes. A glance in the other books of the series promise more endnotes to come. While endnotes are better than no notes at all, I now often wonder why Rhea didn't stick with footnotes at the bottom of the pages. It would make reading his books much easier for me. But was that solely his decision or did the publisher order a switch to endnotes?

What are your preferences – as readers and/or as authors? Looking forward to the discussion.

I prefer them at the bottom of the page. Good footnotes are a must for any reliable book.

 

[redbob]

I prefer foot notes, because by the time that I've found the proper place in the end notes; I've forgotten what I'm looking for.

 

[Jimklag]

Footnotes are less work than end notes and I'm naturally lazy. Actually, whether footnotes or end notes, as long as the note leads to the source and the actual text being cited, either is fine with me.

 

[Saint Jude]

As a scholar, I like footnotes at the bottom of the page. However, if a book is a work of narrative non-fiction, I think they are better at the end so they don't interrupt the flow of the story. As a former professional editor, I understand why publishers prefer to put the notes in a separate section. (It's also easier on the editor!)

 

[Jimklag]

I have read books in which the author puts the appropriate notes and bibliography and the end of each chapter. I think this would be my favorite format. It breaks the book up into smaller sections and organizes the reading. On e-books, footnotes are by far the best because navigating back and forth between text and notes can be confusing.

 

[Liberty and Secession]

I think everyone agrees that footnotes are a must for a good book on the ACW. We like to trace the source of information, and see for ourselves whether we come to the same conclusion as the author or not. And sometimes footnotes contain not only the sources but background information that wouldn't have fitted in the actual text.

There's an old thread about footnotes in the Ballot Box forum, but I decided to start a new thread instead of posting in the old one as I want to expand the discussion.

As readers, what are your preferences regarding footnotes? Do you like them at the bottom of the page or at the end of the book?

I personally prefer them at the bottom of the page as it is easier and quicker to find both the footnote and where I stopped in the text to continue reading. If I have to flip to the end of the book, it's much more cumbersome IMO and takes up more time. It's especially a hassle when I read in the tram and have to keep a finger in the page I'm reading or losing the page (or the bookmark).

What about our authors: Do you prefer writing the footnotes at the bottom of the page or at the end of the book, and why?

How much say does the publisher have in footnotes vs. endnotes? Or is that solely a decision made by the author?

I've been wondering about that one especially. I'm currently reading Rhea's Overland Campaign series and was pretty surprised that whilst The Wilderness still had footnotes, Spotsylvania / Yellow Tavern is now sporting endnotes. A glance in the other books of the series promise more endnotes to come. While endnotes are better than no notes at all, I now often wonder why Rhea didn't stick with footnotes at the bottom of the pages. It would make reading his books much easier for me. But was that solely his decision or did the publisher order a switch to endnotes?

What are your preferences – as readers and/or as authors? Looking forward to the discussion.

For me it depends on the footnotes. Some authors go into very detailed explanatory notes to accompany citations, so if the notes get really long or there are a lot of citations, I like them at the end.

Additionally, I think it depends on the author's style. If an author is writing a scholarly work, then I'm all for footnotes or endnotes with the numbers in there text.

However, if an author is writing in a narrative style like Noah Andre Trudeau, I like how Trudeau doesn't intrude on the narrative with footnote numbers but still cites all his sources at the back — in fiction the numbers would be like breaking someone's willing suspension of disbelief.

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel went a step further and he includes a full bibliographic essay after each chapter in Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. I found these essays to be fascinating and very helpful if perhaps a little unconventional. The book is an unconventional take on things so I guess it fits. I found the essays to be jarring when I read them in between chapters, so it's really almost like two books. The chapters on the war as a book, and then the chapters about the sources he used.

I've been working on a book for five years now about my family and the Cook and Brother Armory in Athens, GA, and though I possibly risk starting a tangent thread by mentioning his very name, I'm trying to emulate Shelby Foote's style - namely turning history into art— but I will cite all my sources at the back!

 

[Liberty and Secession]

For me it depends on the footnotes. Some authors go into very detailed explanatory notes to accompany citations, so if the notes get really long or there are a lot of citations, I like them at the end.

Additionally, I think it depends on the author's style. If an author is writing a scholarly work, then I'm all for footnotes or endnotes with the numbers in there text.

However, if an author is writing in a narrative style like Noah Andre Trudeau, I like how Trudeau doesn't intrude on the narrative with footnote numbers but still cites all his sources at the back — in fiction the numbers would be like breaking someone's willing suspension of disbelief.

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel went a step further and he includes a full bibliographic essay after each chapter in Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. I found these essays to be fascinating and very helpful if perhaps a little unconventional. The book is an unconventional take on things so I guess it fits. I found the essays to be jarring when I read them in between chapters, so it's really almost like two books. The chapters on the war as a book, and then the chapters about the sources he used.

I've been working on a book for five years now about my family and the Cook and Brother Armory in Athens, GA, and though I possibly risk starting a tangent thread by mentioning his very name, I'm trying to emulate Shelby Foote's style - namely turning history into art— but I will cite all my sources at the back!

Autocorrect put there instead of the

There they're and their is one of my pet peeves, so I had to go on record that I didn't make the good!

 

[Liberty and Secession]

Autocorrect put there instead of the

There they're and their is one of my pet peeves, so I had to go on record that I didn't make the good!

Oh gosh!

Good = goof

 

[Eleanor Rose]

Oh gosh!

Good = goof

This made me smile!

 

[gary]

I prefer footnotes at the bottom of the page. It's easier and if I don't want to know, I ignore them. What I don't like about endnotes is that you have to stop reading, then find the page the endnote is on to read it. 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.

Lest one forgets, the editor and bookdesigner have some say about whether there are any sort of notes and where they go.

My newest book will have some hybrid that has parenthesis with the source and page # right after the statement. The bibliography was pared down to include only those books that are referenced to. It is an Osprey title and the bibliography will be three pages long.

 

[gary]

Autocorrect put there instead of the

There they're and their is one of my pet peeves, so I had to go on record that I didn't make the good!

Autocorrect can be nice, but when you're quoting someone who misspelled something, I want it uncorrected. Sometimes it adds charm to the person. The editor of my newest book (a work in progress) had me go back to check a lot of misspellings. He tastefully does not use n****** as this was what some soldiers said. I prefer the modified one with the asterisks, used it in the manuscript as I don't want the word spelled out. The editor uses the contemporary "African American."

 

[DaveBrt]

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.

 

[AL-1947]

I prefer footnotes at the bottom of the page. Indexing is also very important for me.