Degsy Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 Agree with you on the little notes Andy,,,,,bookoshyte:-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted April 29, 2008 Author Share Posted April 29, 2008 Footnotes do have a place, if the information is in the form of a quote, you wouldn't want to breack it up with a long explanation, so a short foot note is relevant, wish I hadn't started this, just started Panzer Lehr, it has footnotes, but they are relevant. As for are we super critical, most of us tend to go to 'Source documents' even if they are in the form of original workshop manuals. The style of these is the style of the times they were written. One problem especially with what are known as 'Revisionist' historys is that authours bring their modern prejudice to things, also they know what will happen. They are using their scources with hindsight. One of the major problems with the Great War, and the Vietnam war, is getting past the propoganda and myths that have grown up. The current Gulf conflicts are going that way even quicker. For example, during the First Gulf War, who remembers a sobbing girl about 14 years old, telling of babies being dragged from incubators by Iraqui soldiers? As my son was born premature and was in an incubator for 16 weeks you can imagine my reaction. yet every attempt to trace and futher interview the girl was stonewalled or Journalsists threatned. No supporting eveidence has ever been found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 Notes have a place, but I hate thumbing all around the book to see where I'm at. I sometimes find the notes to be better than some chapters. I think it comes from the desire of the author to cram in the info and also to authenticate their knowledge. A decent editor should solve this irritant. mb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degsy Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 'Band of Brigands' which I'm reading at the moment has a limited no of notes at the bottom of the page, they are relevant and easy to consult. Where I do have a problem is when there is reams of notes at the back of the book very often mainly refering to other books ie ' quoted in.......', but where has the so called quote originated in the first place,again to my mind lack of thorough research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 Yes the ones that just quote references rather than details are really irritating. I see them as a way for some authors to show off about all the research they have (nominally) done without going in to too much detail. I often ignore these things until the end when I'm checking through the bibliography and index. I think it is the bibliography which shows where the work has gone in. Sometimes books and articles are used to gather individual sentences or quotes. Of course none of this stops an author using this list of research to bend a context or two to seal an argument. But that's histriography. I take TB's point about Vietnam and WW1 to be totally accurate. My current read on the Aussies in Nam is a classic example...for the good. The author has cut through all the blarney and lies to get to the truth. Refreshing. mb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeEnfield Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 I don't mind footnotes,..........these do help explain the text, but if authors are going to use these 'linking no's', they SHOULD be on same page. Otherwise you read book with two bookmarks/thumbs marking,........difficult, esp as one WILL fall out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.