![]() ![]() ![]() My complaint, however, is not about the use of endnotes in popular books but about their use in academic books. There are popular volumes in which one would not necessarily want or need to see footnotes. In some cases this wouldn’t be terribly objectionable. Only after that three-step process could I begin reading again. Thence I went back to the endnotes until I found the information I wanted. So I went back to my starting point but there was no indication of the chapter number so I went to the table of contents. This time, however, to find what I wanted I went to the endnotes. If the publisher had used footnotes, I would only have to glance at the bottom of the page to find the information I wanted. All the evidence, to which the author refers his readers, is buried in the back of the book. ![]() In this instance, however, as is too often the case, the notes were not at the bottom of the page (a footnote). These are signals that one can find more information (usually references to primary source materials) in the notes. At the end of two relevant sentences there were superscript numbers. I wanted to read his discussion of Sabbath legislation and enforcement in Geneva. This morning I was reading Scott Manetsch’s excellent volume on life of the church in Calvin’s Geneva. ![]() I dislike endnotes generally but I really resent endnotes in academic books. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |