![Photo de l'auteur](https://pics.cdn.librarything.com//picsizes/82/5d/825dc294c46be8765494c7441514330414c5141_v5.jpg)
Robert HauptmanCritiques
Auteur de Ethics and Librarianship
Critiques
Ce site utilise des cookies pour fournir nos services, optimiser les performances, pour les analyses, et (si vous n'êtes pas connecté) pour les publicités. En utilisant Librarything, vous reconnaissez avoir lu et compris nos conditions générales d'utilisation et de services. Votre utilisation du site et de ses services vaut acceptation de ces conditions et termes.
Hauptman is decidedly angry and dismissive of the discursive or commentary footnote. This despite the fact he has three double-columned pages of discursive commentary endnotes (pp. 205-207) appended to his text! He bemoans how they meander or take away from the story. He bewails that his beloved MLA moved from footnotes to parenthetical citations, but he so stringently sticks to the MLA form that he deforms the examples he gives of other citation formats. For instance, in discussing the Chicago Manual of Style's bibliographic-note system he adds the MLA citation. For example, from page 150,he gives an example of Chicago style... I will show the last few words:
...New York: McGraw-Hill [Chicago 595].
By adding his MLA citation [Chicago 595] he totally misconstrues and deforms the Chicago style, making it seem as if the parenthetical is part of the bibliographic note! What inanity! He does this again and again and again, annoyingly. He could have done better, but did not.
And, in his discussion of citation styles, Chicago in particular, he fails to mention the towering figure of Kate Turabian and her manual in the humanities, particularly the field of history. (My own domain.) No Turabian in a history citation formatting!
His point, his thrust (I can't really call it a thesis), is that citation and documentation is important, but not taken as seriously as it should.
Of course, my own curmudgeonly opinion is that we should all use FOOTnotes, not ENDnotes, and the Turabian/CMA style. The best style ever. Well, it used to be, as the CMS style has recently seen fit to abandon Ibids after getting rid of op. cit., p. and pp., and etc. The MLA has recently decided to stop giving the place of publication too. In a world of internet, I get it. Hauptman wonders about URL citations, which are indeed tricky and ephemeral. What he would make since his 2008 publication on citation cataloging and cross-indexing that outfits like Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, JSTOR provide can be guessed.
Anyway, a hard-to-find title, with some wonderful images of old books. Only of use to ardent bibliophiles, footnotophiles, and philosophers of citation (citationology, if there is such a thing, see p. 197).