Klik op een omslag om naar Google Boeken te gaan.
Bezig met laden... Documentation: A History and Critique of Attribution, Commentary, Glosses, Marginalia, Notes, Bibliographies, Works-Cited Lists, and Citation Indexing and Analysisdoor Robert Hauptman
Geen Bezig met laden...
Meld je aan bij LibraryThing om erachter te komen of je dit boek goed zult vinden. Op dit moment geen Discussie gesprekken over dit boek. geen besprekingen | voeg een bespreking toe
This work examines and critiques the history, use, and abuse of various literary systems of documentation. Throughout history, such systems have been employed in different ways and through various applications in order to attribute, comment, translate, reference, or otherwise remark tangentially on a primary text. The work studies all forms of documentation used in the Western world--from ancient Biblical commentaries, to the medieval gloss, to the current systems used by researchers in the humanities and social and hard sciences. Topics include the historical development of documentation; the specific advantages and disadvantages of Chicago, APA, MLA, and other current styles; and the common misuses or intentional deceptions within modern documentation practices. Geen bibliotheekbeschrijvingen gevonden. |
Actuele discussiesGeen
Google Books — Bezig met laden... GenresDewey Decimale Classificatie (DDC)808.027Literature By Topic Rhetoric and anthologies Rhetoric and anthologies Authorship techniques, plagiarism, editorial techniques Editing and scholarly writingLC-classificatieWaarderingGemiddelde:
Ben jij dit?Word een LibraryThing Auteur. |
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). ( )