which one /lit/?
Both.
>>7722476
footnotes with a bibliography
false dichotomy
Endnotes, 100%
endnotes are for fucking asshole faggots
i hate using 2 bookmarks (and sometimes 3, e.g. Yeats' complete works with editor's notes and Yeats' notes)
>>7722476
both, depends on what they contain.
>>7722476
translations, short extraneous explanations, etc in footnotes
references in (Author;Date) and in endnotes.
Why on earth would you want to flip to the back of the book when the same information can be placed at the end of the page?
>>7722529
This.
Footnotes.
>>7722529
Ohmygod. I can use two bookmarks? Anon, you've greatly enhanced my historical/philosophical/IJ reading.
>>7722607
Don't listen, he's meming you.
>>7722548
>>7722529
Because you're either reference-mining or reading. You can underline the word with the superscript number or parentheses you find interesting, but if you're reading, why the hell would you want to stop the flow and look at the author and title of a book you can't, at the moment, reach?
>>7722610
I don't think he's referring to reference endnotes. He means like if you were reading Shakespeare and came across some bullshit 17th century word and you have to flip to the endnotes to see what it means. That shit pisses me off quite a bit (though t is rarely done with Shakespeare, it was just an example)
>>7722476
It depends--
Footnotes:
You have relatively few notes and/or they are relatively short (source references or a brief sentence or two)
Endnotes:
You have a shitload of notes and/or they are relatively long, containing a lot of substantive discussion. In this case making them footnotes in the text could severely clutter up the page, cause a lot of inelegant page and paragraph breaks, etc.
My opinion is that generally if you have a ton of really long notes, you are note a good writer. You should either incorporate that shit smoothly into the text, or just drop it. So to me, footnotes are the way to go. Chicago style note/references.
But it doesn't really matter, as most decent publishers--books and especially journals--have their own house style that determines how the notes are formatted. If you are a big money maker, they will let you do whatever you want, but otherwise you are going to follow their rules
>>7722629
If it's something like Shakespeare with archaic language and tons of references and complicated tropes, you might want to go a different direction entirely. For example: verso page, text; recto page, notes.
>>7722476
Neither. Fit the information in the text. If you completely suck and write for uneducated idiots who need translations and explanation, footnotes are obviously the better alternative though.
>>7722629
In that case, it's obvious that it should be in the footnotes. Or gloss it, even better. Next to the word, on the margin (if it is, say, an odd Shakespearean word).
>>7722911
meh, I prefer footnotes over glosses. The latter feels kinda tacky.
>>7722508
nigga you must be new to 4chan
>>7722476
footnote, anything else is shittier.
>tfw my Fitzgerald translation of Homer doesn't have any foot- or endnotes
feels fkn terrible mayne
Footnotes for physical, endnotes for digital.
>>7722476
for poetry, margin notes.
for novels like IJ or ulysses, end notes.
for less complex novels, footnotes.
>>7722476
Footnotes. I don't care if the footnotes take up half the fuckin' page.
>>7722730
>>7722476
if yu self-publish on kindle, they put footnotes at the end
