[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Why is this acceptable in academic literature? A few actual lines with most of the page being footnotes and references? It's disgusting to read.
>>
Because these are editions of books intended for students who read only certain chapters (mainly the first ones and nothing more), that's why the number of footnotes decreases as the book progresses
>>
>>23540042
>Why is this acceptable in academic literature?
Because we haven't burn the Americans. Footnotes are perfectly fine by the way.
>>
memeademics
>>
It's showing off that you read a lot

I had a professor tell the class during a grad seminar that nobody gives a fuck about "discursive footnotes" anymore in the age of the internet
>>
>>23540042
I honestly prefer footnotes over a notes section at the back. Those are insane, but they'll probably decrease with the editor's patience.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.