Phoenix reporter David Bernstein said nice things about Barack Obama for Beginners (“a tidy, quick-reading 70-page bio.”) in his Talking Politics column today. I have long admired Bernstein’s reporting. Thanks, David! (You can buy it here đŸ˜‰
He criticized my book, however, for having its source notes online: “As a practical matter, people reading Neer’s book repeatedly come across specific information and direct quotes, without any indication that these were the result of someone else’s reporting other than the author’s.”
It is hard to square “without any indication” with the very first words of the book after the Table of Contents (in bold on their own page) that read, “Complete source notes … are available at BarackObamaForBeginners.com.” Indeed, interested readers will find over 250 source notes that total about 7,500 words for a “documentary comic book” of about 18,000 words on 70 pages. The source notes advisory is repeated at the end of the book. The For Beginners series often has no notes at all.
“The book itself does not contain notation numbers,” David writes. The sources, however, are referenced by page number and word to preserve precision but obviate the need for notation numbers.
“Neer used the work of at least five dozen journalists from roughly 30 different “MSM” sources, without naming a single one of them in the book’s text. Why not?” David asks. The short answer is that the authors of all works cited are indeed named, and linked whenever possible, in the notes. The longer answer is that I mentioned writers by name in the text when I directly quoted them. The most precise answer is that the question is inaccurate: Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, an “MSM” source, is referenced by name in the text on pages 21-2, and again on 37.
Finally, “Neer argues that there is no difference between printing the notes in the book versus online,” Bernstein wrote. He cited an email I sent him yesterday with answers to questions he asked. That is indeed my opinion with respect to assessing whether or not an author intends to be clear about what work is their own and what is produced by someone else. Another portion of the same email I sent to David, however, provides a more complete explanation of my thoughts on this matter: “My personal preference is for endnotes to be printed in books and also located online. The former allows one quickly to flip to them while reading. The latter, if they are hyperlinked, as mine are whenever possible, allows one to go directly to a source with a single click. If I had to choose one, I would choose the latter because it allows one quickly to check the original sources.”
As I said at the beginning, David’s words about the book in general were gracious. I thank him for them. As to the broader issue of publication of notes online, I say the more notes the better, especially for books about current events. Drew Westen’s recent paperback edition of The Political Brain, for example, provides its notes as a PDF download, according to my co-BMG Editor Charley.
Ryan commented on David’s post over at The Phoenix: “Would I prefer them in the book? Of course.” Me too, as I wrote to David. This is not always possible, however, and in the present case I think it is quite clear how much of Barack Obama for Beginners relied on the work of others. To see for yourself, just check the notes.
I commend David Bernstein of the Pheonix for attempting to reiview this written summary. When someone is summing it up for others they have a duty to the reader to cite. However, these “for beginnner” books are often taken for what they are worth.
<
p>Much like the old Clasics Illystrated series, you get what you pay for. Of course, mo one would ever reveal that they read a comic book versus the true classic.
<
p>It is what it is! A summary, and nothing mor. A philosophy minus any heavy lifting. But that is the way it is today.
<
p>I know I’m getting older when there are “intellectuals” that are lazier than me. Welcome to the world of instant gratification. I never imagined it would come!
<
p>Comic books treated like the classics? I must be getting older!
<
p>
I have a problem with the diary’s title, as it leads one to believe that David Bernstein wrote a book review that talks about little else than sourcing issues. In fact, the name of David’s article is “Sourcing for Beginners”. So while the first paragraph includes a mini-review just to set the stage, the purpose of the article was to discuss how the sourcing (or lack thereof) was done in BOfB, especially since there was such an uproar here about the total lack of sourcing in Jon Keller’s book.
Mostly a review of his opinion about sourcing issues. It was not, however, a formal book review of the kind that no doubt will soon grace the pantheon of U.S. book publications — all of which, as you know, put For Beginners guides at the top of their “must review” lists. Or not ;-). In any event, I changed the title to “on.”
I’m all for online sourcing. Sorry, but I do think that whenever possible, we should be preserving our resources. For that reason alone, I think I PREFER sourcing on line, as long as it’s obvious where you can go to look things up.
<
p>So suck it up, Bernstein, for the sake of trees everywhere.
which Bernstein muddies, is:
<
p>a. Having sourcing,
<
p>vs.
<
p>b. No sourcing whatsoever.
<
p>Not exactly difficult to tell the difference.
Properly cited sources should be listed as part of the work using said sources. There are ways to conserve ink and space and footnotes, endnotes, and internal citations are all acceptable. I can’t imagine a high school teacher or college professor aceepting a student saying, “I’ve posted my bibliography for this paper on the web.” Also, if I’m reading a book and question the source of a statement I want to just look at the bottom of the page or flip to the back, not wait until I have a chance to go online. Of course online works can in turn be cited online.
Uh … why not, exactly? Frankly, I would not be at all surprised if papers are soon (or maybe now) submitted only electronically, with sources hyperlinked. Failing that, if the student makes clear where the sources are located, what, exactly, is the problem with it?
<
p>Relatedly, with papers, you’re talking about an academic setting in which different rules apply.
And yes, my experience is mostly academic. I had many teachers/professors who emphasized citation over actual content, a tactic with which I strongly disagree. If the work is online the sources can be online, but if the work is printed so should the citations should be in print. We don’t HAVE to rely on technology for everything! Forgive me, I tend to be one of those stuffy sticklers for standards:)
Then the sourcing ought to be in print, too. Unfortunately, publishers often don’t see it that way. When I was finishing up my book on dwarfism, “Little People,” in 2002, my publisher pushed me to put my chapter notes online rather than include them in the book. I won that battle, but that was six years ago.
<
p>Oh, yeah, one more thing. Free online edition! Buy a signed hardcover direct from the author! Didn’t want to leave that out.
Botched the link to my own book.
<
p>http://www.littlepeoplethebook.com