This post is a bit of a mishmash (you’ve been warned). It’s also a bit of a rant (warning number 2). But aside from that I actually have something that is, I believe, important to say and that I will certainly revisit in the near future.I planned to simply write the ‘great insight’ I felt I had gained in some recent reading. I actually sat down at the keyboard for that purpose. Yet first I must rant. And rant I will. I will sit in my recliner, à la Pierre Bernard (think old school Conan O’Brien), and rage on a totally random and unimportant subject.
I am currently reading Branches to Heaven: The Geniuses of C.S. Lewis, by James Como. I discovered a couple of quotes in that book that I find extremely helpful. That is the main reason for this post. But before I actually get to this wonderful discovery (at least for me) I must rant.
The book lacks footnotes and direct references in most cases. There is a giant appendix of ‘works consulted’ at the end – woopty-doo. This is the third such book I have dealt with in the last month – all relating to Lewis and Tolkien – and all without footnotes for the most part. Apparently I have been spoiled because all of the biographies I have read in the past cite references for their quotes (and I’ve read quite a few). So I did some digging to see what the proper writing etiquette for biographies is/was but have pretty much come up with nothing substantial. Apparently all bets are off – it seems to be a matter of taste – which is fine, I guess. In one of the said biographies the author at least attempts to justify his lack of footnotes in the introduction. If Como does that I somehow missed it.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no axe to grind with the author of this particular book per se. I don’t know a thing about the man other than what’s listed in the brief bio on the back flap of the book and I’m learning a good bit from the book. Bravo to the author for the information. My rant-worthy issue is lack of footnotes in general. So I use my experience with his book as a springboard to vent the frustration.
Some people hate footnotes. I get it. They’re distracting, they take up too much space. But they (can you believe it?) can actually be helpful. Such would certainly have been the case in this particular book. For I found a quote that I knew immediately would be helpful – one I would want to remember, one I’d want the context for. And guess what. You guessed it, no footnote. Not even a vague hint at where the quote came from.
Google saves the day!
Thankfully, I was able to use Google, as always, and find the source. But it was not easy. Gentlemen, ladies, brothers, sisters, writers, scholars, it should not be so.
In a bit of irony that I cannot pass up, the great quote I read in the current book under discussion refers to Lewis’ statement that to read of Edmund Spenser is ‘ to grow in mental health’.’ Apparently the reading of a detailed and quote-filled book with no footnotes is to retard or regress mental health . It’s also not good for my mental health that he takes said statement of Spenser’s writing causing one to ‘grow in mental health’ and applies the same quote to the writing of Kenneth Grahame (in quotation marks no less, with no reference). I don’t doubt that Lewis might have felt that way about Grahame. Indeed I feel that way about Grahame, which I will touch on in my follow-up. But did Lewis actually say this about Grahame, or not? I can’t help but think he didn’t. It would seem he’s simply applying a quote from Lewis about one particular author to another without acknowledging that he is doing so. But I could be wrong – or insane, especially at this point in the discussion. My mental health is in flux.
(For the record Como uses the quote concerning Spenser on page 19, his book is actually named after a portion of the quote in its broader context, and he uses it again about Grahame on page 68 and does not cite its origin in either place. Perhaps a great Lewis expert would simply know the origin. But it’s not only the experts who read biographies)
But I digress. Who am I kidding? This is one big digression. Let the digression continue. Proceed with the mishmashing.
The issue with using footnotes…is common courtesy.
A few years ago I read James Stewart’s book on preaching, Heralds of God. Out of everything in that book, the point that hit me the most forcefully, and has stuck with me, is this (from chapter 3, The Preacher’s Study, Integrity demands that I cite it!): He urges preachers to labor with all their might in sermon preparation. This laboring involves precision and clarity of thinking. To present a message to people that is not clear, that is muddled, that lacks logical precision, is to put a burden on them that is supposed to be on you.
Let me flesh that out. Stewart makes the point that a congregation should not be left asking questions that the preachers should have answered himself. It’s okay if they’re left asking questions about their own souls, or about particular applications. But they should not be left saying things like, ‘What does this mean? He wasn’t very clear on this. What was his point? If they are left asking such questions then the preacher has failed in his study of the text of Scripture, or at least in the delivery of his sermon. Either way, he has put the burden of ‘thinking’ on the congregation rather than assuming it himself (which is precisely what he has been called to do). It’s laziness. And it puts the preacher’s burden on the hearers. Instead of being a burden-bearer, therefore, the preacher has become a burden-giver.
To use classic preacher speech, I said all that to say this: I appreciate footnotes for this very reason – it takes the burden off of me, the reader. The issue with using footnotes therefore is common courtesy. The reason I read biographies is to gain knowledge (and/or a number of other things) from the witness of an expert on a particular person. The author is the burden-bearer. This is his great work for my information and enjoyment. When I have to stop every 10 minutes and write down quotes, or mark them, so that I can research them and find there origins later, it takes away from the reading. Such reading cannot be a pleasure. I may gain wonderful knowledge over the course of my reading, but it certainly does not do what C.S. Lewis says a good book should do – invite good reading.
Books are not blogs.
Google bailed me out in this case. The book was published in 1998. I didn’t even have the internet yet at that point.I would have been up the creek without a paddle. Books are not blogs. Scholars are not bloggers (except when they are). Cite your reference when you are quoting. I’d even encourage bloggers to do that. If you’re paraphrasing something you read years ago and don’t want to do the work the backtrack, that’s fine in my book. I get it. But cite your quotations. I’m not a professional writer. But I am a reader. And if I change one writer’s mind this has been worth my time. It’s all for the greater good!
Stay tuned for the actual post I intended to write. In the midst of my struggles I learned something (at least for me) quite helpful.
