GDG- Foote (notes)

[John Wood (faculty)]

I almost refuse to read something that purports to be history but has no
footnotes or bibliography. It's just laziness and arrogance to leave these
essential elements out of a history. 1) not bothering to cite sources
implies that the author has done original research and arrived at original
conclusions. At the least, we have no idea when this is the case and when
it is not. 2) the author implies that positions taken in the book are all
based on similarly substantial grounds and does not allow the reader to
question or investigate claims. It's just plain bad history. I almost
always check footnotes and bibliography when I read a history. In a
pulitzer prize winning history, for example, I discovered that whole
sections were based on an interview with a single individual involved in
the case despite the availability of other sources that were more
substantial. The authors' credibility was weakened. He should have taken
the time to consult another source. Footnotes may seem cumbersome and
arcane, but they are absolutely essential in history. Shelby Foote was a
fine writer and speaker and he was obviously well-read, but there was no
excuse for failing to at least provide a bibliography. 

John Wood
jwood at mcdonogh.org