Book quoting etiquette?

I'll have to check it out. I recall that I was frustrated by "Eight Men Out," masterful as it was, in that Asinof essentially cited nothing in order to protect sources.

A couple more sports books with terrific end noting:

"Shake Down the Thunder," Murray Sperber's early history of Notre Dame football and either of Brad Snyder's books, "In the Shadow of the Senators" or "A Well-Paid Slave." Also, Henry Thomas' biography of Walter Johnson, which won the Casey Award, I believe. Though Thomas' tends to lag in spots, probably due to the fact that he wasn't a writer/storyteller by trade, and also because his subject is not exactly a robust personality.

But in terms of storytelling AND showing his work, I think Prager's book takes the cake. I'll have to read it again, though, or at least skim through, to see how he handled the citations in the course of the narrative. My guess is he just saved it for the end notes.

I guess the basic question is: Is one required to differentiate, at the moment, between quotes obtained through personal interviews and quotes obtained through other sources (primary news accounts, autobiographies, etc.). I would think that as far as it falls under fair usage (i.e. not running a 500-word excerpt from someone's autobiography), that you're OK leaving the citation for the end notes in order to preserve narrative flow and limit distractions for readers.

I know some of this can be done artfully, not I truly believe that even the most skilled among us would have trouble not interrupting the forward movement of the narrative if he had to constantly name-check sources throughout.

 

Having done a ridiculous amount of academic research when it comes to the history of sports in America, I can safely say that it's always a pleasure to be able to find sources via endnotes when information is used in a new work. That way, you can look up the primary evidence yourself, draw your own conclusions and form a new argument.

I've never found it distracting - perhaps that's because I enjoy it. But it's absolutely, definitely the right way to go.

 

Mr Jennings,

A helluva call on Well-Paid Slave.

YD&OHS, etc

 

You're telling me!

(And in point of fact, I'm not so sure Asinof was protecting sources (a.k.a. Felsch and Attell) so much as his background was more as a TV writer than anything else. He originally was assigned to research 8MO for a TV show, then it got canned and he decided to turn it into ... what it turned into. It's the definitive history of the Black Sox scandal, and should be appreciated for the masterful work it is ... but he didn't really set out to write it that way. It's more of a novel than it is a history. So his, umm, artistic licenses -- including: making up a composite character out of thin air, overplaying the sympathy card for Weaver, not citing his sources for the Cicotte bonus (which has been debunked anyway) and other shaky anecdotes -- can be excused somewhat if you understand where he was coming from. He wasn't a historian, and he can't be faulted because we wish he had been.

Doesn't make it any less frustrating, though.)

 

For the record:

End notes = Good and not distracting
Every source inartfully cited within the narrative = Very distracting

 

While Asinof didn't provide sources for Eight Men Out, Gene Carney certainly did in Burying the Black Sox. In addition to 38 pages of notes, the book has a 12-page bibliography and an index. Check it out.