![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rushthatspeaksToday, after carrying it around for three weeks and reading in it whenever I had a spare moment, I finally finished Zamyatin's A Soviet Heretic, which is a delightful compilation of his essays on art, literature, politics and metaphysics that I was startled and pleased to locate at the Title Page over Winter Break. I was so happy with the book. I don't agree with many of his ideas about literature, but it forced me to sit down and think hard about why I don't agree with them, always a good thing. However. I want to shoot the editor. Because of the following footnote, in an essay on language, placed after an ellipsis which interrupts a fascinating paragraph on word usage in folk dialect: "This is followed by a page of brilliant analysis which, unfortunately, had to be eliminated since it deals specifically with Russian forms." AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!! I could kind of understand this, maybe, if the rest of the essays weren't very technical, but many of them deal with extremely obscure Russian authors, whom I had to go look up, and these are not footnoted *at all*, nor are the names of various Russian literary forms, which are, in fact, *left in Russian*. Could the editors please have done their readership the courtesy of assuming that anyone versed enough or interested enough in Russian culture and literature to know or go look up the authors and words already used either knows Russian or would be interested in analysis of Russian forms anyway? I don't know Russian at all and don't expect to learn it, but I really wanted to see how Zamyatin did linguistic analysis. I don't understand what kind of editorial policy comes up with this sort of condescending treatment of the reader. *grumbles incoherently to self, especially since it is obvious that there is really no way to find an alternate translation of said analysis*
The Most Annoying Footnote in the History of Academia is, of course, a footnote in the annotated version of Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros, which I encountered in high school. One of the brilliant set pieces of the novel is a scene involving alchemical conjuration, and the editors had gone through explaining exactly what each substance was by chemical composition, and what each piece of equipment was, and so on, which is not knowledge that is required to enjoy the scene but which still made for very interesting reading. Except that, in the middle of their list of alchemical substances, one of said substances, with a name not terribly different from anything else on the list ('salt of something', or 'flower of something'-- I've got it written down somewhere) was footnoted as follows: "All knowledge of this substance has been proscribed since the thirteenth century." That was the *entire footnote*. Leaving me sitting there whimpering 'Proscribed by WHOM, dammit? And if that's the case, how did Eddison get a hold of the name, and where did you find out it was proscribed, and why did you not put in some godsdamn bibliography?'
This has bothered me for six years now. Whenever I have some free time, every few months, I go to the library and attempt to figure out what exactly is up with that footnote. So far absolutely no luck, and I still wake up occasionally nights muttering, 'Proscribed by WHOM?' For sheer damned academic aggravation, I honestly think nothing can beat that particular footnote. I will, however, be delighted to accept nominations.
The Most Annoying Footnote in the History of Academia is, of course, a footnote in the annotated version of Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros, which I encountered in high school. One of the brilliant set pieces of the novel is a scene involving alchemical conjuration, and the editors had gone through explaining exactly what each substance was by chemical composition, and what each piece of equipment was, and so on, which is not knowledge that is required to enjoy the scene but which still made for very interesting reading. Except that, in the middle of their list of alchemical substances, one of said substances, with a name not terribly different from anything else on the list ('salt of something', or 'flower of something'-- I've got it written down somewhere) was footnoted as follows: "All knowledge of this substance has been proscribed since the thirteenth century." That was the *entire footnote*. Leaving me sitting there whimpering 'Proscribed by WHOM, dammit? And if that's the case, how did Eddison get a hold of the name, and where did you find out it was proscribed, and why did you not put in some godsdamn bibliography?'
This has bothered me for six years now. Whenever I have some free time, every few months, I go to the library and attempt to figure out what exactly is up with that footnote. So far absolutely no luck, and I still wake up occasionally nights muttering, 'Proscribed by WHOM?' For sheer damned academic aggravation, I honestly think nothing can beat that particular footnote. I will, however, be delighted to accept nominations.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-30 03:33 pm (UTC)There's an annotated edition of The Worm Ouroboros? <drool>
My guess is that the editors just didn't know what that substance was, possibly because it had been lost to history, and decided that 'proscribed' would be a more mysterious way of putting it.
Re:
Date: 2004-01-30 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-31 07:07 am (UTC)