Feldman regrets, in an amusing way, that his publisher (University of Toronto Press) insisted on putting all his notes in the back as endnotes, when he thinks they should all be footnotes at the bottom of the pages to which they connect. He might do better to distinguish source notes (for which endnotes are perfect) from commentary notes, which make excellent foot-of-page notes. The trick is not to run wild with marginal comments: one's editors are likely to tolerate a prudent amount. Many of Feldman's would-be footnotes could have been incorporated in the text itself, I suspect. But a book like this with no index -- that's a publishing crime!
His commitment to annotation reflects his efforts to distinguish between true (or at least documentable) parliamentary stories and ones he suspects are apocryphal (i.e., invented). His test case is the story of John A. Macdonald vomiting in mid-speech on an electoral platform and getting away it with a clever joke. I read his analysis of that one nervously since I've used that story myself.
But like Feldman, I cited it to Biggar's Anecdotal Life of Sir John Macdonald, (p. 193), and I am glad he thinks there is at least some basis for it. Biggar indeed is almost single-handedly responsible for the image of Macdonald as a fun guy to be with.
From Molly Ungar, August 12
Thank you for mentioning that often-neglected but very significant element of publishing – the back of the book Index. In my time, I’ve indexed a number of books, and contrary to (perhaps) popular belief, the best Index is human-created.
Unfortunately, an Index costs $$$ and a really good Index costs even more $$$$ and takes time. Apart from the $$$ aspect, if and when the author has anything to say, it’s usually something stupefyingly impolite.
Loved each and every one of my Indices.
