<strong>Sheep</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> road As one who typeset books that are riddled with footnote <strong>in</strong>trusions I can see <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dolent advantage for an <strong>in</strong>tellectual writer whose time is so important that he/she needs to enhance, strangle or smo<strong>the</strong>r a throw-away mention of someth<strong>in</strong>g trivial or o<strong>the</strong>rwise by referr<strong>in</strong>g to some giant tome which attempts to expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> universe and is only available <strong>in</strong> some specialist library. Then <strong>the</strong>re are those boorish readers who won’t consider any text which is not punctuated with this pygmy fly-away text as <strong>in</strong>tellectual, will decry it as unsubstantiated and will not accept po<strong>in</strong>ts however well <strong>the</strong>y are made. For fuck sake, do we readers need to be sent on a wild goose chase to verify some smug author’s pander<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>ir own ego only to f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> source unavailable or merely a figment of <strong>the</strong> author’s imag<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> that it does not expla<strong>in</strong> or compliment his/her po<strong>in</strong>t. If an author wants or needs to make a po<strong>in</strong>t which is made elsewhere by ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>n this needs to made <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> text and, if needs be, expla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> text. Of course, if po<strong>in</strong>ts are fully expla<strong>in</strong>ed and credit for <strong>the</strong>m given to ano<strong>the</strong>r, this may make <strong>the</strong> author’s assertions look feeble and will def<strong>in</strong>itely give <strong>the</strong> impression that <strong>the</strong> work is not entirely, or even vaguely <strong>in</strong> some cases, <strong>the</strong>ir own. It might even be said by some that a book riddled with footnotes is at best an ambiguous bibliography with <strong>the</strong> veneer of a guid<strong>in</strong>g idea, ra<strong>the</strong>r uncharitable, but a view with some merit surely? Afterthought Jo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g that club of exclusive and deliberately obscurest writ<strong>in</strong>g techniques are abbreviations. Ano<strong>the</strong>r feeble m<strong>in</strong>d-fuck tool of <strong>the</strong> ‘busy/lazy’ <strong>in</strong>tellectual. A nasty belch sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> page, where, unless you are attuned to <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>the</strong>y leave <strong>the</strong> reader second guess<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> flavour-by-whiff … or ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a jiggery-pokery library <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir head full of trite-useless alphabeti-spaghetti. These manufactured and localised acronyms are <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>in</strong>credibly, given credence and weight by audiences of similarly challenged people, who accept <strong>the</strong>m as actual words conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g nuggets of ‘wisdom’ as <strong>the</strong>y tumble out from platforms, or spread <strong>the</strong>ir self-importance on a page, dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ane utterances or dank scribbl<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong>se ‘<strong>in</strong>tellectual charlatans’. If you have a valid po<strong>in</strong>t, ‘SPELL IT OUT!’, you lazy fucker There will be those, certa<strong>in</strong>ly, who can f<strong>in</strong>d a reason for <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dustry and profusion of footnotes <strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong>y allow a text to be read as <strong>the</strong> argument <strong>in</strong>tended by <strong>the</strong> author without distraction or tangental flights of fancy, and that <strong>the</strong> ‘notes’ which congregate about <strong>the</strong> foot of a page are just <strong>the</strong>re as helpful <strong>in</strong>dicators of reference … more like ‘tosh and camouflage!’ to cover <strong>the</strong> cracks, <strong>in</strong> my op<strong>in</strong>ion. 52
Books are weapons! Hit a tory with a hardback, especially if both are full of footnotes and abbreviations ... 53