Needs Help: The Annotated Edition

This pic◊ didn't get enough consensus in the Image Suggestion thread. Other ideas?

The Annotated Alice◊, perhaps?

Annotated bible◊?

Perhaps an inner page will work better?

I don't see why those suggestions would be any better than the original one. On the other hand, I think the original suggestion is good enough.

^^ Agreeing. We should show the annotation in action.

I don't understand what just a cover of the annotated edition adds to the image. It might as well just be a quote "Alices Adventures In Wonderland: Annotated Edition" (or whatever other "Title: Annotated Edition").

I think it would be more clear if it were a comparison shot of the original's interior and the annotated edition's interior, or a comparison of the original book and the annotated edition. Or the original book with handwritten annotations.

That said, here are before-and-after shots:

• Ulysses
  • (the different cover styles show these as being printed in very different eras in publishing history): [1]◊, [2]◊
  • [3]◊

And here are some handwritten annotated books: (whoops didn't double check)

edited 6th May '17 2:25:23 PM by WaterBlap

^ Informal annotation like 7.4 and 7.5 are not part of the trope.

Like so?

^ Won't work in wikisize

Can anyone make a crowner for this thread?

We don't need the cover. We don't need a before and after. But the trope is the annotations. So we need to show the annotations. And we don't have enough options for a crowner yet.

Yes, it's blurry. The pages are very large and the type is very small in this book (The Riverside Complete Shakespeare) so getting focused in on enough of the page to show both the text and the footnotes while keeping it sharp is ...difficult. Despite that, I picked it because the notes are at the bottom of each column, not on the side of the page (which makes it too wide to work at all at wiki size), and not in a separate section at the end of each chapter/scene/act.

edited 13th May '17 2:32:17 PM by Madrugada

That works well enough for me.

^^ Where was this taken from? The footnotes of this version are too blurry.

edited 14th May '17 3:28:40 AM by eroock

13 works for me, but I share eroock's concern.

It's part of a page from The Riverside Complete Shakespeare. Like I said, very large page size, very small print. Very difficult to get the whole column without getting somewhat blurry. However, here's another try:

I'm not sure that the footnotes need to be absolutely clear, as long as you can tell what they are. The trope is that they're there, not what they specifically say.

edited 14th May '17 8:08:49 AM by Madrugada

That works for me.

17 seems good.

I don't know. It's not obvious that those are no ordinary footnotes.

17

What does it matter what kind of footnotes they are? What do you mean by "ordinary footnotes" anyway? The Annotated Edition doesn't require any special type of notes.

"A version of a written text, more often than not a collection of previously released material, that contains notes from the author (or someone else with insight into the work) in footnotes or sidebars.

This is very common with textbook editions of texts using foreign languages or archaic forms of English, usually to explain idioms that would never make sense to us modern, English-speaking folk."

edited 15th May '17 9:45:32 PM by Madrugada

Most books have footnotes that look similar to those in the picture, yet it doesn't make them annotated editions. Having the annotations right next to the source text would be a clearer indication of the trope in play. We somehow struggle to find good examples of that kind which is too bad.

17 or nothing I'll say.

Annotated editions are about what is footnoted and how much, not how or where.