Musings

I'm just copying my father

Home

Footnote Frenzy

Prereading note: while writing a different post,1 I ended up needing to deeply nest some statements. I realized2 that I had spent around equal time setting up the prereading note to actually writing the post, so I decided to just turn the note into its own post. As a result, that’s Draft 0. Also, since I needed to make sure my3 footnotes parsed, I relabeled Draft 2 as 2/3, since it’s unclear which is the correct term.4 Draft 4 remains as such.

Draft 4

Like many bad authors,5 I rely a lot on gimmicks.6 Also like bad authors,7 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.8 If it isn’t clear from the eight9 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,10 I can’t have nested footnotes.11 Instead, I12 use nested sets of punctuation.13 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals14 I use, I was happy.15 So, my list of nesting symbols16 now goes: footnotes,17 parentheses,18 square brackets,19 then angle brackets.20 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets21 that I can find,22 so23 I used short and long dashes,24 then two asterisks25 when I needed26 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.27 I don’t28 like the way that they look,29 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than five30 layers deep.31 And, as I read through this draft,32 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily. However, long and short dashes don’t quite look different enough for me to parse at first glance, so it’s a good thing I33 won’t need to use them often. Anyways, the 86 footnotes34 of the piece contain a total35 of 1415 words within its footnotes. That’s nearly 70% of the entirety of the words written.36 Whoops.

Draft 2/3

Like many bad authors,37 I rely a lot on gimmicks.38 Also like bad authors,39 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.40 If it isn’t clear from the six41 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,42 I can’t have nested footnotes.43 Instead, I44 use nested sets of punctuation.45 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals46 I use, I was happy.47 So, my list of nesting symbols48 now goes: footnotes,49 parentheses,50 square brackets,51 then angle brackets.52 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets53 that I can find,54 so55 I used two asterisks56 when I needed57 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.58,59 I don’t60 like the way that they look,61 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three62 layers deep.63 And, as I read through this draft,64 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily.

Draft 1

Like many bad authors,65 I rely a lot on gimmicks. Also like bad authors,66 I copy my gimmick from someone else.67 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals68 I need, I was happy.69 So, my list of nesting70 now goes: footnotes,71 parentheses,72 square brackets,73 then angle brackets.74 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets75 that I can find,76 so77 I switched to using two asterisks.78 I don’t really like the way that they look,79 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three80 deep.

Draft 0

Prereading note: Yay! I finally used more nesting.81 It now goes: Footnote,82 parentheses,83 square brackets,84 then angle brackets.85 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets that I can find.86


  1. which will be posted (and rewritten) next time that the situation is valid

  2. about ten minutes in

  3. nested

  4. and I already have far too many footnotes

  5. and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)

  6. or at least one gimmick

  7. but great artists (according to someone)

  8. as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”

  9. nine including this (assuming no more drafts)

  10. no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command

  11. i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])

  12. as mentioned in the linked post

  13. which before today was limited to ([])

  14. which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses

  15. yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about

  16. since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read

  17. Like this! (ooh meta)

  18. seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes

  19. I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])

  20. which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles -but that feels like needless pedantry –although I guess all pedantry is supposed to be needless **because of the word “excessive”**– that I don’t know enough math for->, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals -but not the convention of avoiding their usage->]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion

  21. that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)

  22. maybe there’s a reason for that

  23. as you might have seen

  24. I know one of them is an “em dash,” but I’m not sure which

  25. astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier

  26. read: wanted

  27. if I were a bird, I would be so warm

  28. didn’t, and likely will not

  29. mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters

  30. not including the footnote itself

  31. wow five feels so much more freeing than three

  32. wow this essay is getting so meta

  33. hopefully

  34. that number was changed at the very end of the (writing of the) piece to reflect reality, and does not include nestings

  35. as above

  36. ibid

  37. and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)

  38. or at least one gimmick

  39. but great artists (according to someone)

  40. as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”

  41. seven including this (assuming no more drafts[which was wrong])

  42. no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command

  43. i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])

  44. as mentioned in the linked post

  45. which before today was limited to ([])

  46. which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses

  47. yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about

  48. since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read

  49. Like this! (ooh meta)

  50. seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes

  51. I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])

  52. which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**>, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals **but not the convention of avoiding their usage**>]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion

  53. that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)

  54. maybe there’s a reason for that

  55. as you might have seen

  56. astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier

  57. read: wanted

  58. if I were a bird, I would be so warm

  59. and no, I will not use em dashes, since I still don’t know whether ems are the long or short dash (- or –), or how long and short dashes differ. If I ever learn, I may incorporate them (whoops, the draft above disproves this)

  60. didn’t, and likely will not

  61. mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters

  62. not including the footnote itself

  63. or I can learn to use dashes and em dashes (ooh I could use both of those to get two more layers free [shoot I’m writing another draft])

  64. wow this essay is getting so meta

  65. and hopefully some good ones

  66. but great artists (according to someone)

  67. as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”

  68. which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses

  69. yes, that is actually something I feel joy about

  70. since I find a string of parentheses in order hard to read, but different shapes (like this [or this]) easier to read

  71. Like this! (ooh meta)

  72. seen in the footnote above “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior footnotes (or the following [with some exceptions])

  73. I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])

  74. which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too) in my opinion

  75. that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)

  76. maybe there’s a reason for that

  77. as you might have seen

  78. astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier

  79. mostly because it feels less like a divider, and more of just two random characters

  80. not including the footnote itself

  81. yes, that is actually something I feel joy about

  82. like this! (ooh meta)

  83. like the footnote above’s line “ooh meta,” (or like this [or any of the following explanatory footnotes])

  84. I think they’re called square brackets (although, they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])

  85. which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too)

  86. maybe there’s a reason for that