tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7894641286672863815.post7210673387967728912..comments2024-01-15T01:53:00.775-05:00Comments on The Uncommon Corps: Extras: Do They Add? or Are They Bad?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7894641286672863815.post-14027655026296767672013-12-29T13:05:51.538-05:002013-12-29T13:05:51.538-05:00I think it's a wonderful idea for authors to i...I think it's a wonderful idea for authors to include Internet links. Many times readers want to know more. Teachers, too, would find the extra material useful when planning lessons. In the beginning of Candace Fleming's book on Amelia Earhart, she gives readers a link to a website showing how difficult it is to see Howland Island from the air. This is where Amelia was supposed to refuel. Many readers use the link and it does help them understand the text. I can imagine many other helpful links. Myra Zarnowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08384106059616982063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7894641286672863815.post-78210412655569132012013-12-29T11:40:00.615-05:002013-12-29T11:40:00.615-05:00I think I would put illustrations/photographs in a...I think I would put illustrations/photographs in a different category than sidebars and graphics because illustrations/photographs are now an integral element in nonfiction and just as important as the text. It didn't used to be that way, as is easy to tell if you go back and read a children's nonfiction book from the 1960s. Or look at old National Geographics and compare how text-heavy they were compared to recent articles. But I agree that the use of sidebars and graphics must be judicious. In my latest book THE DOLPHINS OF SHARK BAY I didn't use any sidebars at all, and only three graphics (one is a map). I had hoped to include extensive back matter but ran out of space--the economics of full color printing limited the book to 80 pages. So I put some of the extra material on my website. And instead of listing the 40-50 scientific references that made up my bibliography I referred the reader to the "Publications" page of the scientist's website. I'm guessing we're going to see more and more of this in the future. How do you feel about authors using internet links for information that might have been sidebar or back matter material? Is this a good or bad idea?Pamela Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08825741634054155543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7894641286672863815.post-57503239087161436882013-12-24T06:59:45.071-05:002013-12-24T06:59:45.071-05:00Sue,
I am not against these features. They are ess...Sue,<br />I am not against these features. They are essential elements of nonfiction. I am simply saying that they need to be supportive of the main idea of the text. Myra Zarnowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08384106059616982063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7894641286672863815.post-41185670069642927392013-12-23T18:52:30.524-05:002013-12-23T18:52:30.524-05:00photos, illustrations, charts, graphs, sidebars - ...photos, illustrations, charts, graphs, sidebars - those aren't "extras". They are "part" of the story and contain important info, too. They also allow (at least in magazines and newspaper) the "main article" to present major ideas without getting too lengthy. My kids have never found them "distracting" - instead, they've said "but wait! there's more!" And a good illustration or photo (plus caption) conveys a lot of information that mere words cannot. Graphs, too - you need to see that spatial arrangement of information sometimes.Sue Heavenrichhttp://archimedesnotebook.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com