Any Chicago/Turabian pros around here?

[1Q84]

I've had MLA drilled into me from a young age so trying to make the leap now to Chicago (as per a journal's guidelines) has been disconcerting.

 

I am using Notes-Bibliography style. I can't seem to understand how to distinguish between moments when I should use an endnote to cite something that I have quoted and when I should use a simple in-text parenthetical. I've seen Chicago-style papers that use both and it also seems like it would be excessive to endnote every single citation I make in the paper.

 

(PS. I have the Chicago guidebook but I couldn't find a simple answer to this question.) Any help is appreciated!

[dr. t]

With full Chicago Notes and Bibliography, in-text parentheticals are usually reserved for really well-known sources such as scriptural quotations or, in some cases, the single text you are picking apart. Basically, if it's not the Bible, I'd put it in a foot/endnote.

[1Q84]

With full Chicago Notes and Bibliography, in-text parentheticals are usually reserved for really well-known sources such as scriptural quotations or, in some cases, the single text you are picking apart. Basically, if it's not the Bible, I'd put it in a foot/endnote.

 

Interesting. So if my paper is on Paradise Lost, obviously it would receive parentheticals. But the paper also deals at length with Metamorphoses and some other texts too. What to do then?

[dr. t]

I would not use any parenthetical citations in that situation.

[1Q84]

Thank you! Out of curiosity, are these guidelines set out anywhere in the manual or are these mostly unspoken, stylistic choices?

[dr. t]

Thank you! Out of curiosity, are these guidelines set out anywhere in the manual or are these mostly unspoken, stylistic choices?

 

I don't think they're stylistic, but rather practical. It isn't really necessary to provide a full citation for the Bible. Similarly, if you were writing for a journal entirely and solely devoted to Paradise Lost, you might cite your edition in the first footnote and then provide brief section and line numbers for the rest next to your quotes. I would not think that you would ever use parentheticals for anything else. 

 

But yes, not formal. I would note that Chicago style footnotes are not so much a hard codification - they can't cover every possibility - but rather a guide to how things should look.

Edited November 13, 2014 by telkanuru

[Chiqui74]

I'm probably late on this but here goes anyway. I wouldn't call myself an expert on Chicago, but I'm fairly knowleadgable. I have never used parenthetical citations.  To me, mixing up parenthetical citations with food/endnotes looks like a clash of styles.  Pick one, I say.  Since it's Chicago, pick foot/endnotes.  The very few times I've cited the Bible, I still have done so in footnotes (which I prefer over end notes), and not full citations as, like telkanuru explained, it is not necessary.  I think it looks neater.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Chiqui74

[kotov]

I personally never use parentheticals with Chicago, but it's never really necessary/practical for me. I agree that it looks better to just keep it uniform and use footnotes for all of it.