Citing Sources Found Within Another Source (MLA)

[Tinieblas.]

Hi all,

For my writing sample for apps, I'm working on a scholarly analysis of a novel using theory (from a book written by Professor Y).  In my paper, I've included some of the quotes from other sources that Professor Y cites, and rather than using "Qtd. in " I went directly to the other sources and included those in my works cited.  My question:  should I include end notes that explain that Professor Y's text led me to read these other articles?  I haven't found anything on the internet that suggests that I need to, but I'd prefer to over-cite rather than under-cite.  Could anyone shed some light?

Thanks in advance.  

[hippyscientist]

In my work, I've never said so-and-so's work has led me to other articles. As long as you cite the article where the idea was from and give those authors credit, I don't see a problem. I should caution I am in a completely different field to you so I hope others may be able to give more field-specific advice.

[Tinieblas.]

Thanks, Piglet!  This is basically what I gathered from MLA style guides online, but I wasn't sure.

[hippyscientist]

I think too, as long as you've cited Professor Y's work too in relation to the theory, you cover all your bases. That's how it works in Biomechanics anyway. So a combination of citing the original ideas from the original works, plus the book you're using for the main theory should make sure you're fine. 

[dr. t]

In the humanities, it's generally considered polite to cite as "Bob Smith, ''Underwater Basketweaving", cited in Jaine Jones "Baskets Underwater", p. 111 n. 2". It doesn't take too much effort.

[Tinieblas.]

Thanks, telkanuru.  Would you do that in an introduction to an in-text citation or as a note?  I was thinking of doing it in my end notes so that it would sound less awkward.  Do you think it would be strange to put an end note that said: 1. Cited in Professor Y, p 99 (or something like that)?  The MLA guide that I saw online said to go directly to the original source, but made no mention of this.  

[dr. t]

Oh, sorry, that complicates things. Just another reason why Chicago Notes & Bib is superior to all other citation formats. If you have in-text cites, I'd just drop the reference to the intermediary.

[rising_star]

Why would you cite the intermediary if you ultimately used the original source?

[Tinieblas.]

14 hours ago, rising_star said:

Why would you cite the intermediary if you ultimately used the original source?

The "intermediary" is the main critical text that I'm using so I was wondering if I should mention that these references were first cited by Professor Y.  I know it sounds weird.  I do have a few end notes already, so I could just add a couple more.  I'm guessing that's not necessary.

 

19 hours ago, telkanuru said:

Oh, sorry, that complicates things. Just another reason why Chicago Notes & Bib is superior to all other citation formats. If you have in-text cites, I'd just drop the reference to the intermediary.

Chicago style does seem like less of a hassle.  Thanks for your input : )