Grafton was incredibly difficult to read. Not only was his text scholarly to the point where my head was spinning just to try and stay awake reading this guy, but the language he used made the writing dry and just, well, not persuasive. What Grafton was intending to do, or at least what I thought he was doing, was describing the effectiveness and purpose of the footnote.
The footnote is a staple in almost every text focusing around the study of history. The addition of content footnotes give a personal touch the the writing and provide some background knowledge into the author, and the piece itself. The purpose of the footnote in regards to modern day writing is to creative a high literary narrative of the topic, or in my mind that means it is a readable scholarly text. Which this piece was not. While I am sure and aware of the contributions the footnote play. Grafton uses his passion for the footnote to drive me into a state of bewilderment at how a man can get such enjoyment from a few footnotes.