Annotated Bibliography, Chicago Style

when it includes manuscript sources, archival collections, or other materials that do not fit into a straight alphabetical listSo yesterday I took some notes on how to research better, and one of the sources I used was “The Annotated Bibliography Exercise” by Dr. Steven D. Krause from The Process of Research Writing.

It made good points about the usefulness of making an annotated bib. so I've decided to start gathering what sources I've used so far into a few of them (I have a few concurrent projects under the same general umbrella of utopia/etc). I'm going to have them here on the blog (on pages, instead of posts) but may not share them for a while.

But, before I start on that, I need to check out the specifics of how to do this in the Chicago Style. So, I figured I'd make a post on this, too, at the least for my own easy reference.

Annotated Bibliography in Chicago Style

Since I cannot afford access to the full Chicago style manual, I'm using these pages for reference:

• "Annotated Bibliography Samples" The Purdue Owl
• "Creating an annotated bibliography in Chicago style" Eastern Nazarene College 
• "Citation & Style Guide" Middlebury Libraries

According to these sites, an annotated bibliography entry done in Chicago style has:

• one summary paragraph describing the source and it's major features
• summaries can be descriptive or 'can evaluate the quality of scholarship in a book or article
• Another accepted method of making an annotated bib in Chicago & Turbian style is to have the proper citation and then the next line (indented) contain a very brief descriptive phrase in brackets, i.e. (from Middlebury Libraries): " [a seminal text describing argument in nonsymbolic language]

• The first line of each summary paragraph should be indented, but the rest of the paragraph does not need to be.
• The first line of the entry's citation must NOT be indented ("Hanging indent"), but if it spills over into subsequent lines of text, those SHOULD be indented.
• Text should be double-spaced, with 1" margins on all sides

.... Okay, well, the pages contradict each other on whether or not the whole summary (not just the first line) should be indented, so I went ahead and got a 30 day free trial for access to The Chicago Manual of Style Online (CMOS 17) (and... there isn't just a simple entry for how to format an annotated bibliography. ...?!?! Sigh. So, looks like I'm going to have to dig a little...

Building the entry:

• Author's names should be listed exactly as they are in the source, excepting when:
• there are different people using the same name & initials, a full name may be given. (15.12)
• If multiple authors have the same first and last name, middle initials can be added to clarify if they are known (14.73)
• A single author uses both their full name and initials in different works, the author should be listed by the same format of name for all their works (preferably the full name). (14.73)
• If an author is well known by both their full names & with their initials, the rest of the name may be added in brackets, i.e., (R.S. Crane + R[onald] S. Crane.(14.74)
• If an author always uses their initials, they should be listed with the initials, not their full names
• If the author or editor is unknown:
• Initial articles should be ignored (but included) and the entry should begin with the title. (14.79) 
• 'Anonymous' should generally only be listed if the work was explicitly attributed to "Anonymous" (i.e. on the title page, etc) (14.79) 
• If the author was not listed in the work but is known or guessed, the name should be included within brackets (and with a question mark when the identity is guessed but not known for certain) i.e., " [Hawkes, James?]. "  (14.79)
• If a Pseudonym / Pen name is used:
• Between the name and the period [pseud.] can be given. (14.80)
• If 'widely used', the pen name is treated like real names, i.e. Mark Twain or George Eliot
• If the real name is 'of interest to readers,' it can be included after the name (and before the period) in brackets. (14.80)
• 'If the author's real name is better known than the pseudonym, the real name should be used. If needed, the pseudonym may be included in brackets, followed by pseud.' i.e. you could list ' Brontë, Charlotte. ' or ' Brontë, Charlotte [Currer Bell, pseud.]. ' as the author of Jane Eyre. (14.80)
• If an author has published under different versions of their real name (as in married names, etc), a source should be listed under the name used in that work, but a cross reference note can be included, i.e. "Doniger, Wendy." and "---. See also O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger."

Order of entries:

• Entries should be alphabetized by the last name of the author. CMOS recommends letter-by-letter alphabetizing, but word-by-word is also acceptable. (14.65)
• Hyphenated last names should be treated as one word, and unhypened names should be checked in reference sources, but for 'unhyphenated compound names of lesser-known persons for whom proper usage cannot be determined, use only the last element (including any particle[s])' i.e. Websters says that Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's last name is 'Mies van der Rohe', but Charlotte Perkins Gilman should be listed as Gilman  (8.6)
• Unusual name formats:
• Names starting with O' are treated as if there were no apostrophe (16.73)
• Names with particles (d', di, la, van, etc) can vary. Merriam-Webster's biographical entries are authoritative for the historical figures they include. Otherwise, personal preference of the author, and cross referencing of other sources (LoC, Websters, Encyclopedias, etc) should be done and one method decided on for that particular name. (16.71)
• Last names including Saint, San or St. should be listed as the family spells their name, but cross-referencing may be helpful (16.74)
• Titles such as Saint or King or place identifiers ("of England") are left out. (14.83)
• If a letter is accented, it is treated in this context as unaccented. (16.67)
• "Authors usually should not use the 3-em dash for repeated names in their manuscripts." (i.e., using '---' in a list of bibliography entries under the same author. Some publishers/editors might use them, though. (14.67)
• In bibliography (excluding bibs. of the works of a single author), 'titles by the same author' are usually listed alphabetically, with the initial 'the, a, or an' left out. (14.71)
• An entry with only one name should be listed before an entry starting with the same name but also including other authors. If multiple such multi-authored entries, they should be alphabetized by the next author's last name (though only the first author's name should be inverted) (14.66)
• If an Organization, corporation, association, etc, published something and there is no personal author listed, the group name should be listed as the author, no word inversion. (14.84)

Format:

• In the example image of an annotated bib. entry, the first line of the citation is a "hanging indent" but ALL the rest of the text is indented. (Figure 14.10)
• All formats of sources should be included in the same alphabetized bibliography, unless dividing it into sections would make it significantly easier for readers. Bib. lists might appropriately have divided lists when: (14.62)
• 'it includes manuscript sources, archival collections, or other materials that do not fit into a straight alphabetical list'
• 'readers need to see at a glance the distinction between different kinds of works—for example, in a study of one writer, between works by the writer and those about him or her'
• 'the bibliography is intended primarily as a guide to further reading'
• When a list is divided, 'a headnote should appear at the beginning of the bibliography, and each section should be introduced by an explanatory subhead.' Each source should only be included in ONLY one section. (14.63)