238 regarding the one actual language-prescriptivist argument among the characters in the book. There’s a rather ponderous notation on his p. Most of his annotations are dictionary references elaborating on word usage, with occasional literary allusions, mostly to authors pre-dating Grahame. At least he’s sober and scholarly about what he does say. His book is full of enough dismayingly-long blank spaces through interesting parts of the narrative that you wonder why he bothered. Lerer is the annotator who doesn’t have enough to say. Now we’re down to the simple, straightforward pastorales of Kenneth Grahame. They’re very different.Īnyone who ventures to annotate a classic should sit down and take a hard thought first: exactly what about this work needs annotation? And: do I have enough to say to justify inflicting a fat volume with wide margins on the public? The first classic modern annotation was Martin Gardner on Alice, a body of work just full of obscure mathematical jokes and literary allusions that would greatly benefit the reader by being explained.

It never rains but it pours: I am sitting here with library copies of two different annotated editions of The Wind in the Willows, one boldly titled The Annotated Wind in the Willows, edited by Annie Gauger (Norton, 2009), and the other more humbly titled The Wind in the Willows: An Annotated Edition, edited by Seth Lerer (Belknap Press, 2009). The Wind in the Footnotes: Reviews of two new annotated editions of Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows The Wind in the Willows: An Annotated Edition.

The annotated wind in the willows