The Nats have stunk, but for a dream half-season when baseball first came back to DC. We had a team, which was taken to Minnesota. We had another team, which was taken to Texas. We tried for a team for years, blocked by the evil owner of the Baltimore team, afraid the area couldn't handle two teams. Through a combo of pressure and paying him off (he gets a majority of our TV revenues), we got the team that had been in Montreal. All of which makes figuring out team history a little tricky...
Anyway, the first half of the first year, we were winning. Folks were amazed. There was a cover story in Sports Illustrated, and the team tanked. They've stayed at or near the bottom ever since. But since we had such wonderful draft picks (due to pathetic records) and judicious trades, we now have a better team. Maybe I shouldn't say that...
Like the Caps in the playoffs now, we seem to be relying mostly on defense for wins. Our best hitter from last year is recovering from a torn lat muscle (ouch).
More than you want to know, I realize. I'm procrastinating a bit, before leaping back to trimming the fat from my NF. That's going well. I'll soon get below 100,000 words.
Tell me everyone. If you were reading a book where a noncredentialed person is presenting research, how important would be identifying (somewhere in the book -- endnotes, references, etc.) each precise study? A lot of my word count is in endnotes or actually quoting from studies (to show they say what I claim). I could cut down word count considerably if I only provide references for the most important discussions, and do a "studies show [thus and so]" for everything else.
I have three professors who've read the book and written blurbs that I'm right, etc. for what that's worth.
I'm the sort of person who is persuaded by things that have explanations, quotations, references, and the like. But maybe that isn't the best way to go. Agents say I should let the story persuade people. Then again, much of my story was doing research and arguing with supposed experts about it.
What I'm considering now is putting important wonky-type discussions in separate sections at the end of chapters as need be (what to call them, I don't know) and letting these be the ones that have endnotes. That way, the chapters presenting the story would be endnote-free. I hesitate to do appendices, because not too many people read them. That way, the support is there for the people who want it, and the people who don't will not be scared off.
I try to make the wonky stuff entertaining, but superscript numbers make agents think I'm being too academic.