Stop footnoting yourself

Joe Kazinski has written a book about wiffleball.[1] In it he basically argues that one of the main problems with wiffleball playing these days is that people treat it like baseball, when it is not. This is partially true, but altogether obvious. In my previous work, I have argued a more compelling case that wiffleball is more like tee-ball.[2] For the fact of the matter is, as I have maintained in subsequent works,[3] wiffleball is performed within the rubric of the nascent state of ball and bat, so that the child-like re-enactment of one’s repression is figuratively displayed in the aggression of pitching and hitting. Reviewers of my work lauded its genius.[4] Kazinski’s work leaves much to be desired, but mine does not (see for example my recent Wiffleball Nation and For the Love of Wiffleball). It is clear that the outstanding expert on this subject is the present writer.
[1] “Why I am the best at wiffleball”
[2] “Why I know more about wiffleball than anyone else” – published by me, written by me, edited by me.
[3] “The Wiffleball Bible” – by me.
[4] It must be said that one of the reviewers was my cousin, and the other was a student of mine. But they nonetheless displayed the scholarly objectivity and detachment necessary in academic reviews.

I read a book review recently that was basically like the mock-review above: instead of being an explanation, appreciation, and criticism of the book under consideration it ended up being a discussion of the merits of the reviewer's own work. This straight up ticked me off as a selfish and amateurish piece. What's more, I cannot believe that the journal (which is semi-reputable) allowed this to be published! Perhaps the only thing worse than a review of this sort is a book of this sort - where the author interacts with no one but himself and his previous works. If you are going to think of yourself as the world-expert on any given subject, start a blog. But don't actually publish something with such presumption!