Footnotes in a Novel?

little_e · Mar 25, 2012

My characters (set in the 1700s) quote/reference/discuss the books they've been reading a lot--and they don't always stop to give their sources.

So what do you think about footnotes? Pretentious? Distracting? Annoying? Clever? Would footnotes put you (or an editor) off a novel? Or would you enjoy them?

These wouldn't be extensive, technical footnotes, just referencing the sources of quotes and the like. There are a few 'joke' references in the text, as well, which wouldn't be footnoted, since no one likes having the author explain a joke--hopefully folks would realize that these were meant as jokes, rather than me trying not to give credit. (Do you think the presence of footnoted references would make people overlook the unfootnoted ones? Or am I way over-thinking that, since no one's going to get the darn jokes, anyway?)

Maxinquaye · Mar 25, 2012

Terry Pratchett uses footnotes all the time for hilarious effect in his books. You could study them and see how he uses them.

He uses his to make aside-jokes. They're a delight to read. However, they're never needed to understand the books. I think a Novel with foot-notes must be clear and understandable if they were cut out entirely. You couldn't use them to advance plot, reveal character, and such. You certainly could not make your story depend on understanding them, so that if you didn't read the foot-notes the reader wouldn't understand what was happening.

Say, if you needed an understanding of a latin book by Aristotle and its contents to understand why a thing happened, that would be bad. IMO.

SomethingOrOther · Mar 25, 2012

little_e said:
So what do you think about footnotes?

Like any ordinary piece of writing, if they work, they're fine, and if they don't, they're not.

I'm not among those who categorically dislike them, so to me this question is sort of like "What do you think about embedded interview transcripts / paragraph-long scenes / nested short stories / [insert some oft-used but not standard-in-every-novel 'device']?" It depends, a lot.

When they work, they can be various shades of good or great. But when they don't, they can be one or more of the first three of these:

little_e said:
Pretentious? Distracting? Annoying? Clever?

See above. It's up to you.

little_e said:
Would footnotes put you (or an editor) off a novel? Or would you enjoy them?

See above.

I like some authors who use footnotes a lot, and their footnotes tend to be a net positive. But I've seen some that could be best described as Grotesque Homages Of Fail to those authors. It depends.

Your tone hints that you've started this thread partially to gauge whether you should use footnotes at all and partially to receive advice about how to use them well. If so, throw out the first part of that--you want to try this, so go ahead and try it even if the consensus (inexplicably) ends up being some absolutist disapproval of footnotes.

eyeblink · Mar 25, 2012

Suzanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is another novel that makes effective use of footnotes.

little_e · Mar 25, 2012

Maxinquaye said:
I think a Novel with foot-notes must be clear and understandable if they were cut out entirely.

Oh no, nothing like that. It all makes sense (I hope) in context. It's just my academic background screaming, "you must credit your sources!" and the characters not wanting to mention the line and verse every time they quote something well-known at the time.

Maxinquaye · Mar 26, 2012

Well, writing fiction is not academic writing. Academic writing probably would be bad in fiction. They're entirely different beasts. A novel is like an opera, while a thesis is an atonal deconstructionist piano sonata. Both are music, but both are extremely different.

Yorkist · Mar 26, 2012

little_e said:
My characters (set in the 1700s) quote/reference/discuss the books they've been reading a lot

Why are the characters discussing the books they're reading? Do they relate to the conflict in some way?

Footnotes can be awesome if used to add embellishments to the narrative. I second Max's suggestion of Terry Pratchett and add to that Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell (ETA: I see someone else has already suggested this book; consider that seconded as well), for fiction that uses footnotes properly. In fact, the latter book's footnotes do sometimes explain the books the characters are reading, but they're fictitious books. And this is accomplished with heaps of funny.

I don't think using footnotes to identify which real world books characters are reading is a good idea. More importantly, I'm puzzled as to why your characters are discussing books they've read in the first place.

little_e · Mar 26, 2012

Because they're nerds.

James D. Macdonald · Mar 26, 2012

Footnotes can work well: e.g, the Flashman novels. They can be pointless: e.g HMS Ulysses. Or, they can provoke you to throw the book across the room (as I once did with a student version of Heart of Darkness, which was filled with distracting footnotes, to the point of making it unreadable)[SUP]1[/SUP].

-----------------

1. "Yes, yes," I said, "I know about Lord Franklin's attempt to find the Northwest Passage. Doesn't everyone? You pulled me out of the narrative to tell me that?"

Mr Flibble · Mar 26, 2012

Maxinquaye said:
I think a Novel with foot-notes must be clear and understandable if they were cut out entirely. You couldn't use them to advance plot, reveal character, and such.

I've seen that done (Dan Abnett's Triumff)

Part of a foot note reads: Triumff's famous line at the hour of victory (Oh Spain! Sleep easy in thy bed for England hath set thy foes to flight) is now reckoned to be dramatic license on the part of the battle correspondent. It is likely that what Triumff really said was 'Suck on it, you gobshites'

I think this works because of who the narrator is, and that he is telling Triumff's story, but it can work. Ofc, it's easier with more humorous pieces.

RichardGarfinkle · Mar 26, 2012

If the footnotes add to the story as Terry Pratchett does, or if they are a plot element like Jasper Fforde's Footnoterphone then fine.

But if you want to reference sources out of an academic need or to direct your readers to books of interest, but them in a brief afterward rather than in the middle of the story.

Archerbird · Mar 26, 2012

Yorkist said:
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell (ETA: I see someone else has already suggested this book; consider that seconded as well

Thirded. The little stories and fictional facts in the foot-notes works well.

CallyW · Mar 26, 2012

There are footnotes in the Duncton Wood books referencing scrolls which other moles have written. They worked pretty well.

Buffysquirrel · Mar 26, 2012

James D. Macdonald said:
1. "Yes, yes," I said, "I know about Lord Franklin's attempt to find the Northwest Passage. Doesn't everyone? You pulled me out of the narrative to tell me that?"

Hah! I have never forgiven the editor who gave away the ending of Mansfield Park in the notes I was studiously reading as I went along. Cured me of that habit, anyway.

Footnotes can be great. But I'm not convinced the reader will know why some references are footnoted and some aren't.

quicklime · Mar 26, 2012

little_e said:
Oh no, nothing like that. It all makes sense (I hope) in context. It's just my academic background screaming, "you must credit your sources!" and the characters not wanting to mention the line and verse every time they quote something well-known at the time.

if that's the only reason, it is probably a bad idea, because you aren't worried about furthering the story or assisting the reader. those are the only reasons to do almost anything in a story.

Smish · Mar 26, 2012

Sure, if it works. And I've even seen it work in YA (An Abundance of Katherines, by John Green, which is actually my favorite JG book).

tmesis · Mar 26, 2012

Maxinquaye said:
I think a Novel with foot-notes must be clear and understandable if they were cut out entirely. You couldn't use them to advance plot, reveal character, and such. You certainly could not make your story depend on understanding them, so that if you didn't read the foot-notes the reader wouldn't understand what was happening.

Mark Z Danielewski managed it in House of Leaves. Mind you, he deliberately obfuscated meaning, in part to satirise academia.

onuilmar · Mar 26, 2012

little_e said:
Oh no, nothing like that. It all makes sense (I hope) in context. It's just my academic background screaming, "you must credit your sources!" and the characters not wanting to mention the line and verse every time they quote something well-known at the time.

Almost sounds like an annotated novel, except the author is providing the annotation.

As someone academically inclined, I would go along with those that say, "Sure, so long as it works."

Also, kind of reminds me of the appendices in academic papers: extra information for those wonky types like me who want to see the raw data.

Phaeal · Mar 26, 2012

Garrison Keillor has some hilarious (and hilariously long) footnotes in Lake Wobegon Days.

The footnotes in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, however, are the jewels in this crown. Clarke gets away with them because her narrative voice is that of a scholar. Come to think, Keillor gets away with his because his voice is that of a quasi-serious historian.

The critical point, then, would seem to be who's telling the story and inserting the footnotes. The scholarly omniscient narrator is an obvious yes. A breezy, less highly educated first person narrator, probably not, unless for ironic effect.

job · Mar 26, 2012

Can you use endnotes?

In the hot-air balloon, Nelly and Havers are discussing the works of Virginia Woolf, principally Three Guineas and To the Lighthouse. Gundsnuffs reference to 'Fionor's revenge' is found in The Garmishiad, Edda III, Verse 6.

This would be enough to direct the curious reader to the right source, assuming they didn't simply google.

You might glance at Dorothy Sayers for an example of two bookish people exchanging literary quotations in a completely believable manner. They reference the works in vocem.

Whatever you choose to do is right. That said, breaking the fourth wall is always dicey.

James D. Macdonald · Mar 26, 2012

Another example, at short story length: Our own "A Death in the Working." This was published. So it can be done.

Nick Rolynd · Mar 26, 2012

Jonathon Stroud, the Bartimaeus Trilogy. Filled with footnotes from Bartimaeus' POV. Typically they're anecdotes or histories. You don't actually need to them to understand the story, but they're typically amusing and quite informative. They help build the world quite a bit.

little_e · Mar 26, 2012

job said:
Can you use endnotes?

Heh, at first I was like "Glarb, I hate endnotes, they are only for irrelevant crap like citations," and then I was like "Oooh, endnotes! They're for irrelevant crap like citations." Could take care of the not wanting to give away the jokes but not wanting cite only some of the references problem, too, since people wouldn't get the explanation immediately, and only if they felt like looking it up. Thanks.

angeliz2k · Mar 26, 2012

little_e said:
My characters (set in the 1700s) quote/reference/discuss the books they've been reading a lot--and they don't always stop to give their sources.

So what do you think about footnotes? Pretentious? Distracting? Annoying? Clever? Would footnotes put you (or an editor) off a novel? Or would you enjoy them?

These wouldn't be extensive, technical footnotes, just referencing the sources of quotes and the like. There are a few 'joke' references in the text, as well, which wouldn't be footnoted, since no one likes having the author explain a joke--hopefully folks would realize that these were meant as jokes, rather than me trying not to give credit. (Do you think the presence of footnoted references would make people overlook the unfootnoted ones? Or am I way over-thinking that, since no one's going to get the darn jokes, anyway?)

little_e said:
Oh no, nothing like that. It all makes sense (I hope) in context. It's just my academic background screaming, "you must credit your sources!" and the characters not wanting to mention the line and verse every time they quote something well-known at the time.

Personally, I would discourage it. I think it makes it seem stuffy, and I don't think footnotes are necessary in the situation you *seem* to be describing.

My question is, how well known? Would someone reasonably well-educated know the reference? Are we talking Paradise Lost? The Bible? I would say your reader can look up things like that if necessary.

Also, are your characters quoting stuff or just talking about it? I know people of the 18th century were more likely to rattle off quotes by rote, but make sure this is important to the character's development. You can throw in context clues so that your readers know what is being referenced without the need of footnotes.

For instance, if your character is quoting, say, Ben Franklin and you aren't sure your audience will know that, you can have another character wrinkle their nose and say, "Where did you get that nugget of wisdom? Poor Richard's Almanac?"

So, yeah, if you're just "citing" sources as it were, I would try to make it work some other way. Hell, you can say in an author's note at the end that so-and-so quotes so-and-so in chapter x. Or you can have a list of sources/references at the end.

ETA: If the joke doesn't hold up without your reader looking up a source, you'll have to go about it another way, IMHO.

willietheshakes · Mar 26, 2012

How do we make it to a full page of replies with no mention (unless I missed it) of David Foster Wallace?

Footnotes in a Novel?

Trust: that most precious coin.

That cheeky buggerer

-

Barbara says hi

Trust: that most precious coin.

That cheeky buggerer

Trust: that most precious coin.

Your Genial Uncle

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Second Edition and Second Laughter

Nightowl

all out of fucks to give

Reads more than she writes.

bibbidi bobbidi boo

(w)ride like the wind

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Your Genial Uncle

50% Dark, 50% Snark

Trust: that most precious coin.

never mind the shorty

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.