I read the Edith Grossman translation of Don Quixote a while ago. An excellent translation, I hear, and I enjoyed it immensely. Immensely, that is until I would come across a numbered footnote, reminding me that I was not bouncing along on Rocinante, with the faithful Sancho Panza coming along beside me, but was in fact reading fiction.
Stop using numbered footnotes in fiction. Use the quoted kind. Nobody ever reads the damn things anyway.
Oh. Fuckers!
Translations of classic works are perhaps the one place I do tolerate footnotes and annotations.
Alice is, frankly, unreadable by a modern audience, especially a younger one, without Gardner’s annotations. Don Q is another work with many opaque points that deserve explication to the new or attentive reader. There is no shortage of translations without annotation or notes; maybe the fault is yours here, for choosing the wrong one.
I can only recall a few occasions of footnotes in more general, modern fiction, in any case, and most are humorous asides.
Don’t read Heinlein’s first (lost) novel, in any case. There are many reasons to avoid this earnest, overstuffed, underwritten screed, but the two page footnote a little ways in is pretty much the breaking point for most readers.
Discworld novels would not be as fun without the footnotes.
What bugs me are end notes that aren’t just references. If you want to give further detail and context, don’t make me flip to the back. A recent book on the role of slavery in the US revolution had a ton of end notes, with an even mix of citation and context notes.
What are quoted footnotes? Uncle Google isn’t being helpful.
The footnotes in a translation of Chesterton’s Tales of the Long Bow were pretty much a must: it was either footnotes or change half the tales completely. And once he’d started, the translator used them to explain some puns and wordplay as well. I actually found it quite nice that, thanks to being allowed footnotes, he was able to make sense of lines which wouldn’t make any without the explanation and would have sounded very strange if they’d been translated.
Some friends were deriding a translation in World of Warcraft, an item that was called quijotes. I said “well, with that name it should be a pair of greaves.” “Uh?” “Quijotes are the parts of plate armor that protect the thighs.” “Wait. It’s not just some invented word?” “No, it’s the actual name of an armor part.” “Ow! :facepalm: Yes, it IS plate pants. So, uh, we owe the translator an apology I guess…”
I’m reasonably sure my friends used to store their dictionaries right next to their copies of El Quijote, back when they had to read fragments of it in class… but having notes for the words time has made unusual would have helped them.
Add me to the list that doesn’t understand what the OP is talking about. What is a “quoted kind” of footnote?
Footnotes are good. You can skip them if you’re having too much fun “bouncing along on Rocinante” or read them if you feel like understanding more about the text. You may as well complain about page numbers pulling you out of the story if you’re that easily distracted.
Oh no. As great as Gardner’s Annotated Alice is, I wouldn’t recommend it, or any other “The Annotated _____” edition, to a first-time reader.
Explaining a joke can easily kill the humor. It’s better to get half the jokes than to have all of them explained before you get a chance to laugh at them.
The best footnote from Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe:
“You dirty bird, how could you! Athelstane cannot be dead!”
It just means using a fragment quoted from the text, rather than a superscript number. I dislike it, mildly, for the same reason that the OP likes it; it doesn’t give you a marker in the main text.
“Uncle Google…” Here Nava refers, colloquially, to the World Wide Web search engine software which is the core product of Google, Inc.
I’m guessing that the OP is saying that numbers are distracting and take him out of the story. So if extra information is needed, use annotations.
I disagree with the OP. Footnotes can be used entertainingly. Moreover, and this is just personal taste, I often feel that fiction wastes my time. I’m a non-fiction kind of guy. But I’d really like to read a work of annotated historical fiction, where the annotations convey the degree of poetic license applied and perhaps updates some of the underlying research. Ditto, sort of, for a work of philosophical fiction.
That’s me though. I’m pretty sure the OP has more common sentiments.
I thought Gaiman and Pratchett’s *Good Omens *had some hysterical footnotes.
Examples:
While we’re at it, The Princess Bride wouldn’t be 1/1000th as funny without “Goldman’s”* hysterical footnotes (“This was after America, but before Europe”, etc)
*The character who’s editing Morgenstern’s book with the fat little son, not the real writer Goldaman, who’s got no sons and two daughters. I suspect the real Goldman wasn’t as frustrated by his editor and/or the ongoing condescension of Florinese scholars. 
May I suggest the OP stay away from House of Leaves.
This is utter nonsense. Alice is immediately accessible to any intelligent younger reader. The footnotes are useful if you want to know that “You are old, Father William” is a parody of a sententious Robert Southey poem, but I’d hardly call this unintelligible to any 10 year old:
And Infinite Jest is right out.
I like footnotes.
One of my main reasons for upgrading to the new and improved Paperwhite models was that it handles footnotes gracefully, via popup. It’s a lovely addition. Jonathon Strange & Mr. Norrell would be unreadable without it.
Jonathan Strange and Mister Norrell is terrific; there are literal pages of footnotes. I love a good footnote.
Most of us here will, in the end, be nothing but a footnote.
Bolding mine.
nitpick/
Greaves protect the shins, not the thighs.
/end nitpick
Tell that to the people who write fantasy books and games.