03-05-2015, 01:34 AM
hello,
If I understand the poem I am against footnotes. If I do not understand the poem, then I am for them. If a poem has footnotes I read them at the end. I would rather trip over an obscure reference or word and carry on than fall completely at the first asterisk. Following this rule I don't see why one would in principle be opposed to the footnote. One shouldn't oppose the expedience of footnotes just because of Google.
Having said that I hardly ever use them. One of the reasons is that when I was younger and just starting to read poetry (and attempting to write it) I had this sense that poets knew everything, I mean like literally everything, and they never made any concessions to the ignorance of mere mortals; such was my regard for poets [one of my earlist memories, before I had even read any poetry, was watching an interview on the television with a famous novelist who said that he always wanted to be a poet but wasn't clever enough. Ah, the innocence of youth.]. Another reason I don't use footnotes is almost the oppsite, because I am not particularly knowledgeable about things and therefore assume that if I know it then most people know it.
On the other hand, I think that if a quote is used then a footnote is necessary regardless of its obscurity. For example I once wrote
-Can't sleep here!
-Was just resting my eyes.
-Can't rest your eyes here, either.
-Life without a break.
'life without a break' is a direct quote from the play In Camera (referring to the fact that people in hell do not blink). Now, this isn't very obscure, I am sure enough people have read or seen In Camera to get this, but the footnote is required in order to let the reader know that the author hasn't either stolen it or tripped over it by accident... or is it required? em... I am not sure now. Anyway, this is almost the opposite of how footnotes are used. I mean, it assumes a good proportion of the readers will get the reference, yet the footnote it an indication that the author knows it too ??? odd :/
I suppose the big question is, how does one judge what is obscure enough to warrant a footnote? I think most times one can tell the difference between common knowledge and specialised knowledge; and I also think the reader can tell. If one writes a poem about an odontoglossum, then even a reader who is botanist (and has come across this flower often) will understand the poet's use of a footnote and not take it as an insult to their intelligence.
damn what was I thinking,? I've just argued myself into writing footnotes :/ no no, fuck that noise. I am against them.
If I understand the poem I am against footnotes. If I do not understand the poem, then I am for them. If a poem has footnotes I read them at the end. I would rather trip over an obscure reference or word and carry on than fall completely at the first asterisk. Following this rule I don't see why one would in principle be opposed to the footnote. One shouldn't oppose the expedience of footnotes just because of Google.
Having said that I hardly ever use them. One of the reasons is that when I was younger and just starting to read poetry (and attempting to write it) I had this sense that poets knew everything, I mean like literally everything, and they never made any concessions to the ignorance of mere mortals; such was my regard for poets [one of my earlist memories, before I had even read any poetry, was watching an interview on the television with a famous novelist who said that he always wanted to be a poet but wasn't clever enough. Ah, the innocence of youth.]. Another reason I don't use footnotes is almost the oppsite, because I am not particularly knowledgeable about things and therefore assume that if I know it then most people know it.
On the other hand, I think that if a quote is used then a footnote is necessary regardless of its obscurity. For example I once wrote
-Can't sleep here!
-Was just resting my eyes.
-Can't rest your eyes here, either.
-Life without a break.
'life without a break' is a direct quote from the play In Camera (referring to the fact that people in hell do not blink). Now, this isn't very obscure, I am sure enough people have read or seen In Camera to get this, but the footnote is required in order to let the reader know that the author hasn't either stolen it or tripped over it by accident... or is it required? em... I am not sure now. Anyway, this is almost the opposite of how footnotes are used. I mean, it assumes a good proportion of the readers will get the reference, yet the footnote it an indication that the author knows it too ??? odd :/
I suppose the big question is, how does one judge what is obscure enough to warrant a footnote? I think most times one can tell the difference between common knowledge and specialised knowledge; and I also think the reader can tell. If one writes a poem about an odontoglossum, then even a reader who is botanist (and has come across this flower often) will understand the poet's use of a footnote and not take it as an insult to their intelligence.
damn what was I thinking,? I've just argued myself into writing footnotes :/ no no, fuck that noise. I am against them.