They said I was obscure but I don't know the word..

[shemthepenman]

As a writer I try to give credit where it is due, even when it is just an allusion---just due to my inane need to feel like I'm not going to be accused of plagiarism and I do use footnotes when I fear that I'll be misunderstood, but that has little to do with the reader.

As a reader, I don't need you to over complicate my experience with footnotes.  If I don't understand something, I google.  If I'm interested enough to read a poem, I won't mind the 5 seconds it will take me to educate myself, and I'll be the better for it.  

This is why I alone am exclusively allowed to be a hypocrite on this site.

I am really not sure about, what sociologists are calling, 'the Google argument'. It seems like an argument for expediance against expediance. If the argument was 'I go to the library and do some in depth research' then it would be different. Like, the discovery is a mission that enhances an already interest worthy poem. But simply googling an obscure word or reference hardly constitutes a journey of discovery - at least no more that reading a footnote at the bottom of a page. Google is simply a conveniance in the absense of the more conveniant footnote. Also, if the footnote is by the author it has more authenticity than some random Google search.
Again, I am not for the footnote, but appeal to Google just doesn't cut it as an argument for me. If an obscure word is used, then what is the difference between Googling the word and simply glancing at the footnote? Both Google and the footnote where created for the same end: instant information gratification. Why choose the relatively slower one?

And when it comes to laziness, I think for me personally, it is in part due to laziness that I don't write footnotes. I mean if the reader doesn't know why 'hymenoperatera' is a funny play on words, then I am fucked if I am going to spend a 100 words explaining it in a footnote.