03-16-2015, 06:41 AM
I'm generally against footnotes in poetry. I figure that, when I don't understand a term or reference, it's I who am insufficiently well-read to figure out what the poet means. I see no problem in using Google as a quick reference guide, and I can usually figure out when Google has led me off on some side-track. I have had some delightful learning journeys result from looking up stuff I don't understand in the poems posted on the Pigpen forums.
If a poem is pretentious and deliberately using esoteric and erudite references in the expectation that only those 'in the know' will get it, then I think that makes it just plain bad poetry.
I think a headliner note is acceptable in the case of a poem in which the premise needs to be explained. For example I wrote a sonnet once called "Love Lies" that I felt needed clarification so I put a reference in parenthesis below the title which read (On reading Shakespeare's Sonnet 138 and Arguing Over Whether Cynicism Can Be Tender.) I considered it to be part of the title, but I am still dubious about whether to keep it there.
At any rate, I've found that footnotes almost always interrupt and detract from a poem. And that's my 2 cents.
If a poem is pretentious and deliberately using esoteric and erudite references in the expectation that only those 'in the know' will get it, then I think that makes it just plain bad poetry.
I think a headliner note is acceptable in the case of a poem in which the premise needs to be explained. For example I wrote a sonnet once called "Love Lies" that I felt needed clarification so I put a reference in parenthesis below the title which read (On reading Shakespeare's Sonnet 138 and Arguing Over Whether Cynicism Can Be Tender.) I considered it to be part of the title, but I am still dubious about whether to keep it there.
At any rate, I've found that footnotes almost always interrupt and detract from a poem. And that's my 2 cents.