Footnoting poems etc: what do you think?

[Kynaston Levitt]

I don't have a problem with footnotes, or their equivalent in digital formats.  Both for informational and entertainment purposes, they have their place.  KL mentioned Beckett's Whoroscope in another thread.  The editors are sometimes right.  Whoroscope without notes would be pretty hard to digest.  Ditto the poems of David Jones.  And there are a number of poets (Pound, for example) where they would be a positive addition.

It is a pain to use them, but I don't think a poem that needs them is any less a poem.

Despite what I said in my previous comment regarding Whoroscope, the footnotes* to that poem aren't necessarily a bad idea—in fact, I'm going to make a bit of a U-turn and say, yeah footnotes, in general, aren't necessarily a bad thing. But, I still maintain that if the whole or the majority of the poem is referring to or alluding to or related to or inspired by—whatever way you like to put it—a single thing, then some effort should be made to incorporate that single referent into the title of the poem or the poem itself**. I suppose my question is, if you're committed to acknowledging the referent, why wouldn't you do it that way?




*When I talk about footnotes I'm not talking about individual words that may be foreign or obscure that may need translation or definition. I'm talking about concepts or events or other art works etc. outside of the poem but that the poem is alluding to.
**Of course, I don't think you have to do this, either. I'm just saying that between footnoting or incorporation, incorporation is preferrable. You could very well do neither.

NB: After having a less bleary eyed look at the edits made to Busker's poem, I've realized my particular objection is redundant in that case. Because now there are 2 "footnotes" and they have asterisks for line/phrase specification. And, apart from the ugliness of the asterisks, I can't see any problem with the footnotes accompanying that poem.