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

[tectak]

Dale made an interesting point on Salad Blues. He figures footnotes feature on his poetry and that they are "a good thing". That is his supposition.
Frankly, I find a whole lot out by looking things up if I have insufficient local disc data. Dale argues for footnotes as a courtesy.
I argue against condescension. That is my supposition.
Discuss.
Tectak

[Magpie]

I think that they can be used but only in certain circumstances and as with many aspects of poetry like for instance, when to give haiku a title, it is very difficult to define the circumstances as such and is probably best left as "you'll know when it is necessary." Possible reasons for me would be when using some local dialect, colloquialism or slang that may be difficult to find the meaning of, although saying that I've just tried a few out on Google and it got them all straight away so what do I know. I'm sure there are reasonable circumstances sometimes.

On the other hand there are uses of the footnote like this http://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-16487.html where I am fairly certain that the footnote is fictitious. If so then this is an acceptable circumstance in which to use a footnote, but then is it a footnote or part of the poem itself. I'm just talking myself into smaller circles, whoever started this thread is a *reet workyticket.

Footnote *reet workyticket - North Tyneside slang meaning someone who is very mischievous. 

[ellajam]

This morning I'm anti-footnote. Let me get there through the poem or let me research if I care to, but don't disrupt my read with what you haven't said in the poem, and if it's so important put it in.

In the poem in question plenty of clues were given, I got the yellow powder because sulphur had just been mentioned. Salad Blues I guess are potatoes because of the sighted slivers, eyes.

The black turns white thing I couldn't get except for it being cleaning fluid which was enough for me. If it wasn't google has the advantage over a dictionary in that I could have tried "greenhouse cleaner, black white". Maybe I would have gotten there, maybe not, but in this case it did not stop my read.

I find that if the structure and language and metaphor interest me enough I will read through what I don't understand and if it never comes together on it's own I'll research, which I enjoy so that's a bonus.

If the poem hasn't grabbed me enough to care, at the second or third thing I don't understand I just move on, unless it's here and I feel some obligation to the poet that I don't feel when reading elsewhere.

So you've got the title and the poem, IMO leave the explanations out. I have never really thought about this before so my mind may change.

[milo]

Footnotes are added by editors and publishers /after/ a poem is edited and published and preferably after a poet is dead and her works in the public domain. Eliot's publishers convinced him to add footnotes to the book version of The Wasteland to fill up enough space for them to charge full book price and he begrudgingly* complied.

*It seems it he complied with the letter of the request but filled many of the footnotes with bogus information.

[shemthepenman]

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.

[ellajam]

I think I would rather read the poem about the odontoglossum first and see if I could figure meaning from context. If there's a footnote I'll cheat. Then I would examine why the poet might have chosen not to use a more common word for his subject and decide for myself whether he's crafty or otherwise.

In the case of a quote I don't think anything should be assumed, credit anyway the poet wants, but credit. Don't assume I know who wrote "Four score and seven years ago", (in fact, I don't know who wrote Lincoln's speeches) or "Good fences make good neighbors" (Frost, if no one published it before him).

[Leanne]

I am almost entirely anti-footnote. I tend to find them lazy on the part of the writer, who is also making assumptions that the reader is just as lazy as he/she is. The only time I will use them is to give my reader access to something they are unlikely to readily find via Mr Google, e.g. a vernacular term (*reet workyticket ) or a not-very-well-documented event.

Sans elucidation, the poem will (hopefully) delight those who do understand the references first go or who bother to access the multitude of reference materials available on the wwweb. If someone adds an unnecessary footnote explaining something in my "well, duh" range, I am instantly disinclined to enjoy the poem.

[Leanne]

Shem -- on the use of quotes in poetry -- I am of the opinion that if it's obvious that the poet knows it's a quote and is using it as such, then it's intertext, allusion or pastiche and requires no acknowledgement. Those who understand the reference will feel that the poem is enriched as it should be, and those who don't won't notice one way or another.

[bena]

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.

[shemthepenman]

Shem -- on the use of quotes in poetry -- I am of the opinion that if it's obvious that the poet knows it's a quote and is using it as such, then it's intertext, allusion or pastiche and requires no acknowledgement. Those who understand the reference will feel that the poem is enriched as it should be, and those who don't won't notice one way or another.

yep, I agree. But like Bena said, there is sometimes that fear of being accused of plagiarism. But at the end of the day, if one hasn't plagiarised then it is justifiable to leave out the footnotes. And we should repect the intelligent reader for being able to tell the difference. If they can't then maybe it is the author that needs to work on their delivery.

[just mercedes]

I'd like to see anything 'borrowed' from another writer properly accredited, in footnotes, even if it is just one line. I also like to see English translations of non-English words in a text, as footnotes - I do that when I use Maori words in poetry.

[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.

[bena]

Shem re your point on Google argument v footnote: funny, but I am such a visual artist (as you are, I would think) and I think it is just personally opinion that that I find a footnote a messy ugly disgusting smear at the end of an otherwise well stroked work, that I would rather separate it into another window on my screen. Go figure.

[rayheinrich]

                GIYF*


*JFGI

[Leanne]

"I grant that many a man already writes his mother tongue admirably, and indeed has performed each of the various duties of poetry as such; yet over and above this, it is necessary to know at least the principles of the other liberal arts, both moral and natural, to possess a strong and abundant vocabulary, to be familiar with the monuments and relics of ancient civilizations, to have in one's memory the histories of the nations, and to be familiar with the geography of various lands, of seas, rivers and mountains." -- Giovanni Boccaccio, Genealogy of the Gentile Gods (1360).

This is as true today as it ever was. Being able to write is not enough -- that's simply a manipulation of words in your verbal toolkit. Using those words to explore new ideas, generate stimulating discussion, and educate rather than obfuscate, is still an imperative, no matter how many times we write about doing rude things to cattle on the side. As a teacher, I do not explain every detail to my students; I expect them to use their initiative and discover things for themselves, once I give them a couple of clues and the tools with which to research further. If teenagers can do it, then grownups who consider themselves erudite and of at least average intellect have no excuse.

[Erthona]

Ah, so you snuck away and started this over here. You do not do me justice, you mischaracterize what I said. I argued for footnotes in two instances. The first and primarily is that it should be footnoted if the intent of a word, or phrase can not be found through research. This is especially true when the word or phrase used has a usage that is unique to a certain locale. There is no reasonable way a reader has of knowing this, despite applying a concerted effort to learn the answer, outside of finding someone from that locale (hard to do if it is not mentioned) and asking them.
The other is when it involves obscure nomenclature, especially short-hand jargon. In this case, even if the reader finds the definition it may do the reader no good as one needs to have a background in the field to make use of the definition. Here is an example of this from physics. The Higgs boson, or god particle as it is sometimes called could make for some intriguing word play. So there is a line in a satirical poem that is something tongue-n-cheek like, "God only plays ball on a Higgs field." so trying to find out what the person means by this our dutiful reader looks up "Higgs Field." Two items come up on Wiki in response to "Higgs Field." "Higgs Field" and "Higgs Field (Classic). Lets try the first, first.

Higgs Field: "a fundamental field first suspected to exist in the 1960s that unlike the more familiar electromagnetic field cannot be "turned off", but instead takes a non-zero constant value almost everywhere. The presence of this field – now believed to be confirmed – explains why some fundamental particles have mass even though the symmetries controlling their interactions should require them to be massless, and also answers several other long-standing puzzles in physics, such as the reason the weak force has a much shorter range than the electromagnetic force."

Does the reader quit here unenlightened, or does he research "symmetries" in order to try an understand this definition. After that not creating enlightenment should he then go enroll in a physics class, all for some poem? If so so, that arrogance far supersedes even mine, and as I am often forced to tell God how to run things...

Oh wait, there was the classical definition. That has to be simpler than the other one...right?

Higgs Field (classical): "Spontaneous symmetry breaking, a vacuum Higgs field, a Higgs boson are quantum phenomena. A vacuum Higgs field is responsible for spontaneous symmetry breaking the gauge symmetries of fundamental interactions and provides the Higgs mechanism of generating mass of elementary particles.

At the same time, classical gauge theory admits comprehensive geometric formulation where gauge fields are represented by connections on principal bundles. In this framework, spontaneous symmetry breaking is characterized as a reduction of the structure group G of a principal bundle P\to X to its closed subgroup H. By the well-known theorem, such a reduction takes place if and only if there exists a global section h of the quotient bundle P/G\to X. This section is treated as a classical Higgs field."       

This is called the problem of sub-cultures. As a result of specialization in most fields today, most people are in a sub-culture with people in the same field. The people they work with, go out with with after work, often marry, are all part of this sub-culture that is composed of people with the same education history and experience and the same work history. Because they are constantly surrounded by people who know what they know, they then begin to think everyone knows what they know, because everyone they know does. They think this stuff is common knowledge, why would I need to explain such basic stuff to someone they say? Everybody knows this stuff. This happens from Physics to auto-mechanics. "Hey there buddy, hand me that there 9/16th inch box end wrench. I didn't say 9/16th socket. No that's an open end. What are you, some kind of an idiot, everyone knows what a box end is. Look I'm pointing to it. No, you retard, not metric. Geez, you are totally worthless, just o away, your no good to me."

This is no different than the alcoholic who thinks he drinks normally because everybody (he knows) drinks just like him. It just so happens that everyone he knows is also an alcoholic.

So what I am saying is a poet, or any writer must be aware of the possibility that they are unconsciously part of a subculture (certainly they are part of at least one sub culture. This is what happens to kids when they become teenagers and start rolling their eyes at you, because everyone knows this stuff and if you don't you must be a complete idiot) and take for granted the specialized knowledge that they have and unwittingly inflict on other people. Just because something may seem basic to you, does not mean it is to everyone else.
Of course there are some things that are just exempt cause everybody knows 'em. Like everybody with any sense knows when you're out catching frogs at night for a good frog leg stew, you takes your 22* so you can shoot that bump on their backs. Cause as everyone knows that just paralyses them, so you can go back at your leisure and collect them. Them frog legs is some good eating I'm here ta say.

* .22 cal gun, usually a rifle, certainly a rifle in this case. It is the most owned rifle in the United States owing to its good accuracy and lower cost of ammunition. Getting your first .22 rifle is still a right of passage in most rural areas in the United States, usually before the age of 10. It is also popular owing to the fact that it offers nearly all types of the best known configuration.   

Of course I'm sure you all knew that didn't you? Sure ya did, or ya would just be idgits. 

Dale

[Leah S.]

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.