Footnotes Destroy Flow

It is tempting for a writer to use footnotes, but for a reader footnotes destroy the MentalStateCalledFlow.

They are even worse if they are within a sentence in the middle of a paragraph:

You stop to read,
look down,
read the footnote,
have to find where the reference to the footnote was and
jump back a sentence because you forgot the context, since footnotes usually are comments which lead you away from the context.+

Endnotes (usually located at the end of the chapter or book) can be even worse at destroying flow.

Most of the footnotes are unnecessary too, since they only contain comments: If you want to make a comment, why not make it within the text? Footnotes should only be used, if it would really destroy the flow when their content was included in the text: References to laws or a lot of other texts come to mind.

Oh, TerryPratchett is allowed to use footnotes as a means of style, but you are not him, right? ;-)

Other (especially fiction) authors try to use footnotes as a well balanced tool too: Manuel Puig makes extensive use of them in his novel, Kiss Of The Spider Woman. They are intended to offer a kind of dry, discursive counterpoint to the emotional content of the non-footnoted text. Some people simply found them distracting, though.

The annoying footnotes described above are bad footnotes, then. Footnotes are supposed to be optional, so don't read them at all (at least on first reading). Then they're not disruptive at all.

I am pretty nosy, so I almost always read the footnotes. Maybe I am afraid to miss out something and I actually enjoy the content of most footnotes. I read most books only once too, should I flip through it afterwards just for the footnotes (and waste time for finding the reference to it)? How do I know when I should read them? -- MarkoSchulz

Same for me--I always read them. If they aren't important, then why include them at all? It seems footnotes are a cop-out for disorganized authors and indecisive editors. -- KrisJohnson

Lets call out a WikiSingleVoteByCounting:

[2] I usually skip most footnotes on the first reading.
[8] I read most footnotes right away.
[4] It depends based on: my state of mind, the type of information, etc.
[2] If I'm flowing, I ignore the footnote and read it later.

My PetPeeve - footnotes at the end of the chapter/book which don't indicate which page they were referred from. Sometimes I see a juicy footnote I skipped earlier, but written such that it assumes the reader knows the context.

Footnotes can also preserve flow by moving tangential and background information out of the main text where they would interrupt the argument the text is making.

If anyone is interested, I would be happy to post a case-study (involving the on-line publication of an out-of-print book). -- JasperPaulsen

Yes please - hard facts are always welcome who care about good writing.

I find TerryPratchett's footnotes to be obnoxious, as they destroy flow. Especially the footnotes in the footnotes. LinksDestroyFlow too. --BruceIde

A good use for footnotes is in texts where quotes and cites need to be given specific citations. Then your main text can continue at a conversational pace, unencumbered by citations that many readers may not care about, but then more focused readers can use those footnotes to check the writer's work, find more texts for further reading, etc. Consider, for example, a mass-market history book which is intended for both casual readers and history professors.

To generalize, perhaps a good use for footnotes is in any case where there is a discrete difference between reading "modes", and those two modes can be supported by the parallel texts.

If they destroy your flow, then don't read them. You are a big boy/girl now. You can make your own decisions. Information importance is somewhat hierarchical. Footnotes are the only way I know of to present optional details but mark them as optional.

Amen! Of all the silly things to rant about. If they forced you to read them, then you'd have a real gripe.

+ note: footnotes can often be amusing

JefRaskin: I am a great lover of scholarly footnotes, excursions where the author digs more deeply, shares an insight, provides context, comments obliquely, introduces extra evidence, or adds a wry touch of appropriately academic humor.

See his parody on academic footnotes: An History of the Yarmulke - http://jef.raskincenter.org/humor/yarmulke.html

See also: DavidFosterWallace (uses extensive footnotes in fiction), TextSmell, NestedFootnote

CategoryConcentration