Avoiding foot&note disease

Question

In his answer to Our note in footnote of a book, Malvolio writes:

I hate numbered foot-notes personally, they're very distracting

Which I agree with, but his recommendation, to use endnotes, I find much more more distracting: what havoc is played with ones grasp of the thread of a text when one fumbles in the back of the book for several seconds finding the note in order to see whether it is the one footnote in ten that is essential to the text.

What are good policies to make footnotes more manageable in text?

Answer 1

I don't mind footnotes if they are of the sort that are shown at the bottom of each page, so I only need to move my eyes down a bit to figure out what the footnote is trying to tell me.

As for endnotes, the ones that are only explained at the end of the chapter or, worse, at the end of the book -- I can't fathom who actually reads these because they are so much work for the reader. You'd have to be quite dedicated.

In any case, footnotes are at best a novelty and should be used with restraint. The reader should be (pleasantly) surprised every time they see one.

Answer 2

I use foot-notes, if at all, for explanatory material that cannot be fit in-line, but that would help the reader with understanding what he is reading; end-notes are for citations -- the dead-tree equivalent of hyperlinks.

Answer 3

Edward Tufte proposes a fascinating idea of sidenotes (link) which are literally over on the side of the page, next to the text they're related to, rather than at the bottom of the page.

If you have enough control over the layout of the page, sidenotes can be very pleasantly readable and minimally disruptive to one's train of thought.

Answer 4

Footnotes should* be used for things like side commentary. They can also be used for brief references, if you wish.

Endnotes should* be used when describing extended research material, an annotated bibliography/extended references and other longer notes that aren't considered brief side comments.

*I say "should", but it comes down to what you're comfortable with, what is least distracting to the reader, and (importantly) what you do consistently.

Answer 5

The way you're avoiding notes depends on the type of writing you're doing. Most of the time it is painful and not worthwhile.

If you can explain facts in parenthesis, do so. If you can explain with some background information that will void the need for notes, do so. If you can integrate into the prose what needs to be said in the notes, you should.

As I said in the beginning, avoiding footnotes can be painful in many cases. For instance, if providing context for the incursions of the Europeans into the Middle East, you'd have to carve a place for an explanation of, say, the start of the Templars. It might not be plausible, in which case a footnote would be best.

EDIT: Painful to write, I mean. The cited example might be poor, but it was the first thing that popped into my mind.

There are cases where footnotes are best: when their information is not enough in context to write inline, but too compelling to omit. If the reader doesn't read the note, they miss out, but not so much that the meaning of the text is lost.

Answer 6

I say that you should follow the style your audience is used to. Technical writing? Academic writing? Footnote and endnote and sidenote away!

Novel? Don't even think about it. You want people to get lost in the linearity of the narrative.

If you want to add some background info that might be interesting to some readers but not to most, add an appendix. If it is in fact relevant to the tale, weave it in.