Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48898
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

I'm going to disagree with the “bad idea” answers. I'll give as the example the first book I read containing explanatory footnotes, which happens to be one of all time's best-selling German children's books, [Jim Knopf und Lukas der Lokomotivführer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Button_and_Luke_the_Engine_Driver). I distinctly remember my enjoyment... They worked perfectly well for me, even though – or perhaps _because_ – I wasn't used to footnotes. Namely, when I came to the † symbol I did _not_ stop and skip down to the footnote, rather I kept on reading the rest of the page and right into the footnote itself. Granted, _that_ did then disrupt my reading, but it was fine: I interrupted, read the footnote by itself and thought “ah, now I get it... I was confused at that point, and this extra info explains it”. Then I started again from the † symbol, and this time turned the page before the footnote. I believe I did think it was a bit weird, but in a good way.

Ok, maybe I'm just a “footnote person”, I also use the over-proportionally often in my own scientific writing. (Tempted to insert a footnote right here, just for the sake of it.) Ah, see: that parenthetical remark was actually _more_ disruptive than it would have been as a footnote, don't you think? But at any rate, the success of Jim Knopf (as well as Terry Pratchett, who was already mentioned) demonstrates that footnotes can be fine in un-sciencey, child-friendly books. Just perhaps don't overdo it.

Original score: -1