How Do You Handle The Reading Of Footnotes ?

[JimmyH]

Many of the theological books I read have copious amounts of footnotes. I find it distracting to read them as I go, though I sometimes do, at other times I read through the text sans footnotes, and come back to them afterwards.

Of course this can be more work, in finding the context of the footnote within the text, but is not a distraction in the original reading.

How do y'all handle the reading of footnotes ? Is there a recommended method in seminary or college classes ? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[bookslover]

Usually, I'll finish the sentence where the footnote appears, then go back to read the note. Rarely, I'll finish the paragraph where any notes appear, and then go back and read all the notes for that paragraph. Also rarely, when I get to a footnote, I'll stop at the spot, read the note, then finish reading the sentence.

Reading the entire sentence, then going back to read the footnote, seems to work best.

Also: footnotes are infinitely superior to endnotes.

 

[VictorBravo]

I'll skim them first, usually. If they are simply references I jump over them for later if I think necessary. If they contain a side discussion, I'll read them more carefully.

Reading the footnotes first gives me context and allows me the fun of trying to guess how the author is going to present his thought. It only takes a few minutes, and then I can dive into the main body without distraction.

 

[J.L. Allen]

I'll skim them first, usually. If they are simply references I jump over them for later if I think necessary. If they contain a side discussion, I'll read them more carefully.

Reading the footnotes first gives me context and allows me the fun of trying to guess how the author is going to present his thought. It only takes a few minutes, and then I can dive into the main body without distraction.

I think I’ll start doing this. I typically read them as I come across them, but it often breaks up the flow. I’m not a fast reader at all, and I need all the momentum I can get.

 

[SolamVeritatem]

Jimmy,

What Victor said. Verbatim.

Actually this is an excellent question, and I don't want to hijack the thread, but I'd be interested to see a poll of how many readers prefer footnotes vs. endnotes.

Craig

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Also: footnotes are infinitely superior to endnotes.

Amen! I hate having to go to the back of the book again and again trying to find the note. It makes reading such a book very tedious.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I'll skim them first, usually. If they are simply references I jump over them for later if I think necessary. If they contain a side discussion, I'll read them more carefully.

Reading the footnotes first gives me context and allows me the fun of trying to guess how the author is going to present his thought. It only takes a few minutes, and then I can dive into the main body without distraction.

 

[Edward]

Unless it involves legal research, I generally skip the footnotes unless the text proves of particular interest to me. (fn.1) If it is important, it belongs in the text. (fn.2)

Of slight relationship to this topic - I've been contemplating bringing out a 'readers edition' of Calvin's Institutes. Simple, modern English with all footnotes omitted.

FN1: Most footnotes seem to serve the primary purpose of trying to make the writer seem intellectual. The conveyance of useful information seems, at best, to be secondary.

FN2. Unless, of course, it is designed to meet the requirements of an arbitrary academic standard.

 

[timfost]

How do y'all handle the reading of footnotes ?

By moving my eyes downward.

(Homage to Joshua.)

 

[Tom Hart]

Generally I finish the sentence or paragraph and then read the footnote. Often they're very valuable, but if there are too many I get bogged down.

It depends on the book. In the past, with books that were advanced for me, I have skipped over the footnotes, intending to return to them on a second reading. Leaving the notes for later can allow me to better keep my sense of direction in a chapter or book.

Also, it depends on time constraints. If I've only got 30 minutes to read, I probably won't bother with the footnotes until later.

I have mixed feelings about endnotes. On the one hand they keep the body of text free of interruption. I feel less of a compulsion to flip all the way to the back of the book and as a result I am more immersed in it. On the other hand, there are times that I need to read the note, and flipping to the back of the book all the time is just annoying.

 

[Tom Hart]

Amen! I hate having to go to the back of the book again and again trying to find the note. It makes reading such a book very tedious.

If I do need to refer to endnotes, I park my bookmark there. Saves a bit of page-flipping.

 

[jwithnell]

If the author is new to me, I'll generally glance through the bibliography to gain insight into his influences. The footnotes serve to answer questions: where's he getting this? Is he adding info? Well-written notes in the footnotes can be extremely valuable when I'm in over my head. Otherwise, I don't spend much time on them.

 

[hammondjones]

The recent Marrow version with Boston's notes really had me going back and forth all the time.... they were neither endnotes nor footnotes, more like side-notes. Certainly worth the effort, but the flow did suffer.

 

[Grant]

Aren’t they meant for the foot and not the eyes

 

[Tom Hart]

Aren’t they meant for the foot and not the eyes

The question is, actually, how one handles them. Awfully confusing.

 

[Grant]

The question is, actually, how one handles them. Awfully confusing.

On a serious note, I find them the most helpful when footnotes are added by older English words (definitions) that no longer get used as often. A book I am reading (The Theology of the Family), utilizes the definition style footnotes because many of the contributors are puritans. Other than that, I use the text variant and cross reference footnotes in my bible. The rest often get passed by.

 

[Jack K]

If an author is using footnotes correctly, most readers of books meant for a general audience should not be reading most footnotes at all. Footnotes should be for material that would be cumbersome if placed in the main text and is not necessary for most readers to wade through. This usually means acknowledgment of sources, mention of places to find further information, or a tangential point most readers won't care about.

As a writer, one should never put in a footnote any material most readers would want to read. Such material ought to stay in the main text, because footnotes are cumbersome and distracting for a reader. Even with typical footnote material like sources, if the writer judges that most readers would be interested in knowing the source or helped by that information, the material ought to be included in the main text.

As a reader, assuming the author and editor have followed the writer's rule, one should only read the footnote if interested in the source of a particular quote/idea or in arcane details about the particular topic.