LibriVox Forum

I believe that there are only certain footnotes which should gain recognition. In some cases, footnotes are used only to provide translations like where an unusual word originated from. Those ones I usually skip, because reading something like "and so the man spelled" [Footnote: spelled comes from a such and such language, and was used in the english dictionary in the 1500's] "and then learned how to read as well." This wouldn't make sense, and would probably confuse the reader rather because of the constant topic change.

I read footnotes that make sense for things, like if the author uses a completely new word and wants his reader to know what it means, it would be helpful for the interruption to understand what the previous word was.

Anyway, I think everyone knows what footnotes are so I'll be done talking about that Instead, I think every footnote should be read, unless it looks confusing (in they way I said earlier.)

Looking at the first post, I noticed you asked if some of us lower our voice or something.

My biggest thing when reading footnotes, is to try and NOT confuse the reader, or make the footnote seem like so big an interruption that you wonder if you should have read it. I try to read footnotes as fast as possible, and I change my voice's tone a little bit. I honestly how no clue why the lowering voice part happens.... I've never thought about that.

I take a slightly different approach. If I am reading a solo, I will include footnotes that add or expand the text and leave out the ones that are simple source references. I don't usually say footnote ... end footnote, but rather just add the footnote into the text where it occurs without any change in voice whenever possible. I find it's less disruptive to the listener done this way. And if there are a lot of footnotes it eliminates the repetitious footnote...end of footnote that would ensue. For group projects, one needs to follow whatever method the BC has requested.

mightyfelix wrote: ↑September 21st, 2019, 11:34 am... even if the text as printed is not given until the end of the chapter, we'd still read it as Foon described, right at the place where it occurs.

To my mind this is one of the great advantages of hard-copy books (my non-fiction books tend to have two (paper) bookmarks, whereas my fictions have but one) and suggests that in-place should be the preferred option.
The point could be made that we are in the footnote quandary because footnotes were created for hard-copy books. I mean - did the ancient scrolls have footnotes?
P.S. Did you see how I did the double-nested footnote in the first sentence?(grin)
Chris

Surely the most problematic footnotes are in biographies. The footnotes will provide context to life events. These footnotes will usually be long and often. To skip them will leave out subtleties about their life.