Right? I'm not sure how you walk that line and don't push it too far. Because it would certainly be fun to write a novel like that—like I said, it's basically how I write my LJ posts!—but how do you do it without putting off the reader?

You do it by drawing them into your world, not assuming they know your world, if that makes any sense? And of course, there's the all too important matter of balance-- you have to balance some of the chatty colloquial nature with actual structured narrative, that way you're not overwhelming the reader. Then again, if you're a literary darling, you can do whatever the hell you want and ain't no one gonna tell you boo.

I really loved Oliver Wao. I thought the footnotes worked perfectly for the type of novel it was although normally I'd be against them.

after one of my friends who was reading it, kept asking me to translate stuff

huh...I was pretty much able to figure stuff out from the context.

And I HATE footnotes in a novel.

I remember the first time I read a Susan Johnson (very explicit) romance, which was the first (and so far, only) romance I've read with footnotes! That was a bit startling, to say the least.

The only problem I had with Oliver Wao is that I think it kind of falls apart at the end. But I think that about a lot of novels.

The first novel I read with footnotes was Middlemarch. There were a ton of footnotes, but I was grateful for them, and I kind of have a fondness for footnotes as a result.

I remember the first time I read a Susan Johnson (very explicit) romance, which was the first (and so far, only) romance I've read with footnotes!

What were they? Illustrations? ::boggles::

I thought the footnotes in Oscar Wao worked narratively, because they were the tangents the storyteller would have gone off on if he were telling you the story in person.

Also, I really appreciated the comment someone posted here about hearing Diaz speak (or reading an interview or something), and his saying that he did stuff on purpose so that no one who wasn't a Dominican uber-geek would get everything -- that was to make the reader have the immigrant experience of basically understanding what was going on, while at the same time knowing you were missing out on nuance.

Susan Johnson used to put in footnotes to explain historical references, so she wouldn't have to dump info in the text. The first time I saw them I was sort of amazed, too.

What were they? Illustrations?

I think the book was Forever (not the Judy Blume one!), which was mostly set in turn-of-the-century France. The footnotes were explaining various historical issues, for everything from eating habits to architectural details.

ETA: or what Amy said.

that was to make the reader have the immigrant experience of basically understanding what was going on, while at the same time knowing you were missing out on nuance.

Huh. As a reader, that would piss me off monumentally because for me, the best experience with a book is to be able to lose myself completely in it, not to be held deliberately at a remove.