Susan Johnson used to put in footnotes to explain historical references, so she wouldn't have to dump info in the text.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.

I've read Susan Johnson ones too--they're historical footnotes. They're kinda cool. I think in some of hers they're endnotes, so you can look later if you want. I always thought they were neat. Stuff like "yes, there were condoms in this year, they were made out of blah blah blah, but they were only generally used with prostitutes" or whatever. Or "this was a big deal because if this law had been passed yaddda yadda Corn Laws" etc etc.

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.

Right, that's what I liked about them.

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.

Huh. That's interesting, and I respect his intention. But I'm still with Barb. I read the book to have a reading experience, not an immigrant experience.

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.

I had no problem losing myself in the book at all. If anything the use of the different languages made me understand the characters and made them come vividly to life.

(Jesse, you said exactly what I wanted to say but much smarterer.)

(Jesse, you said exactly what I wanted to say but much smarterer.)

Woo hoo!

I will say, I found the book difficult but worthwhile, and agree with lisah about the end.

I love footnotes! And endnotes! But I mostly love 'em in bios, and am also am an ginnormous geekface.

Footnotes are, in general, a Good Thing. However, it's a bit disconcerting to find one in the middle of a hot sex scene. Coitus interruptus, indeed.

I will say, I found the book difficult but worthwhile, and agree with lisah about the end.

I agree with qualifications. I don't mind the spanish just there in the flow because that's what it IS like to talk to my students who are bilingual. I also didn't mind the footnotes at all. Sometimes I chose to completely ignore them and sometimes I found them elucidating and interesting.

I didn't like the novel as much because I wanted to smack Oscar and the ending just made me roll my eyes. Lola (that's the sister right?) LOVED her. But Oscar just irked me.

Tangentially, I liked Drown so much better which has that same mix of spanish and english but is short stories and therefore serves a different niche for me.

I do think it's totally worthwhile even if not my thing - thing.