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.

Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell has footnotes, and I loved it. And them. So does The Princess Bride, if I am not mistaken -- although possibly they're editorial notes, I forget.

I have yet to read Oscar Wao, though I did see Junot Diaz interviewed on the Colbert Report a month or so back.

I can't believe that we've gotten this far without mentioning David Foster Wallace. I will admit that I never got through Infinite Jest, but I love his essays, and he has same awesome footnotes.

The Harper's Version of his cruise essay can be found here: [link]

Which contains at one point, this footnote:

31 !

I tried, but in the end, for all of its truly brilliant bits, and there are, believe me, I just wanted to be like Deb by the end and say "Sorry about your penis." Which, now that he's dead, feels awful. But a thousand pages? Really?

Lola (that's the sister right?) LOVED her.

She was my favorite character, yeah.

Which contains at one point, this footnote:

31 !

Hee. That's adorable.

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.

That was me. He was at the Key West Literary Conference I attended last year, and I was really impressed by him.

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.

I've been ruminating on this statement some more, from the writer's perspective as opposed to the reader's, and it helped me understand something, at least how it relates to me. I'm still trying to parse it out, so forgive me if it rambles a bit. It also still pertains to reading and genre, so that's why I'm keeping it here instead of moving over to GWW--

Anyhow, I think a statement like this-- this conscious exercise in keeping the reader at a remove-- I think this is why as a writer, I'll never be quote/unquote literary. As difficult as it is to define "what is literary?" I think this sort of extreme selfishness is one thing I would consider to be a literary hallmark. I mean, writing is a very selfish, even arrogant, pursuit, one where the writer has their story to tell and no one else can tell it in the same manner they can, for good or bad. But what Díaz is describing takes that sort of selfishness several steps further. He's telling his story the only way he can and by his own words, he's only telling it for himself. Really only a Dominican uber-geek is going to get every single reference and how many of them are there?

And therein lies the difference. While I'm a selfish writer who wants to tell my stories, I want to tell them for a greater audience-- I want make my stories accessible, whereas I think a lot of literary authors don't give a rat's patoot about the greater audience. Either you get it or you don't. I don't know-- this may require a bit more ruminating. And coffee.

Already ETA: I really admire that, in a way-- I know it's something I'll never be able to do, my mind doesn't work that way. Even if I have a certain facility with language, I'm a far more prosaic writer, so I can really admire anyone with that sort of gift.

He's telling his story the only way he can and by his own words, he's only telling it for himself. Really only a Dominican uber-geek is going to get every single reference and how many of them are there?

OK, I haven't read this particular book. But while I agree with your more general principle, I wonder if you are applying it correctly.

The general principle to me is that sex by yourself is masturbation, and a work of art not accessible to anyone but yourself is as well.

That said, I wonder if this is really an example. There are ways of communicating besides making every word accessible. By deliberating using a dialect the reader can't completely understand (but can partially understand) the writer is conveying an immigrant experience of understand generally what is going on but missing a lot of detail. Now it is fair enough that recreating the experience at too much length (as opposed to for very short passages) is irritating. But it really is valid communication with the reader, so even if you hate it, I'm not sure it is literary masturbation in the same sense a certain type of academic novel is. At any rate, if it is in this case, I'd say it is not in general neccesarily so.

For example you can complain that Tolkein created is world first, and wrote his novels set in it as an afterthought. You can appreciate The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings much better if you actually learn Elvish, and study the mythology in which it is set. (I never did.) And a lot of people do complain about it. But nobody every accused Tolkein of selfishness for this, or being too literary. Tolkein wrote some works a lot of people enjoy, including many who never really geeked out on his world. You enjoy it or you don't, and whatever the flaws, I don't think the fact they have a whole additional level that is not accessible to most of it really is the main problem for those who don't like it. (Most common complaint: too much scenery.)

An analogy: the invention of perspective. Before perspective painting tended to show all sort of detail. I would swear I saw one ancient Greek pastoral scene that included hearts in peoples chests. One aspect of perspective is that stuff is hidden behind other stuff or in shadow. The viewer does not see everything that is going on, and it looks all the more realistic for that. (Not saying that never happened pre-perspective, or that it always happens with perspective. But perspective moves art further along that continuum.

What I'm saying is that dialog, or even having a character use a dialect (real or invented) that the reader does not entirely understand (or understand at all) is not automatically selfish in the sense you describe. It depends on context. That does not mean you can't find it irritating regardless. But if it is a sin, it is not a sin of non-communication, and it is not confined to "literary" fiction. Heck, you could argue the original Star Wars trilogy makes extensive use of it.

I agree with Typo boy. I remember hearing John Irving talk about Garp. He deliberately doesn't tell us what happened in the accident. As you are reading the next part of the book, you start noticing Walt isn't there and then you flip back and look for a mention and you read on with a feeling of dread. This is the experience that Irving wanted the reader to have and it is exactly the experience I had. He kept information from the reader, but it was in service of a specific experience.

I think that's what Diaz was doing as well. Now, you may not LIKE that feeling of being a bit "at sea," but in both cases the writer is constructing his work in order to give the reader something, which is not selfish.