Hello, So one of my main projects is a high fantasy story and I want to include the lore of the story in a more entrenched kind of way. Normally there are elements of the plot, narration and dialogue that cover the most relevant stuff and you might have an appendix section or spinoff book that covers further depth separately. I was inspired by a few examples I sore that included things that would normally be separated into the main text. One of them Kill Six Billion Demons includes short segments in between the story where a page or a few will tell stories that are significant to the lore and themes. And another influence Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell used a relatively large number of footnotes. My question is I want to include certain folktales and histories, around six-nine different stories, in the story should I include as short interlude chapters or put them in footnotes? I am leaning towards having a few footnotes for smaller individual bits of lore and like Jonathan Strange I could include the stories in footnotes, in both cases I would want them to be relatively short anyway. Is it safer to separate them from the main text for lack of intrusion, but then they are also right beneath rather than segregated in little interludes that those who want to focus on the main story can skip? What do you think?
I'd put them in separate chapters to break up the story. Creating a beat that can be understood, expected, and if people don't care, skipped. Like cutaway scenes in any film or show. Kind of like: Story Story Lore Story Lore Story Story Lore
Have you read Watership Down? Because that book has both; short footnotes and then folktale interlude chapters. Putting a lot of text into footnotes will make your book look like a dissertation, but I would probably prefer footnotes to endnotes if your footnotes are short. If the interludes further the plot and aren't just random lore I think it would be better to include them with the rest of the novel. If they are random lore, then an appendix is probably a better place.
Not to demand too much, but I was wondering what other people's opinions are? Currently, I'm going with doing a bit of both but I am still considering doing just the interludes , which might make slightly more room for more interludes if there aren't also footnotes. There's also the question of which is the higher priority with footnotes (and with interludes); short and un-obtrusive or interesting and detailed? Not exactly a binary contrast, but those metrics do pull you in slightly different directions. What do people think?
These would be footnotes directly below the content. Not very many so there is so far only one per page that is easy to find just below. But yes I am considering that. The story interludes do fit the more folklore fairy-tale element I have been leaning into increasingly. And I can easily, as I intend to already, include the more academic element there. Dealing with the stories as part truth, part legend, and the blurry line of what is superstition in a fantasy world is something I intend to explore. And footnotes are perhaps a little strong on the drier academic side rather than playing with that borderline. But then I do kinda like the footnotes as an interesting touch, and the kind of information you can include with them that doesn't fit a longer story format.
Its also more fun. Footnotes feel academic while interludes are part of you telling the story by explaining context. Like travel shows. Edit: and more importantly, travel adventure books!
Even if it’s a footnote and not and endnote, it’s easy to miss the little superscripted. Then you get to the bottom of the page, you have to stop midsentence to read the foot note, and of course you scan back up to see where the superscript is, so you know what context the footnote is in. Takes you out of the story. No thanks. Friends don’t let friends use footnotes.
That doesn't translate on Kindle - footnotes seem to be either included somewhat confusingly in the text, or shoved to the back meaning you have to flick around which takes you out of the experience.
I like footnotes. Appendix - less so. I skip that most of the time. Druon's Accursed Kings had both; he had comments in footnotes and character backgrounds in appendix (historical fiction, thus there were some "tiny" characters that were more influential in history elsewhere). The footnotes I liked, especially as they seldom were more than a line or two each page and gave some nice historical/academic context. Unsure how well it'd fit a fantasy novel though. It's a question I myself have been exploring too. For now I've been writing footnotes, an appendix and also have lore chapters. I figured I could always just write and remove what I don't need later.
Dune does it by including short excerpts from Princess Irulan's future history books at the start of each chapter, and a glossary at the end. Glossaries are great. The Wheel of Time and Thomas Covenant books also use them. Only problem with the Wheel of Time one was that the story wasn't good enough to make me care.
I am thinking I might have an appendix for a few things partially because of that skipability. It's less intrusive than something within the main text, and for those who want to read it's also easy to find and read in one place. Given that, and given I am more specifically interested in the interludes than the footnotes, I am continuing to lean towards removing the footnotes. The only real downside is there are certain things that don't work well anywhere else, but those things are very tertiary additonal content mostly for aesthetics, themes and minor worldbuilding.
I like the idea of including footnotes in books of such a nature (this shit's accidental sometimes) and have been doing so in Spectrum - inspired by Watership Down in respect to footnotes. I'd say do what you feel is right, should the information you're putting forward be likely to mess with the flow of things if you feed the information to the audience without footnotes. There are no rules to this here game.
