[Ann Drysdale]

Ah, Julie; I have been waiting for someone to agree with me. That is exactly how I hoped a reader would feel. I think the endnotes are like the session after a poetry reading where the people who have been listening come to meet the poet and ask their questions. If they don't want to, they needn't.

The notes themselves, I realise, are often the sort of spoken links I'd use during the course of a live reading. Not erudite expositions, just gentle oiling of the mechanism that links poet and reader/listener.

And - something nobody else has said - the notes are another way of hanging on to the poems, all the small souls of them, before the readers finally take ownership and carry them off and they are lost to me forever.

And yes, I was smiling as I wrote that. But only just.

[FOsen]

That's what I was going to say. Footnotes can be distracting, presumptuous, and pretentious. Someone (was it Empson?) warded me off the poetry and out of his book with swarms of footnotes. Endnotes are the way to go - I think Dick Davis does them well in A Trick of Sunlight, for example.

I agree with Ann - footnotes distract you out of the poem - endnotes invite you back in.

Frank

[Tim Love]

Endnotes get my vote too. Footnotes can mess things up.

In the poetry collection I'm reading at the moment there's a villanelle called "Penelope's Threads". The title has a footnote - "After the Trojan war, Penelope, the wife of Odysseus, waited on Ithaca for his return, but as the years went by her suitors became more pressing, claiming she should give Odysseus up for lost and choose a new husband. Penelope agreed that if Odysseus was not home by the time she had finished a large tapestry she would re-marry, but each night Penelope unpicked the day's work on the tapestry, buying more time for Odysseus's return."

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Maryann

I have always viewed it as part of our mission to educate our readers, to introduce them to new ideas and new ways of viewing the world. This can be as simple as introducing them to obscure words and concepts. We are writers and educators all in one. Of course, my poems might be a special case because, being as I am also a historian as well as a writer and poet, I bring in a lot of ideas from history and from my reading. That having been said, I am not in favor of overly erudite or obscure poetry. Above all, in my view, poetry should communicate and not confuse the reader.

As John remarked, the body of the poem, including the title and epigram, can also elucidate without going to the extreme of endnotes. Eliot evidently felt the need to explain the often obscure historical and literary references in The Waste Land -- although on the other hand, I have often thought that the very long list of notes to The Waste Land is partly meant as a joke and is not to be taken totally seriously!

In any case, obviously, not all of the poems we write will be as freighted with obscurities as Eliot's landmark poem. I do think sometimes that endnotes can appreciate a reader's appreciation of a poem but they can also be pedantic and dull. So use your own judgement as to what is needed. Good luck, Maryann!

All the best

chris

[Jayne Osborn]

Above all, in my view, poetry should communicate and not confuse the reader.

Absolutely, Chris - I couldn't agree more. A lot of modern poetry is, to me, completely unintelligible, which any number of footnotes, endnotes or epigraphs won't alleviate!
Poetry should be accessible, and a poem should not need explaining to the reader, or its writer has failed in their duty to communicate.

Little-known foreign phrases, or anything else that might cause a problem, of course, need to be noted somewhere to help the reader, but I don't mind much whether it's at the bottom of the page or the back of the book; mostly I just want to read the poems, enjoy them and understand them!

I'd say, don't fret about this issue too much; let the poems speak for themselves for the most part, and just help the reader with a few notes about something you consider too obscure for them to either work out or find out easily.

[Tim Love]

Originally Posted by Jayne

Poetry should be accessible, and a poem should not need explaining to the reader, or its writer has failed in their duty to communicate.

Same applies to music I suppose, and art, and science. William Empson's already been mentioned in this thread, so let me quote him

• "Poets, on the face of it, have either got to be easier or to write their own notes; readers have either got to take more trouble over reading or cease to regard notes as pretentious and a sign of bad poetry"
• "I think many people (like myself) prefer to read poetry mixed with prose; it gives you more to go by; the conventions of poetry have been getting far off from normal life, so that to have a prose bridge make reading poetry seem more natural"

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Tim Love

"I think many people (like myself) prefer to read poetry mixed with prose; it gives you more to go by; the conventions of poetry have been getting far off from normal life, so that to have a prose bridge make reading poetry seem more natural"

Tim,

Absolutely. This open secret has been with us at least since Dante. Odd that we forget it, over and over again...

Thanks,

Bill

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge

without going to the extreme of endnotes.

Chris,

I humbly submit, as counter-example: Pale Fire! Now, *that* was actually extreme...

Thanks,

Bill