Classics Without All the Class discussion

So I am beginning to read classics, and I noticed some of my editions do have footnotes/endnotes and others don't, and I was wondering whether some of you prefer books to have them or not?

I definitely prefer having them, since sometimes the information adds to my understanding. And I tend to like footnotes, which are available immediately rather than my having to flip back and forth to find the citation.

I usually try to read the Norton Critical Editions, since they also have essays and commentary included at the end.

I definitely prefer books with footnotes. They are helpful with identifying terms and references within the text. They make the book more enjoyable, A) because you don't need to run to look up a term of reference, and B) because ignoring things you don't understand will lead to a lot of skimming and/or confusion. It's best just to get a brief explanation right off the bat. Also, a good introduction never hurt, either. :)

It depends on the subject matter, personally, and what else I've got in rotation. If it's an author in one of my preferred author groups, languages, genres, et cetera they get tedious, but are easy to avoid. Otherwise, they are generally useful, if not critical for a culture or language that I am unfamiliar with in any way. The only time when I am strongly against notes is in audio books, where it is an extremely annoying break from the narrative no matter where they stick it.

Footnotes all the way! How bothersome to turn the pages to get the information you seek and to get back to reading your story!

I have no problem with foot notes either at the bottom of the page or the back of the book. I've often found other interesting books or authors through foot notes - an added benefit!

It usually depends on what is in the footnotes. For example, if it is using terms and words that we do not use anymore, I prefer to have it explained to me in footnotes. Also, really short, keyword-like explanations of real-life historical events, historical people, references to other pieces of literature. I hate it when the footnote goes on and on and on and on and on and on about some really not so important thing...

As a small publisher, I've gone the other way (not unusual) on footnotes. Many of my publications of classics were originally aimed at college classes. Footnotes, yeah, they might add to your data bank of information about a book. But over time I changed my attitude -- these books were not written to be studied. They were written to share human experience.

Midway in my change of attitude, I published at least four texts that also had a companion "teacher's edition" text to include lots of background information, delving into questions that might be raised by teacher or student -- much more extensive than footnotes.

And then I broke with that practice, and stayed with occasional modernizing of language (thee and thy becomes you and your, etc.) in order to keep alive classics as literature that deserves to be read as great stories, not as The Victorian Age or whatever.

Footnotes might be handy if you're going to be taking a test on a book. Otherwise, I see them as distractions from the reading experience.

To test out my thesis, try some of the books on my main website, www.bandannabooks.com.