Why is something or someone deemed unimportant referred to as being “just a footnote” when footnotes tend to refer to significant earlier works that support an argument?

893 views

Why is something or someone deemed unimportant referred to as being “just a footnote” when footnotes tend to refer to significant earlier works that support an argument?

In: Culture

4 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

Most people will skip over the footnotes because they are not trying to deeply understand it–for them, it is sufficient to scan it quickly to get an idea of what is going on. Only people who are very interested will spend the time reading the footnotes because they want to understand it more fully.

The idea of something being only a footnote indicates that although the information is readily available, very few people will ever see it.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Because that’s just it, they are relevant PAST works, never the work being read, only referred to and linked at the end/outside the text.

The rude element being that you are not the focus, merely something on the outside.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Because while the footnote might be important, it wasn’t important enough to get included in the main text.

Basically “something or someone, just a footnote” might be important to a portion of the story, but they aren’t a critical/crucial part of the whole story.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Something actually important is likely explained in the main text. The footnotes are those things that yeah, need a line or.two, but dont warrant taking up full space in the main text.