Footnote or not? I need your advice.

[Jimrada]

I need some formatting input. I'm writing a non-fiction book that's a cross between a narrative history book and a memoir. Essentially, it's a narrative history with a fictional narrator who is not part of the story or involved in the story in anyway other than relating it to the reader. The story the narrator is telling is totally non-fiction put together from a mix of interviews, newspaper articles and other resources.

My question is should I footnote everything like in a narrative history? I'm curious about this because footnoting something to an interview I conducted won't do a fact checker much good. There are also a few instances where the narrator expresses an opinion that doesn't affect the main story, but I wouldn't be able to footnote the opinion to anything either.

Would a bibliography alone suffice?

Thanks for your input.

[Maud Fitch]

If I was reading your book for leisure and not research, I would prefer footnotes. They are immediate, often a gratifying insight. If I wanted more, I would definitely like a bibliography. To me, this would help me understand the topic more and it shows that you, the author, has done the hard yards.

Could you footnote the 'opinions' and bibliograph the 'facts' and explain this in a foreword (written from the narrator's perspective) or within your introduction?