[The Pelagic Argosy]

In my earlier post, I forgot to include my own experience with glossaries and the like. I often refer to maps and glossaries if they are included. In reading Robert Jordan, for example, I sometimes get confused with all the names and viewpoint changes, so I find the quick reference helpful. This certainly destroys my immersion in the reading. But, I would say that my immersion was ruined by the fact that I got confused in the first place, not by flipping back to the glossary. And my immersion in the story is a moot point anyway, because I read at work where I suffer numerous interruptions. I don't pay a bit of attention to 'proper' pronunciation.

But, if the glossary hadn't been included in the first place, it probably wouldn't even occur to me to stop reading. I would have to rely on context to jog my memory. Or I would just have to get by without remembering who "Leane" is for a couple of paragraphs. My point is, I wouldn't miss the glossary if it wasn't there.

Originally Posted by lin robinson

Beside the point. Most people are GENERALLY familiar with Chicago, and even more so with the general feel and layout of American cities. Anintimate familiarity isn't required.
As opposed to, say, Middle Earth or Atlantis. And in stories (like so many of them) that involved traipsing around those areas, a map is not a bad thing.

I would argue that people are also generally familiar with the "Middle Earth" layout by now - a wide expanse of country, cut across by mountain ranges, forests, and dotted here and there with villages. Such generic, cookie-cutter-type maps are more trendy than truly helpful. Would readers really freak if they stopped being included inside every fantasy book jacket? But I think the question is, have readers and writers of fantasy become so accustomed to maps and glossaries that they now feel they are necessary to their enjoyment of the story? Moreover, can vital information now be taken out of the text itself and put in supplemental material like this? Teresa likes to have a map at her fingertips because of her bad sense of direction. So do I, actually. I frequently refer to the maps and glossaries while reading. But will I become dizzyingly lost while reading without one? I think everyone agrees that if this becomes the case, the writer has failed.

Similarly, you see maps in a great many books on battles and military campaigns. And the are very helpful. And people don't HAVE TO READ THEM.

In the case of a military campaign, I agree that a map would be helpful. You could make a much stronger case for a map in this situation than in a fantasy-journey story. However, in the question that Spectrum originally posed, he made the argument that readers would be expected to refer to his supplementary material if it is included. In fact, he claimed that he would be offended if they failed to do so. He suggested including author's notes spelling out the fact. See my discussion below.

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Another example for comparison (and also one of my main influences) is H.P. Lovecraft. Many of his stories were, at their heart, not concerned with the guy who happened to be the main character and what happened to him, but with the things he discovered. When you're reading Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness, then what drives you on is not "OMG, how will they get out of there alive?" but "OMG, what happened in that ancient city?". At least, that's what it was like for me.

What I aim for is a combination of the best of both worlds: A story driven not only by the tension of "what will happen next?", but also very much by the mystery factor: "What has happened before, and how does it all fit into the big picture?"

Having mentioned Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen before, I might add that his series does the same thing. In my world, at least. Every new installment of the series adds more material about the "Warren universe" and its colossal history. My motivation when reading it is not only "will Anomander Rake die in the next book?" and "will Karsa Orlong become king of the Teblor?", but "what is the deal with Rake, his brothers, and Dragnipur?" and "what is the deal with the Teblor and the Faces in the Rock and the Crippled God?".

Ok, so your story will contain a number of side stories or mysteries that you are hoping might intrigue your readers? Yes, I agree, that's not an out-of-the ordinary approach to writing a fantasy book. In fact, it's pretty typical of any world-building exercise. Any well-written story will, hopefully, intrigue the reader to the point where he or she is asking questions and craving more. But...what does that have to do with your glossary again?

Early on in this thread you discussed the possibility of putting the drier facts about, for example, your reptilian race into a glossary because you couldn't find a way to include it in your prose that wasn't awkward. And you were concerned about pronunciations and such. You were so concerned with this that you felt your glossary might be placed in the front, and that, perhaps, the reader should be explicitly instructed to refer to it.

So, we're back to the original question: Are these side mysteries vital to the main story or not? If they are, then we are discussing the possibility of taking sub-plots out of the story itself and weaving them into the glossary. I would argue that this is a bad idea. If clunky exposition is your concern, forcing readers to refer to supplemental materials is about the most awkward way to get it across that I can think of.

But, if the information is not vital to the story, then we're just talking about an ordinary, run-of-the-mill glossary, and there's no particular reason it should be placed in front or that readers should be unduly lectured about it.