Do people read glossaries?

[Omphalos]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

I can't wait till I'm big and famous. Then I can finally be a primadonna and treat my fans like vermin. That's going to be great.

Hmmm. Perhaps getting them to read the glossaries wont be your biggest problem. But good luck with all that.

[The Procrastinator]

To me glossaries are extras, and a writer should not put vital stuff in there that's not in the main body of the text. I might read a bit of a glossary but I rarely read the whole lot. The story should stand alone without the glossary - that way those who feel like reading it are rewarded with extra tidbits - perhaps a little more depth that would have been out of place in the narrative - but those who don't want to read the glossary still understand and fully appreciate the book.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Mattastic

If at any point during a story the reader has to look something up to know as much as the characters do, then the writer has failed. Fact.
...
Simply put, glossaries and appendecies shouldn't be there to support the story at all. If it isn't in the main story, then it shouldn't be considered vital knowledge.

Thanks for the reply. However, I find your view pretty extreme. So I don't expect to be accomodating it.

Originally Posted by Omphalos

Hmmm. Perhaps getting them to read the glossaries wont be your biggest problem. But good luck with all that.

Well, the above post was a joke. :P

[Malloriel]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

One of the reasons I feel I need the glossary is to avoid "state breaks" inside the story. For instance, I have the Scathae (singular: Scatha), a race of reptillian humanoids. They are just as widespread as Humans and everyone knows who they are. So, the first time a Scatha is encountered in the story, it would feel unnatural to have an explanation of what a Scatha looks like. I want to be able to say:

"Ilcas Northstar was tall, with scales of cobalt blue. He pronounced ridges above both eyes, but the right one was chipped - evidently a scar from a past batle."

This describes Ilcas Northstar as an individual. I do not want to have to say:

"The Scatha had a long snout, a body covered in hard scales and a yard-long tail."

Granted, I've not been published, but I have been an avid reader since the tender age of three, diving into fantasy (also granted) much later in life, yet thriving within it, and it has been my experience as both reader and writer in this genre that such things should never BE an issue.

What you're saying here is that that Scathae are a natural part of your world and wish to establish that fact for the reader, yet at the same time you feel that the reader would find it too alien to simply accept as you've dictated your populace does. This is where you find your own conflict, because your desires and your views do not coincide.

Example: I've got a race called the maeyenin (doesn't that look fun to pronounce? Say it however you wish), which has within it four different branches. All speak the same language though, and for this I would use Italics to let the reader know that the use of their own language isn't common knowledge, and should be taken special note of. What SHOULDN'T be taken special note of is the Dorian, the Doriancy, the Dorosai, the Dorai, any of them. These would be the top rulers in the Northern Solivian kingdoms, male, collective, female, and female sibling respectively. Through the context of the introduction of these terms is where the reader gets what the heck you're talking about. So there's no need to give any more information than you would give about a ball. Just because we assume the reader has never seen a ball doesn't mean we describe what a sphere is, how it interacts with gravity, what it's used for or why. We assume they understand terms like toss, bounces, throw, catch, etc, and explain that the ball participates in these things.

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Similarly, a "dax" and a "sphyle" is a male and a female Scatha, respectively. But since everyone in the story knows this, I want just use the words without introduction and let the reader look them up.

While I certainly would not object to these terms being included for those who don't catch on immediately, or wish to have suspicions confirmed, I feel that it's the same situation.

Here, follow this.

Ilcas looked to the sphyle with dismay. "You speak out of turn, miss. I never said those things and I dislike that you should even imply that I would."

The Scatha female turned a glower upon him, scales flashing in the sunlight angrily, reflecting the glint now residing in her stubborn gaze. "Then it looks like you'll have to stew in your own displeasure then, for I know what I heard and you'll not have me convinced otherwise."

Ilcas would have said more, his ire inspired once more as he caught the tail end of a muttered curse about dax, and all men, in general. Well! "You think just because you're a sphyle you can speak to me that way?! You're no better than a human female!" At least, that's what he would have said had Jorel not caught his attention just then, his arms waving frantically over his head; the council must have returned their decision.

---

For example. Right there, hopefully, any reader could pick up that a sphyle is at least related to sex in some way, as is dax, even if they don't know that it's specifically male and female, and not some title afforded by station according to sex.

And I do agree that the book shouldn't NEED the glossaries to be understood, but be supplemented and enhanced by them.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Malloriel

This is where you find your own conflict, because your desires and your views do not coincide.

I'm sorry, what?

Originally Posted by Malloriel

Example: I've got a race called the maeyenin (doesn't that look fun to pronounce? Say it however you wish)

MAY-en-in?

Originally Posted by Malloriel

Through the context of the introduction of these terms is where the reader gets what the heck you're talking about. So there's no need to give any more information than you would give about a ball. Just because we assume the reader has never seen a ball doesn't mean we describe what a sphere is, how it interacts with gravity, what it's used for or why. We assume they understand terms like toss, bounces, throw, catch, etc, and explain that the ball participates in these things.

So... give detailed descriptions of the context and let the reader figure it out?

Yes... I see the merit in that. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Malloriel

While I certainly would not object to these terms being included for those who don't catch on immediately, or wish to have suspicions confirmed, I feel that it's the same situation.

Here, follow this.

Ilcas looked to the sphyle with dismay. "You speak out of turn, miss. I never said those things and I dislike that you should even imply that I would."

The Scatha female turned a glower upon him, scales flashing in the sunlight angrily, reflecting the glint now residing in her stubborn gaze. "Then it looks like you'll have to stew in your own displeasure then, for I know what I heard and you'll not have me convinced otherwise."

Ilcas would have said more, his ire inspired once more as he caught the tail end of a muttered curse about dax, and all men, in general. Well! "You think just because you're a sphyle you can speak to me that way?! You're no better than a human female!" At least, that's what he would have said had Jorel not caught his attention just then, his arms waving frantically over his head; the council must have returned their decision.

I'm impressed at how you (apparently) pulled this entire scene out of thin air. (Also, you look like you've been reading Wheel of Time, with all the references to the "war between the sexes". :P)

[Malloriel]

Originally Posted by Malloriel

What you're saying here is that that Scathae are a natural part of your world and wish to establish that fact for the reader, yet at the same time you feel that the reader would find it too alien to simply accept as you've dictated your populace does. This is where you find your own conflict, because your desires and your views do not coincide.

Originally Posted by Spectrum

I'm sorry, what?

To make my explanation make sense I've quoted myself. What you tell us is that the Scathae are a natural part of the world you've created, but the way you see them yourself is so different from what IS normal that you're afraid people won't accept them as being as common as you've written them to be. If you can't accept them yourself as being common, everyday, average, normal pieces of your world then how can the reader? Because that's what you'll share in your writing, the way you perceive them. The longer you think of them as being alien and different, the harder it may become to express the way you want them to be seen. Follow?

Originally Posted by Spectrum

MAY-en-in?

Indeed, perfect emphasis and everything. It's not the spelling I prefer aesthetically, but it is the way I've pronounced it since the beginning. --Smiles-- At least I know THAT word will come across well.

Originally Posted by Spectrum

So... give detailed descriptions of the context and let the reader figure it out?

Yes... I see the merit in that. Thanks.

Absolutely. Here's what I've learned since being on the forum, and analysing more in depth those books of this genre I really enjoy, and that is; often if you're going to write from the third person (as I do), you're telling the story from their perspective with only the knowledge they have, which means you're also expressing their point of view on any given object, person, place, or species. What this really means is even if you see a particular place, say a palace, as being grand and majestic and absolutely spectacular, if you're telling the story from the perspective of an adult who has live there his whole life, the sense of wonder won't be in him as it would for a traveler seeing it for the first time. It's a part of the local's everyday experience and usually not worth much notice, but to a traveler, this could be the most beautiful thing he's ever seen in his life, taking his breath away, making him forget to move, filling him with poetry he can't even begin to know how to write because words just seem too shallow to capture what it is he's seeing. And if THAT is the sense you want your readers to have, you may need to consider a whole new character to introduce. Perspective is what it's all about, so in this case, since you've got a race that's as common as humans, pretend that you're there in that world and write about them as if they ARE humans. We know humans exist and accept that without question. As long as you give hints through the context as to what we should expect from them and then not change up the rules randomly later, we'll take just about anything you give us.

Originally Posted by Spectrum

I'm impressed at how you (apparently) pulled this entire scene out of thin air. (Also, you look like you've been reading Wheel of Time, with all the references to the "war between the sexes". :P)

I did, in fact make it up on the spot. ^_^ I thought it would work best using a name you'd already given to make it more tailored, and I felt the situation helped to explain what a dax and sphyle were without sitting down and saying "Now, within the Scathae there are males and females just like there are with humans, but they're called dax and sphyle instead." You shouldn't even have a character with an inner dialog like that (which was a major part of the above point too), because a lot of times you can use inner dialog and perspective to give information without infodumping, but you're limited to what the person knows and feels, so someone who knows how a lamp works isn't going to look at one and in his head explain why it works, even if it's technically a mystical object. Now if it's a mystical object that only a few people have, the character being one of the few, and knows how it works, might pause a moment to think on the mechanics, but not if lamps themselves are also common.

And yes, I have read most of WoT, but I don't actually like how there's such a separation between the sexes, the women always angry with the men BECAUSE they're MEN, and the men writing of the women because they're WOMEN. That sort of view always kind of annoyed me, but for the purposes of getting the gender thing across, I think it works really well.

[JDP]

In my opinion, everything that the reader needs to know should be contained within the body of the novel. That's what writing should be: telling the reader stuff without it getting boring or overcomplicated. You don't have to tell everything about a species/place/character all at once; you dripfeed it, bit-by-bit during the action.

For me, a glossary has two purposes:

1. As an enriching addition to the novel for them wot like that kind of thing.

2. A reminder of details in a particularly epic book/series, when keeping track of everything might be difficult.

Neither is compulsory to the reader. Anyone who reads your work is doing you a favour; if they've bought/borrowed your book, then they've fulfilled any obligation to you, and more, already - so don't expect them to jump through hoops!

In regard to pronounciation, I skim read 95% of the time, so I don't end up (sub)vocalising names, places etc. I often find it hard, when discussing books, to keep track of what the other person's talking about because I'm not used to hearing certain words pronounced!

Also, I only generally read a glossary to check something I've forgotten, or if I've finished the book and am stuck on a plane/train with nothing to do.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Malloriel

To make my explanation make sense I've quoted myself. What you tell us is that the Scathae are a natural part of the world you've created, but the way you see them yourself is so different from what IS normal that you're afraid people won't accept them as being as common as you've written them to be. If you can't accept them yourself as being common, everyday, average, normal pieces of your world then how can the reader? Because that's what you'll share in your writing, the way you perceive them. The longer you think of them as being alien and different, the harder it may become to express the way you want them to be seen. Follow?

Yeah, makes sense.

Originally Posted by Malloriel

Absolutely. Here's what I've learned since being on the forum, and analysing more in depth those books of this genre I really enjoy, and that is; often if you're going to write from the third person (as I do), you're telling the story from their perspective with only the knowledge they have, which means you're also expressing their point of view on any given object, person, place, or species. What this really means is even if you see a particular place, say a palace, as being grand and majestic and absolutely spectacular, if you're telling the story from the perspective of an adult who has live there his whole life, the sense of wonder won't be in him as it would for a traveler seeing it for the first time. It's a part of the local's everyday experience and usually not worth much notice, but to a traveler, this could be the most beautiful thing he's ever seen in his life, taking his breath away, making him forget to move, filling him with poetry he can't even begin to know how to write because words just seem too shallow to capture what it is he's seeing. And if THAT is the sense you want your readers to have, you may need to consider a whole new character to introduce. Perspective is what it's all about, so in this case, since you've got a race that's as common as humans, pretend that you're there in that world and write about them as if they ARE humans. We know humans exist and accept that without question. As long as you give hints through the context as to what we should expect from them and then not change up the rules randomly later, we'll take just about anything you give us.

Good points. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Malloriel

And yes, I have read most of WoT, but I don't actually like how there's such a separation between the sexes, the women always angry with the men BECAUSE they're MEN, and the men writing of the women because they're WOMEN.

I agree. It was funny for the first 200-300 pages, but after that it got old really fast. *sigh* WOT has a good story, but it would be more enjoyable if Bob Jordan wasn't such a bad writer...

[Malloriel]

I do have to disagree about Jordan being a bad writer as far as style and prose go. I was drawn in (eventually) by the WAY he told the story, even though I hated nearly all the characters (certainly all the women excepting Suan and Leane), and while I still liked Rand and mostly adored Matt, Perrin became whipped by Faile (another name that's beautiful when correctly pronounced, but impossible to know by looking at it how R.J. expects it to be pronounced. If anything there should have been an umlaut over the I to separate the sound of it from the A. Cairhien is another that sounds beautiful, but looks more readily pronounced as care-hine than ky-ree-en) and I felt less attachment to him at that point. At no point did I find his ability to make the world real truly lacking.

I respect the vision he had, as well, spinning this yarn intricately to show how people in completely different places, acting independently of each other and with no knowledge of their actions, can have a cumulative affect on one particular outcome. It's an epic concept with hundreds of characters to juggle about and all their particular storylines. Each of the main characters themselves probably should have had their own series, however, as one of the major problems I had was how he would get you involved in a certain situation with certain characters and then suddenly jump to someone else, about whom I cared very little at that moment. Of course the moment I settle into caring about this character again, he jumps to someone else. Then there was the "cleansing" (all I'll say of that since those who've read will know, and those who haven't won't have it spoiled) where you didn't actually learn what happens in the aftermath till much later in a whole other book! So tense, something is finally done, it's of huge import and!! . . . . Nothing happens for ages that we immediately care about.

Another bad sign, if we learn anything from Mr. Jordan, may he truly rest in peace, is if the first book really only stands as the first chapter in your epic, something isn't quite right. If people have to say "just stick in till the 5th book, then it REALLY takes off!", something isn't quite right. Epic is one thing. Sprawling tales with several main characters are hard to balance, and really take patience, dedication, and attention to detail.

Anyway: I appreciated his glossaries, which helped me realise how helpful they can really be, but I never found them to be what I relied on. Once in a while I'd refresh my memory of a character here or there, though I would have liked later glossaries to be as complete as the first as opposed to removing information about certain places or characters I might want to remember for some other reason than reading, yet keep in the simple things much easier to remember.

So my opinion still is to give context that places the information you want the reader to know and you won't have to lead them by the hand to the trough of information. You can lead a reader to a glossary, but you can't make them read it or acknowledge the pronunciation keys.

[daisybee]

I do not tend to read the glossary of a book unless a name really irritates me and it trips me up as I am reading. If I love a book and appreciate the writing, then a glossary may get a glance over, although by then I should know all I need to know about the setting/characters anyway. I normally find some name I've been mis pronouncing too which makes me grateful that I didn't read it first.

I can't say the idea of a glossary has ever occurred to me in my own writing, and certainly not as a method of explaining pieces of information to the reader that are prevalent to the story. Thats the fab part of writing fantasy-finding creative ways of weaving unusual/fresh ideas into the writing and making them as believable as possible at the same time.

By sticking an asterisk beside a species name and giving a basic description at the back of the book you'd be selling the reader short of being truly submerged into your world, and if you have gone to such effort to create it, that would be a shame for you as a writer and the reader too. Pronunciation of names is one thing I'm not altogether precious about either, my name has four letters in it and two are the same and yet you'd be amazed at how many people say it wrong. Thats people for ya.

Have you read 'West of Eden' by Harry Harrison? That prologue is great, sets up species and culture in a fashion and then the story takes over. The mini guide at the back is excellent too-not exactly a glossary, but a treat of sorts, telling you what you didn't need to know for the story perhaps but what you were curious about nonetheless. It felt like a bonus rather than a vital reference guide, and so I read it a lot more avidly than a "how to say .."glossary.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Malloriel

I do have to disagree about Jordan being a bad writer as far as style and prose go. I was drawn in (eventually) by the WAY he told the story,

Personally I like his story, but I hate the way he tells it. One main reason is his detestable characters. Another is the enormous amount of bloat. (Crossroads of Twilight is the worst example of this. Nothing happens that couldn't be told in 100 pages, but he stretches it to 1000. That's a bloat factor of 10. Not good.)

A third reason why I dislike his writing is his annoying pet topics that crop up everywhere. For instance, he has a thing about how each of the three guys belives that he is bad with girls and that the other two are much better. This is funny the first two or three times it's brought up, but I got sick of it after he referenced it several times in every single book.

Originally Posted by Malloriel

even though I hated nearly all the characters (certainly all the women excepting Suan and Leane),

Agree, except that for me, the only woman I like is Birgitte. The men are better, but still mostly wusses who get slapped around by women.

The only characters I really like are the villains. They are barely more petty, arrogant and megalomanic than the good guys, but the difference is that they are honest about it, since they are, after all, villains. So I am rooting for the Great Lord of the Dark, one hundred percent. No ending could be more awesome than if the Chosen won and the good guys were killed.

Of course, I know the chance of that happening is zero. WOT is not dark fantasy, and we are clearly meant to root for the good guys. And that is another reason why Bob J. has failed.

On the plus side, I actually learned a few things from Bob J. in this regard. See, my own work is very dark fantasy where the reader is supposed to root for the villains. My world is not as monolithic as that of WOT, but I do have some "good guys" whom the reader is supposed to dislike, so Bob J.'s character portrayal is useful inspiration here. The key difference is, of course, that in my case this is intentional.

Originally Posted by Malloriel

Another bad sign, if we learn anything from Mr. Jordan, may he truly rest in peace, is if the first book really only stands as the first chapter in your epic, something isn't quite right. If people have to say "just stick in till the 5th book, then it REALLY takes off!", something isn't quite right. Epic is one thing. Sprawling tales with several main characters are hard to balance, and really take patience, dedication, and attention to detail.

Good point. I need to keep this in mind in my series as well. The first book must have actual action and plot progress, it should not be merely a prelude and character introduction. Another example of this is Gardens of the Moon (the first volume of Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen).

Originally Posted by Malloriel

You can lead a reader to a glossary, but you can't make them read it or acknowledge the pronunciation keys.

So it's like the saying: "You can force a horse to water, but you can't get over how big its genitals are." Erh, I mean... :P

[chopper]

actually, the quote is: "you can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

[Lith]

Chopper-

For me, a glossary has two purposes:
1. As an enriching addition to the novel for them wot like that kind of thing.
2. A reminder of details in a particularly epic book/series, when keeping track of everything might be difficult.

The glossary should really only cover the second definition. An appendice should cover the first. Glossaries are really just miniature dictionaries for terms unique to the work. The shorter the better.

I usually only refer to glossaries in such cases as when an author has an Adam Smith fighting an Alex Smythe. It shouldn't be done by authors- naming characters with the same initials, but it crops up with surprising frequency.

If the reader has a responsibility to the writer, the writer also has a responsibility to the reader. To treat them with respect, to write clearly (as the subject demands) and in the language they understand (by which I don't simply mean speaking in English, but all the cultural expectations they bring with them about books). They don't have to read your book, and if you make it a burden for them to read, they won't. There are a lot of other books out there with which to fill their time. Your book leaves them all in the dust? It's up to YOU to prove it to THEM.

Footnotes and large glossaries make it feel, to most, like a work of nonfiction (i.e. work) rather than a novel, which should start on page one and end on the last page, and be self-coherent on all the pages in between.

[lin robinson]

I don't think it should ever be necessary to read a glossary to understand a book.

I'm immediately reminded of "A Clockwork Orange". You don't really get that good a grasp on what's going on without consulting the "Nadsat" glossary at the back of the book, but by the time you're through, you know the argot.

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Hello.

In my books, I have extensive glossaries and pronunciation guides which are quite vital for the understanding of the story. But I am worried that some readers might not read them, and thus get the wrong impression that my story is unclear and lacks explanation.

I remember discussing Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time with a guy once. I called him out on pronouncing the names wrong, and he was like "oh, I never read those glossaries". I remember I was disgusted by this attitude. My instinctive reaction is that "if the reader is too stupid to actually read what's in the book, then it's his own fault".

But, of course, I want people to like my book, and I want to help them understand it. I must also admit that once in a while I have missed a glossary myself, simply not noticing that it was there.

So tell me, what is your experience? Do people read glossaries and the like? Or do I need to go out of my way to coerce the reader into doing it? I am considering doing something like placing it first rather than last, or putting in some explicit footnotes or the like, saying "remember to look this up in the glossary, damn you".

What do you think?

People don't read glossaries not because they are stupid, but because glossaries are fracking boring. A majority of people just want to enjoy the context of a book, rather than the syntax.

Yes I read glossaries. I've even edited a few, not in the fiction sense. They are boring to read and boring to write but I force myself to do it because well, I'm a dork like that.

My hubby reads tech manuals and schematics like a fiend. I do not read them, so when he talks about something and I give him a dumb look, he gets this same attitude you do and then I have to smack him back into reality. People don't like to read boring stuff unless it actually pertains to something they want to know, do, or learn. Most people I know have never read Jordan's glossaries, not out of laziness or stupidity but simply because they just don't want too. In the same manner I don't like looking at schematics of motherboards at all, ever. Its not because I couldn't if I wanted too, I just don't want too.