Do people read glossaries?

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by lin robinson

That was no compliment.

I knew it wasn't. (In fact everyone knew it wasn't.)

Originally Posted by lin robinson

Actually there's really NOTHING that doesn's suck if done badly.

Exactly - that's what I was saying.

Originally Posted by lin robinson

In fact, the discussion is not whether to do something badly, or to toss terms into the middle of fight, it's about the use of glossaries in general. And they are a handy tool and can augment the book. Read more widely.

I myself love glossaries - but I don't like it when they are required reading. (What you need for following the bare bones of the story should be in the story.)

Originally Posted by lin robinson

Obviously, footnotes and glossaries are going to be a problem for special populations, like the attention deficit community. But the question is a little more general than that.

This was the original question, Lin:

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?

As you can see, I was addressing the original query. (My comments on pronunciation can be found earlier in the thread, by the way.)

Originally Posted by lin robinson

Like I say, it's a pet peeve. But your contention that glossaries ruin the pacing of the book is just plain lame and runs counter to the widely available evidence of so many books that do it.

I didn't say that at all. I merely pointed out that any technique, if applied wrongly, may have an effect which the author did not intend. (And this is almost guaranteed if the author doesn't know what they are doing.)



And thank you for your last post, Spectrum. That's what I was saying.

[Wiglaf]

The problem with glossaries is that I should be able to pick up most of what I need to know by simply reading the book. If I want to study something I own quite a collection of non-fiction. Authors do not know more than readers about what entertains the reader. While the content should reside with the author, the placement of additional information should be determined by the readers (as well as it can be determined).
Overly extensive glossaries are problematic as I should not require a great deal to read the story. Either the info needs to be made clear in the story or if it is clear, it does not need to be in a glossary.
*A glossary is definitions and pronouniations; additional non-required but cool background material at the back is different. I just do not want a dictionary of (insert conlang here), a biographical dictionary, and a geographical dictionary included. Besides, if your story is well written, you just might find that the majority of entries are unnecessary.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

TWhile the content should reside with the author, the placement of additional information should be determined by the readers (as well as it can be determined).

What? I don't understand this.

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

What? I don't understand this.

Well you can't ask every potential reader but if market research has found that readers of a particular category prefer glossaries at the beginning, end, margins, as footnotes, or wherever, it should probably be fallowed. You may like your book in a leatherbound tome, but if readers like paperbacks demanding your publisher only issues leatherback volumes would be silly. The story is yours, but for anything outside of that I would pay close attention to readers' preferences. I would let reader demand and preference determine things like maps, glossaries, etc. and their locations. They are a convenience to the reader; the reader should determine the presentation that is most convenient.

[jenna]

Originally Posted by lin robinson

Obviously, footnotes and glossaries are going to be a problem for special populations, like the attention deficit community. But the question is a little more general than that.

I don't have ADD. I read fiction, in general, for escapism so immersion is important to me. And I'm genuinely sorry for you if you haven't experienced that feeling of being so drawn into a book that you just can not put it down, for any reason.

[Lith]

The only works of fiction in which I've seen footnotes are the Bartimaeus Trilogy (where used to comedic effect) and translated works (adding clarification to the language or highlighting cultural allusions that we lack). And even then, they're only successful if at the bottom of the page, rather than at the end of the book. Fortunately, they make them easy to skip, in fact encouraging the reader to do so by stuffing them at the margins of the book, to minimize their interruption in the text, which is an acknowledgment that they do interrupt reading.

I'm not opposed to footnotes or glossaries, if they're kept to a minimum and the author doesn't rely on them to do more than they're supposed to do. Authors really should do what they can to work it all into the text. If it looks like info-dump (or associated problem) in the text, then it simply isn't worked in well enough.

[jenna]

This is an example from a film, but I thought it was relevant. I was having one of my regular Vin Diesel-a-thons last night, and when I was watching Pitch Black this struck me as a good example of how you can give readers (or viewers) information and let them work things out for themselves. The movie opens with the following monolouge:

They say most of your brain shuts down in Cryo sleep... all but the primitive side... the animal side... No wonder I'm still awake. Transporting me with civilians, sounded like 40, 40+. Heard an Arab voice, some hoodoo holy man, probably on his way to New Mecca.. but what route? What route? Smelled a woman , sweat , boots, tool belt, leather, prospector type. Free settlers, and they only take the back roads. But here's my real problem... Mr Johns.. blue eyed devil. Planning on taking me back to slam, only this time he picked a ghost lane. Long time between stops.. long time for something to go wrong..."

See the way that they throw little clues like New Mecca, Free Settlers, civilians, ghost lane, and let you work things out for yourself? You get a pretty good idea of what sort of universe the movie is set in right from that opening monologue. And to clarify, you don't see much on the screen except for people asleep in chambers. This is what I would be aiming for as far as setting up a world for readers, rather than relying on putting information in a glossary.

[lin robinson]

I'm not opposed to footnotes or glossaries, if they're kept to a minimum and the author doesn't rely on them to do more than they're supposed to do. Authors really should do what they can to work it all into the text.

Again, the question was not, should one use glossaries stupidly, but if people (in the plural sense) read them.
And they do.

I can think of lots of fiction books with footnotes. The entire "Flashman" series for one. Often voluminous. Handled cleverly, and placing the stories not only in historical context, but also deepening characterization. In one, the footnoter has a personality very much at odds with one of the main characters and often takes the narrative to task.

What bother me here is the use of the world "should". Which the only real reply to is, "Sez who?"

Some things can be "worked out" by readers, some require support. Some can benefit from commentary if the writer deems fit. A movie is hardly a comparison, by the way, since things can be shown. The idea that a place name in a SF book would need a glassary explanation is a bizarre one.

By the way, on as screenwriter's board the use of a VO monolog like that would be scathed.

[daisybee]

Originally Posted by lin robinson

Again, the question was not, should one use glossaries stupidly, but if people (in the plural sense) read them.
And they do.

Spectrum was asking for people's experience of glossaries too-most of the responses here were in regard to the original posts rather angst-ridden tone (which has now been abated, hopefully!).

Yes some people read glossaries/footnotes.

Can you MAKE someone read a glossary? NO.

So there it is. No point writing a book, finally get it into print, have people read it, only to allow the fact that some missed the glossary to keep you up at night, because they missed the point.

If there is something you want the readers to know, tell them. If you want them to appreciate the cleverness of your plot twists and twirls, and swoon over pieces of intriguing info in the glossary, know where to draw the line between teasing and showing off.

And footnotes irritate me. If it was so important-insert the thing into the text -if not, why give me eye strain chasing words all over the shop??

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by daisybee

Spectrum was asking for people's experience of glossaries too-most of the responses here were in regard to the original posts rather angst-ridden tone (which has now been abated, hopefully!).

Oh, no. I still hate my readers. My psychiatrist says it's OK for me to hate them, because I need to set boundaries.



Seriously, tho, I'm working on it.

I'll probably have a few footnotes, but I'll restrict them to non-vital trivia.

[daisybee]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Oh, no. I still hate my readers. My psychiatrist says it's OK for me to hate them, because I need to set boundaries.



Seriously, tho, I'm working on it.

I'll probably have a few footnotes, but I'll restrict them to non-vital trivia.

LOL.

I think your psychiatrist is earning his/her hourly rate on this occasion.

Whatever works for you is what you should do. Your style of writing will dictate what does and doesn't fit anyway I'm guessing.

Who knew a simple glossary could be so controversial?

[JDP]

Should probably let it lie, but feel compelled to wade in:

The original post stated that Spectrum's current WIP uses 'extensive glossaries and pronunciation guides which are quite vital to the understanding of the story'. He asks about people's experiences of glossaries, whether they read them and what they think about them in general.

Given these questions, I think those who don't like the use of extensive glossaries have just as much right to give their thoughts as those who advocate them. No one is claiming to be a 'writing guru'.

The question was asked, thoughts were given; there's no need for uncomplimentary personal comments.

Good luck with the WIP, Spectrum. From a marketing POV, perhaps you could also produce an encylopedia or 'companion' for your world, in addition to the novel(s)? Could be a good way of syphoning more money from those pesky readers

[iansales]

Simple answer: no.

But if you must have one, it must be a value-add - i.e., it's not a requirement to understand the story, but will add more to it for those so inclined to read it. All the same, you're better off streamlining the exposition into the narrative.

[lin robinson]

That's pretty simple, all right.

Oh, no. I still hate my readers. My psychiatrist says it's OK for me to hate them, because I need to set boundaries.

I LOVE it. We should have lunch sometime.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by JDP

Good luck with the WIP, Spectrum. From a marketing POV, perhaps you could also produce an encylopedia or 'companion' for your world, in addition to the novel(s)? Could be a good way of syphoning more money from those pesky readers

Yes, I plan to do that. But not before I've finished all the novels. IMO, an encyclopaedia should not be released in the middle of the series, because then it would have to be either incomplete or spoiler-ridden.

Originally Posted by lin robinson

I LOVE it. We should have lunch sometime.

Haha, yes.

Fans are scum, and this thread proves it. Complaining, pronouncing names wrong, not reading glossaries, and writing fan fiction that twists the characters' personality. I don't even have any fans yet, and look how traumatized I already am.

As I've said before, I look forward to the day where I have so many fans that I can afford to hate them.