Do people read glossaries?

[Ghost of Harrenhal]

I read glossaries whenever I find one but in some books I do tend to miss them. One thing that always hits me when this happens is that the writers seldom put them at the front of the book where I pay most of my attention. I hate flipping through to the end to find a glossary because I'm always tempted to read the last page.

Personally, I would say go for it. If you want to make a glossary you should make one regardless of whether or not the majority of people will read it. One person will find it at least and he will be pronouncing names correctly and have a little more info than the others perhaps. Nothing wrong with that!

[glandowski]

Definitely put it in the front if it's key to your story.

Cheers

[Connavar]

I personally think glossary is pointless and only a waste of time you could spend reading the book.

Just like how i feel about maps. A writer should be able to tell the location and the things he puts in the glossary in the story so you remember them that way and dont have go back and forth ruin the pace of your reading.

I found that out in Steven Erikson's Gardens of The Moon.

Checking out the glossary took almost more time than i spent on reading the book. Annoyed the hell out of me. Why did i check it all the time ? Cause i knew it was there and feared/suspected the writer put those things in the glossary cause he didnt put them in the story in a way you understand them....



Now i dont give the glossary even a blink when i read a book with glossary.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Ghost of Harrenhal

I read glossaries whenever I find one but in some books I do tend to miss them. One thing that always hits me when this happens is that the writers seldom put them at the front of the book where I pay most of my attention. I hate flipping through to the end to find a glossary because I'm always tempted to read the last page.

Personally, I would say go for it. If you want to make a glossary you should make one regardless of whether or not the majority of people will read it. One person will find it at least and he will be pronouncing names correctly and have a little more info than the others perhaps. Nothing wrong with that!

Thanks for the reply.

I am definitely making the glossary and putting it in. That was never in question. The main issues were (1) how much is it reasonable to rely on the glossary, and (2) can I make the reader read it. (The general conclusion was "as little as possible" and "no". :P)

I'll consider putting it in the front, but I'm not sure. Another idea I am considering is to instead have a short "foreword" or "reader's guide" (half a page or so) that introduces the book's structure and my use of glossaries and footnotes (if I choose to go with them). What do you think about that?

Originally Posted by Connavar

Just like how i feel about maps. A writer should be able to tell the location and the things he puts in the glossary in the story so you remember them that way and dont have go back and forth ruin the pace of your reading.

I have always found that maps are vital. I've never read a book that gave me a clear understanding of the geography without relying on a map. (Sometimes I can make do without such understanding, but often I find myself pining for a map.)

I usually disapprove of quoting allegedly-wise sayings, but I believe that sometimes a picture really does say more than a thousand words.

Another reason is the problem of locating information: If the main text tells me place A is x miles northeast of place B, then I'll forget it soon after. And if there is no place to look such information up without browsing through the whole book, then I'll lose my overview really quickly. That is why I find that glossaries are necessary.

But, needless to say, the best option would be to have both. So please tell me, how would you suggest working geographical information into the text so that the reader remembers it?

Originally Posted by Connavar

I personally think glossary is pointless and only a waste of time you could spend reading the book.

[...]

Checking out the glossary took almost more time than i spent on reading the book. Annoyed the hell out of me. Why did i check it all the time ? Cause i knew it was there and feared/suspected the writer put those things in the glossary cause he didnt put them in the story in a way you understand them....

I am not going to accomodate this. I love this kind of extra information myself, so my work will have loads of it.

[jenna]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

I'll consider putting it in the front, but I'm not sure. Another idea I am considering is to instead have a short "foreword" or "reader's guide" (half a page or so) that introduces the book's structure and my use of glossaries and footnotes (if I choose to go with them). What do you think about that?

That is an excellent idea.

[iansales]

If you must have a glossary, put it at the back. Don't have your reader need or rely on it - no one likes having to forever flip to the back of a book. Don't bother with a guide to reading: you're writing a novel, not a campaign guide for a role-playing game. Don't bother with footnotes either, for the same reason. Streamline the info into the narrative.

If a map is vital in a story, then that's a failing of the writer. You expect a map in a fantasy, when heroes go traipsing about the countryside; but not in a space opera, when the heroes go flying about the galaxy. Think about that.

Also bear in mind that the more work you put into glossaries and world-building, the less work you're putting into the story. Never privilege world-building over story. Agents and editors want good well-written stories. Not role-playing games.

[Joel007]

I do read glossaries, I tend to quickly flick through the back pages of a book to see if there is anything after the story ends. It would be convenient to have one at the beginning (or at least a note that there is one at the end), as I am often reluctant to check the end of a book in case I glimpse some spoilers.

Usually I feel that glossries might be appropriate where the book is part of a series in which the terms have previously been explained; but for the first book (or a stand alone book), I think a glossary could be worked into the storytelling quite easily.

[iansales]

Um, that's a valid point. I hadn't considered that. Yes, in a series, a glossary could be used in books after the first one to remind people of information given in earlier books. Having said that, repeating such information in the narrative in each book is a common way of padding them out...

[JDP]

Originally Posted by Joel007

I am often reluctant to check the end of a book in case I glimpse some spoilers.

I once flipped to the back of a book I'd just started reading to see the exact page count. Out of the corner of my eye, I accidentally skimmed the last line which read something along the lines of:

'Rogi realised with horror that [the killer] was [X].'

D'OH!

[jenna]

Lol JDP!

Sometimes I read the last line when I'm about a chapter through, just for the hell of it. Although never with a book I'm really, really enjoying.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think that whether a reader likes maps or not largely depends on how good they are at translating that sort of information (in the text) into a clear image in their heads. Some people have a gift for that, some people are just useless.

If I try to visualize a map in my head, it cannot be done; my brain just shuts down. It's no fault of the author's. I can barely follow simple directions for getting somewhere in real life, even if I already know the area pretty well. I have a miserable sense of direction, easily get disoriented, and can hardly tell left from right. Even when I'm looking right at a map, and I know which way is north, I sometimes get east and west confused.

On the other hand, my son and my youngest daughter have, since an early age, had the ability to remember how to get places they have only visited once before. They never get lost, even in strange cities. They seem to map places mentally as they go, and once they create one of these mental maps they never forget it.

It's just a difference in the way some people's brains work. Obviously, I'm an extreme example, but I would imagine that there are plenty of readers who have the same sort of problems to a lesser degree. We need the maps. If not in the book, then posted online where we can find them. Those who can live without them can always skip over any that they find. But I think it's a mistake to think that a map is there because the author was lazy or imagines that the reader is. The information may have been worked flawlessly into the text, and the map included simply as a courtesy for those who have difficulty navigating a story without it.


As for the question of a glossary at the beginning of a book, there is also the option of listing the Dramatis Personae, like in a play or certain old novels. This might not work with a very modern sort of novel; for some books it could feel archaic and odd. But where it does fit, I think it is a little less daunting than a glossary at the beginning. I've done it once, where it suited the style of the book, and it worked out quite well. I enjoyed putting together the capsule descriptions of the characters, and readers seemed to enjoy them, too.

[iansales]

I wonder if many fantasy novels these days include maps because it's seen as de rigeur. Personally, I don't think they actually matter that much. I understand that some people find navigation easier than others (I've never been lost myself, even in places I'm visiting for the first time). But if such information is so important to the story, why wouldn't it be stressed in the narrative - village A is 30 miles from village B, village A is a day's ride from village B, and so on... And if it isn't actually important to the story - only that village A village B are not the same place - why even bother mentioning it?

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by iansales

If a map is vital in a story, then that's a failing of the writer.

Then please answer my question I posed above: How do you suggest embedding geographical information into the story so that the reader actually remembers it?

Originally Posted by iansales

Never privilege world-building over story. Agents and editors want good well-written stories. Not role-playing games.

I will privilege world-building over story. Because that is what I enjoy the most as a reader. To do otherwise would be selling out and betraying my own vision.

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

I think that whether a reader likes maps or not largely depends on how good they are at translating that sort of information (in the text) into a clear image in their heads. Some people have a gift for that, some people are just useless.

If I try to visualize a map in my head, it cannot be done; my brain just shuts down. It's no fault of the author's. I can barely follow simple directions for getting somewhere in real life, even if I already know the area pretty well. I have a miserable sense of direction, easily get disoriented, and can hardly tell left from right. Even when I'm looking right at a map, and I know which way is north, I sometimes get east and west confused.

Yeah, I know the feeling. I am one of those, too. Maybe that's why I crave maps.

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

As for the question of a glossary at the beginning of a book, there is also the option of listing the Dramatis Personae, like in a play or certain old novels. This might not work with a very modern sort of novel; for some books it could feel archaic and odd. But where it does fit, I think it is a little less daunting than a glossary at the beginning. I've done it once, where it suited the style of the book, and it worked out quite well. I enjoyed putting together the capsule descriptions of the characters, and readers seemed to enjoy them, too.

Yeah, I am considering having one of those, too. The prime reason why I'm hesitant to do it is that I fear it will make it look like I am ripping off Malazan Book of the Fallen (by Steven Erikson), and I have plenty of reason to fear that already. :P

Originally Posted by iansales

And if it isn't actually important to the story - only that village A village B are not the same place - why even bother mentioning it?

Because extra information is good.

I will not be compressing my books to the minimum needed to tell a story. If minimalism is what you seek, then I recommend you run away screaming when you see my name. :P

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Then please answer my question I posed above: How do you suggest embedding geographical information into the story so that the reader actually remembers it?

There's no easy answer, no quick formula to help you. You just have to write good descriptive prose. You could try seeing how other writers do it - and not just in fantasy.

Originally Posted by Spectrum

I will privilege world-building over story. Because that is what I enjoy the most as a reader. To do otherwise would be selling out and betraying my own vision.

Or betraying the reader... who was expecting a story and not a travelogue or a history lesson.

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Yeah, I am considering having one of those, too. The prime reason why I'm hesitant to do it is that I fear it will make it look like I am ripping off Malazan Book of the Fallen (by Steven Erikson), and I have plenty of reason to fear that already. :P

I think you'll find that Erikson was not the first, and will not be the last.

Originally Posted by Spectrum

I will not be compressing my books to the minimum needed to tell a story. If minimalism is what you seek, then I recommend you run away screaming when you see my name. :P

I never said anything about minimalism. But every word you write should push your story forwards, every scene should move the reader closer to the resolution.

If I seem overly harsh, it's because I'd rather people thought about what they were doing rather than assume the way Tolkien, Erikson, Jordan and the like did it is the right way. What worked for them may not work for someone else. Plus, the market has changed since they were first published.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by iansales

There's no easy answer, no quick formula to help you. You just have to write good descriptive prose. You could try seeing how other writers do it - and not just in fantasy.

But that was my point above: I've never seen another writer do it. If a book lacks a map, I always find myself left to my own devices.

Originally Posted by iansales

Or betraying the reader... who was expecting a story and not a travelogue or a history lesson.

Needless to say, I will strive to have both. But my priorities are not changing.

Below you speak of "moving the reader closer to the resolution". In my world, a vital part of the "resolution" is the understanding of the setting: The back story, the characters and their goals, and the overall cosmology. The story only comes into its right when viewed as a part of a much greater whole. That, at least, is what I aim for.

Originally Posted by iansales

I never said anything about minimalism. But every word you write should push your story forwards, every scene should move the reader closer to the resolution.

As I said above, the understanding of the world is a key part of said resolution. If the reader forgets details, it would detract from the understanding. So the glossary is there to help the reader retain his overview.

Originally Posted by iansales

Plus, the market has changed since they were first published.

I don't understand what this means.