Do people read glossaries?

[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?

 

[Ursa major]

Being the sort of person who dips into encyclopedias randomly for fun, I do read glossaries; but I don't expect other readers to be like me.

But does it really matter how a reader pronounces a name in their head? Off-hand, I can think of only two circumstances where clarity may be required:

• Where a plot turn is based on a character's misunderstanding of a name; this would baffle the ill-informed reader, but then I'd expect the author to rely on more than a glossary to let the reader in on what's going on.
• A joke or pun, which is a rather poor reason for a glossary entry, don't you think?

 

[Culhwch]

I think it's dangerous to make a reader reliant on a glossary, precisely for the reason you have yourself given - not everyone reads them. I will dip into a glossary if I need to, but I don't religiously read them before embarking on the actual narrative. If your narrative is too hard to penetrate without flicking backwards and forwards the whole time, I think you'll have an issue. If the glossary merely compliments the narrative, on the other hand, more power to you.

 

[Hilarious Joke]

I reckons you should put it in the front anyway. That way the risk is a lot lower that readers'll miss it.

I do read glossarys. In fact I read books cover to cover, I read all the quotes from the critics, I read the acknowledgements, I read the bits at the end plugging other books. The only thing I don't read is the copyright bit and the chapter list . I know, I'm strange.

 

[Pyan]

As HJ implies, there's always those that put the glossary and/or pronunciation guide at the end of the book...by which time I've got so used to saying the leading characters' names in my head that there's no way I can ever change them.....

The Golden Key, by Rawn, Robertson and Elliott is a good example - written in a faux-Italian Renaissance style, you only find out haw to pronounce the hard words after a thousand-odd pages.....

 

[Steve S]

I suppose, as with most things, it is a matter of taste. As much as I love 'The Lord of the Rings' I never felt compelled to more than dip into the appendices (to be honest even the Silmarrilion almost defeated me!). What I loved about the book was the sweep of the story and the behaviour, interactions and choices of the characters; looking at endless genealogies doesn't really interest me. A story should be able to stand, for good or ill, on its own without the support of endless supplementary material.

I think the key point, stretching the LOTR example, is that Tolkien was able to create an incredibly convincing tale and secondary world simply within his story; he did not have to rely on the appendices to explain what was going on - if the appendices had not been included the story would not have been the worse for it. Look at 'His Dark Materials', no maps, no list of characters, no appendices, no pronunication guides, but for all its complexities it is still highly accessible to the reader.

I agree that it is crucial for the writer to know the backstory, to know all the detail of the world and characters, but in my humble opinion, genealogies, pronunication guides etc should be kept well away from the final story. But I'm sure many would disagree me and that's fair enough!

 

[HoopyFrood]

With series like Erikson's Malazan Books of the Fallen, I rely on the glossary quite a lot -- every time a new place, person or race pops up, I have to flick to the back to get the brief details about what they actually are. This at least saves from an info-dumping chunk within the narrative and is there as an easily accessible reminder, but when you have to continuously flick back and forth to remember who's who, who's what, who's where it can be tiresome and off-putting. I don't think I'd refer to one that was solely for pronunciation purposes -- as others say, as the glossary is usually at the back, by that time I've already decided how to pronounce things. Indeed, often my pronunciations aren't even close -- with all the exotic names you seem to find almost constantly popping up in fantasy, I usually just invent a name that is somewhat close to the written one But that's me.

 

[The Ace]

I always find it a bit of a sod if the glossary's at the end, especially in fantasy when it can be vital.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't think it should ever be necessary to read a glossary to understand a book. The narrative should stand on its own, and include all the information the reader needs to know. The glossary should be there to enrich the experience for those who like that sort of thing (I'm one of those readers who do). Above all, I don't think that readers should ever be made to feel as though there is going to be a test afterwards.

As a writer, I like it when readers pronounce the names of my characters the way they're intended to be pronounced, but it doesn't really matter if they don't. Whatever makes reading the book easier and more pleasurable is fine with me.

 

[Quokka]

You mentioned Jordan's WOT and when I was reading it I loved that he had a glossary that I could refer to, to get extra information (and remind me who was who) but having said that I had a friend who doesn't read much who always said that in reading Feist's Magician that he always misread names ie Arutha/Arthur, Carline/Caroline etc and yet it never affected his enjoyment of the story.

and to be fair I still misread Nynaeve in WOT as something like Ner vene .

So for me it's great if it is there to highlight important facts or to remind a reader of something from a previous book or books but a story still needs to be able to stand on it's own merits without it and don't worry too much about pronunciation as in the end most readers will find a happy medium without being beaten over the head with it.

 

[Lith]

Some (if not most) readers WILL skip glossaries. And your story should be clear without them. A lot of readers don't and WON'T read introductions, prefaces, forewords, afterwords, notes on the text and all those wonderful things that can enhance a reading. And names will be mispronounced. (In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the characters discuss the pronounciation of Hermione; not only because it was a funny bit, but because after 4 books, JKR was tired of fans mispronouncing 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".

That would be a good opening line. It would scare away all people who wouldn't like your story anyway. (Sorry, ate something bad for lunch. Or something.)

But there's nothing saying you can't put one in anyway. An attentive reader will read the table of contents and know there's a glossary in the back for the technical points, and will enjoy extra bits of information like the Appendices in LOTR, which aren't strictly necessary, but add depth rather than simply clarity. And I found myself referring to the glossary in ASOIAF quite a bit, not because it wasn't in the text (it is), but because it's so intricate that it's easier to refer to a glossary than look back through the text. Especially where names are easily confused (but that's another gripe; too-similar names...) Another thing I've seen done is putting a single page in front giving basic pronounciations. If I remember right, Susan Cooper's books do that to introduce readers to basic Welsh spellings, without which, they'd be rather lost.

That and include a map. Half the readers won't look at that either, but the other half will really want it.

 

[zoran]

I don't think it should ever be necessary to read a glossary to understand a book. The narrative should stand on its own, and include all the information the reader needs to know.

I totaly agree on this. And, as a writer, I write the names so they can be read in a way I want them to bee.

Also, I believe that too many skipping from the story to the info in the back of the book ruins the pleasure of reading.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

And, as a writer, I write the names so they can be read in a way I want them to be

I'm not sure how you accomplish that one. I've heard even simple, ordinary names pronounced in a variety of ways.

Maybe it's easier to do in other languages, but in English all of our vowels stand for so many different sounds, and the stress can fall on any syllable, and I don't think there is ever any guarantee that a particular name would be pronounced by anyone (let alone everyone) exactly as the writer wishes.

 

[zoran]

I'm not sure how you accomplish that one. I've heard even simple, ordinary names pronounced in a variety of ways.

Maybe it's easier to do in other languages, but in English all of our vowels stand for so many different sounds, and the stress can fall on any syllable, and I don't think there is ever any guarantee that a particular name would be pronounced by anyone (let alone everyone) exactly as the writer wishes.

To be honest, I mostly write contemporary fantasy with common names.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Even so. My youngest daughter has a very popular and contemporary name (it was neither when I gave it to her twenty-seven years ago, but between then and now everyone's been using it) and people manage to mispronounce it all of the time.

 

[zoran]

Even so. My youngest daughter has a very popular and contemporary name (it was neither when I gave it to her twenty-seven years ago, but between then and now everyone's been using it) and people manage to mispronounce it all of the time.

I thing one should aspire that MOST of the readers pronounce names right... not ALL of them. Because no glossary will help with that

 

[Green]

I'm sure Theresa (or others) will correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the publisher have a large say in whether or not a book should have a glossary (or map, whatever)?

And since the agent and/or editor has to like the book enough to take it on before the decisions even get as far as whether or not you should have a glossary... perhaps it might be to your detriment if the book depends upon the glossary, since the agent/editor probably isn't going to bother reading a glossary at this early stage.

If that makes sense. Basically, though I love (good) glossaries, I think the narrative should stand on its own merits.

 

[Spectrum]

Thanks for all the replies.

But does it really matter how a reader pronounces a name in their head?

Well, I have no rational argument for this, but it annoys me to no end when people pronounce my names wrong.

Another way to help with this problem might be to have a footnote with the pronunciation rules whenever a name is used for the first time. What do you think about that? (This would be in addition to a central pronunciation guide, of course, not replacing it.)

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."

This information is an unnatural "state break", because there is no reason why a character would remark on this, since everyone in the story has seen a Scatha before and knows how they look.

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.

I could also use the glossary to describe the appearance of the main characters. This could spare me the trouble of having to covertly work it into the narrative. But that's less essential to the understanding of the story.

 

[Culhwch]

Another way to help with this problem might be to have a footnote with the pronunciation rules whenever a name is used for the first time. What do you think about that? (This would be in addition to a central pronunciation guide, of course, not replacing it.)

That seems, to me at least, very jarring and a great way to rip a reader out of the narrative. Keep it in the glossary, or put a pronunciation guide at the front - but, as Green pointed out, that's probably not going to be solely your decision if it's published.

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."

I think the first works, quite frankly, without needing to refer to the glossary. By all means keep it in there to add extra details, but don't get so lazy within the narrative that you leave all description to an appendix.

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.

I think this is information that could easily be imparted in the narrative, but again, put it in the glossary anyway.

I could also use the glossary to describe the appearance of the main characters. This could spare me the trouble of having to covertly work it into the narrative. But that's less essential to the understanding of the story.

Now this I don't agree with. This is definitely flirting with the laziness I mentioned above. I'm not saying stop the narrative for a paragraph of description, but if you thread it in organically there's no need to put a physical description in the glossary.

Just as an aside - I'm amazed that so many people relate not discovering a glossary until finishing reading a book. I always flick through the length of a book before I start reading, if only to check the page count....

 

[Nesacat]

While like HJ I read books cover to cover, it is very aggravating to keep flipping back and forth to the glossary.

It's wonderful that glossaries and appendices provide all kinds of extra information but the reading of the tale per se should bot be dependent upon them.

It makes the reading a tedious process where the rhythm is constantly broken by the flipping and finding and flipping back.