Do people read glossaries?

[Spectrum]

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.

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.

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).

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...

 

[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]

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.

 

[Hilarious Joke]

You know, thinking about it, it should be like a mini-dictionary like Lith said. And who reads a dictionary? Well, freaks like me, but most wouldn't! But it's still useful, for the same reasons a dictionary is! Anyhoo, put it at the front, Spectrum, or I'll eventually read your published work, find a glossary at the end, and come after you. And it won't be pretty, I'm thinking I'll force-feed you the Wheel of Time books ten times over.

Love,

HJ.

 

[lin robinson]

I think I'm seeing the problem here.

No, people don't READ glossaries or dictionaries. What they do, they use them to look up words they don't know but want to understand. So, while few will read through the glossary (or footnotes) like reading a book, that doesn't mean it's useless, nor that it won't get read or contribute value to the reader.

 

[Ursa major]

As Lin said, but this means they have to stop reading the story, go searching for the glossary, go searching through the glossary, read the entry, find where they were reading....

I can't help thinking that at least part of the spell of reading - to be immersed in the story - is lost during this process.


Oh, and this means your glossary had better be near enough comprehensive.

 

[Spectrum]

Oh, and this means your glossary had better be near enough comprehensive.

But my glossary also shouldn't tell the reader more than I want him to know. A big part of my story will be the mystery and the gradual unveiling of the "Big Picture". This is one of the things I love myself, namely being driven on through the series by a craving to find out how it's all connected; the various factions and characters, the villains' master plan, the back stories of characters and civilizations, and the entire cosmos.

So my plan is that the glossary will be small in the first book and then grow throughout the series as more information is revealed.

 

[Green]

In response to Lin's suggestion...

I don't always use glossaries as references. I do, sometimes, read them. Bakker's glossary in TTF is the perfect example. A wonderful addition to the trilogy, full of interesting footnotes, history, and sidetales, but not something I refer to during the main text itself.

So yeah. People use the things for all kinds of things, and you shouldn't rely on it for anything that's important to the story, because a lot of people don't read it. unless it's really interesting, I probably wouldn't bother with it myself.

 

[jenna]

I only read glossaries, family trees, appendixes etc if I've become so completely enamoured with the world and the story by the end of the book that I'm aching for even a little bit more. Otherwise I would probably just skim it. The problem with them, as I see it - if you put them at the start of the story one is not involved in the story yet, and therefore has no reason to care about the intricacies of the world. If you add footnotes I will hate you, as I hate footnotes! I don't want to stop reading the story if I'm immersed in it, but then I have the nagging feeling that I'm missing something. Putting them at the end, they can only really compliment the story after one has finished it, as there's every chance that people will miss that it's even there.

I second the idea that this is information you can add into the story itself, using dialogue, POV's etc. It will just take a little more work and skill than it would if you just throw it all in a glossary at the end. And give your readers a bit more credit, assume that they're not that dense that they need everything spelled out for them and that they couldn't work things out for themselves with a few well-placed clues...

 

[dustinzgirl]

But my glossary also shouldn't tell the reader more than I want him to know. A big part of my story will be the mystery and the gradual unveiling of the "Big Picture". This is one of the things I love myself, namely being driven on through the series by a craving to find out how it's all connected; the various factions and characters, the villains' master plan, the back stories of characters and civilizations, and the entire cosmos.

So my plan is that the glossary will be small in the first book and then grow throughout the series as more information is revealed.

You can still do all of that. Although you should just have the whole glossary, IMO, from the start.

For example you can have XYZ as "an unknown entity that creates strife and distress" and so forth and so on.

The point of a glossary is not to reveal or un-reveal, it is to define. What you are talking about now is more like an appendix--an addition to the plot that doesn't impact the plot but provides more information.

 

[lin robinson]

Oh, and this means your glossary had better be near enough comprehensive.

I would assume that the author would be clever enough to include all neologisms in the glossary.

As far as losing the glorious, but apparently fragile, immersion in the work... so people have been wrong to use footnotes all these years? To use words beyond the assumed reader's assumed vocabulary list?

This has the smack of "teachism", the sort of thing people who sell advice to writers tend to cook up, as opposed to the writers and readers themselves. Who are pretty much aware that reading a book is not some hypnotic spell, and people go in and out of the reading (sometimes just to do frivolous stuff like eat or sleep or go to the bathroom..all projects that can be as distracting as flipping to the back of the book).
(Even for people who have problems using bookmarks)

Have you EVER heard anybody say they lost interest in A Clockwork Orange because of the glossary? This is just plain not a legitimate argument, sorry.

 

[dustinzgirl]

A Clockwork Orange has a glossary?

 

[Pyan]

My copy has, my ptitsa droog...and there's lots of them on the Net...

Nadsat Glossary

 

[Ursa major]

I would assume that the author would be clever enough to include all neologisms in the glossary.

Exactly.

As far as losing the glorious, but apparently fragile, immersion in the work... so people have been wrong to use footnotes all these years?

No, Lin, but they ought to realise the consequences of what they're doing.

Footnotes, for instance, give a different feel to a book. When it's done well, and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is a good example of this, it reinforces the conceit of the book, in this case that it was written in the nineteenth century. The "quoted" excerpts used in Dune also add to the feel of the book as well as imparting information.

In another thread, someone said they hated chapter titles in fiction, but expected them in non-fiction. If the conceit of (part of) a book is that it's non-fiction, you ought to think about using chapter titles; and footnotes and a glossary (and even a bibliography ) for that matter.


If the glossary and/or footnotes are simply thrown in to cover the inability of an author to get information across in the text, this will not help a reader get into the book.

 

[lin robinson]

No, Lin, but they ought to realise the consequences of what they're doing.

If those "consequences" are real and not, as I suggest, imaginary.
The idea that this would keep the reader from "getting into the book" is ridiculous. Read previous post for some hints on why that's so.
You could make a much better case for the idea that it actually HELPS the reader get into the book.

And if you think the glossary in A Clockwork Orange was due to the author's inability. Or that it would have been better to have running translations in the text or something, there really isn't much point in you continuing this, because nobody is going to take it seriously.

You ARE an unpublished writing teacher, aren't you?

 

[Ursa major]

It depends, Lin, on the type of book (as I think I suggested). If it's a fast-paced actioner, it's going to slow things down if you have to leave the action to look things up. If, however, the pace is slower, it won't have as big an effect.


Frankly, almost anything, when used inappropriately, can undermine the reading experience; which is why an author should try to understand what they're asking the reader to do at any given point in the narrative. (For example, a fight is not the best place to mention half a dozen new creatures whose characteristcs are to be found only in a glossary.)


I'm not a writing teacher, but thanks confused:). I'm a telecoms consultant and, more importantly, a reader, a reader who doesn't like to be messed about because an author doesn't know what he or she is doing.

 

[lin robinson]

but thanks

That was no compliment. I meant it in the sense of somebody who can't write successfully, but give writers advice anyway.

It's a pet peeve, and one thing that always unfolds in these things when some writing guru insists that you should use adverbs or flashbacks or prologues or voice over or the letter "R" or whatever is they get slowly backed into a corner by the example of successful writers who do it, the lack of any reason whatsoever for not doing, and the illogic of the position...they suddenly switch over to "if done badly" or "when used inappropriately".

Actually there's really NOTHING that doesn's suck if done badly. Well, okay, a blowjob maybe. This is a ruse.

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.

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.

Like I say, it's a pet peeve. But you 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.

 

[Spectrum]

Whoa, whoa. This is starting to look dangerously like a flame war.

I think Ursa Major's point was not that glossaries are always bad, but only that an excessively information-thin and glossary-dependent story is bad.

Personally I've never minded looking things up in a glossary, even in the middle of things. I guess I don't get as "immersed" in the story as some people do. But I'll keep the warning in mind.