Do people read glossaries?

[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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[iansales]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

I don't understand what this means.

 

[iansales]

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.

How many readers of Sara Paretsky's VI Warshawski novels do you suppose are intimately familiar with Chicago? Yet none of her books feature a map of the city. And I suspect very few of her readers bother to consult a map, either.

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.

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.

So in order to understand the story, the reader needs to consult the glossary? Or perhaps you're underestimating your readers in assuming they need a reference?

I don't understand what this means.

It means that the business of publishing has changed since the early 1990s. John Jarrold's thread will give you more information on this.

 

[Culhwch]

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.

It seems to me you're just assuming that people aren't thinking about what they are doing, and are just mindlessly aping what has come before. What evidence do you have of this? I have developed maps for many of my projects, because, yes, that is how I work best. I like to work from a map, because it crystallises my world in my mind. From the responses I've seen in this thread and others it seems a number of writers here do as well. I seriously doubt there are many writers out there who are just scribbling maps for form's sake, personally. And I've seen dozens of fantasy novels without maps, so there's no definite trend or pressure, it would seem, to include them.

 

[iansales]

Drawing up a map to help you write the story is one thing. But that doesn't mean it should appear in the final ms. It it's that I was questioning.

"No definite trend or pressure"... Do more high fantasies have maps than don't? If that's true, why do people feel they need one? Or is the reverse true? Or perhaps it's only the best-selling high fantasies which feature maps... Tolkien, Jordan, Goodkind, Brooks, Erikson, Martin...

 

[Connavar]

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!

Thats really why i hate glossaries....


The same thing happened with me and Gardens of The Moon.

I was reading the glossary at the back and a saw a huge spoiler about the last line in the corner of my mind.

I was just lucky it wasnt easy to understand like your spoiler and forgot what it even was by the time i got the last page of the story.

 

[Culhwch]

Drawing up a map to help you write the story is one thing. But that doesn't mean it should appear in the final ms. It it's that I was questioning.

Well, that's going to be a publisher's decision in the end. If they think the map is useful and will help boost sales, of course they are going to put it in there. The people who like maps will be pleased, the people who are indifferent to maps will be indifferent, and the people who have some strane vendetta against maps will continue to have some strange vendetta against maps, and may or may not buy the book, or will it return immediately to the friend or library from whence it came. I'm guessing the latter are in such a minority that it isn't going to dent sales figures to any noticeable degree.

"No definite trend or pressure"... Do more high fantasies have maps than don't? If that's true, why do people feel they need one? Or is the reverse true? Or perhaps it's only the best-selling high fantasies which feature maps... Tolkien, Jordan, Goodkind, Brooks, Erikson, Martin...

I don't have the figures on me, sadly. Epic and high fantasy lends itself to maps in a way that, say, urban fantasy or - as you pointed out earlier - space opera doesn't. Though I have seen maps in space opera, not to mention in thrillers, historical novels and more. But when a writer is trying to convey a world of epic scope, what better device to use than a map? In one page you can deliver a view of an entire empire that may have taken umpteen pages of exposition - boring or riveting, as the case may be. If the book sucks, the book sucks. That has nothing to do with whether or not there's a map.

It just seems to me that your argument against including maps is, 'Everyone does it', which doesn't seem at all valid to me.

 

[iansales]

My argument was more a case of concentrating on the story rather than the map; and if you must include a map, try not to have the story rely on it.

 

[Precise Calibre]

First off I apologize for rambling - I realized afterwards that I have created a lengthy commentary here - read it at your own leisure.

---

As I've been reading this thread, I've seen more than one person supporting their arguments by calling into question the effort put forth by the author when they express a desire to include a glossary and/or map with their book. Though it may be unintentional, the main idea they bring up in their arguments seems to be an offensive ideal of "if you include a glossary or map, you are a lazy writer." There is truly no need to use this personal opinion as a basis of an argument spanning a collection of individuals. This does not, however, mean that you are barred from putting your two cents in and offering advice.

The question was that of "DO people read glossaries?" not "Am I lazy if I want to collect important snippets in the back/front of my book for readers to peruse at their own leisure?"

This subject matter is highly personal in each individual's opinion. You can quote statistics and sales trends all you want, but in the end, the result is going to come down to the individual reader, not any one person's outlook on what they think "should" be. We are not all as omniscient as we would like to believe.

---

Divided from that side-commentary is my personal opinion on the matter. First off let me state that, to me, a glossary or map in a book does not make or break the deal for me. I'm not going to sit here thinking the author is a douchebag for cramming "unneeded information" into my neat and tidy little world.

I personally like the idea of glossaries and maps - maps in fantasy novels only by my view. BUT, they will only strike my fancy if they were done in a certain way.

A glossary (I prefer the term 'appendix' - it fits the idea of it not being needed but supplemental) in my ideal view will have expanded info on certain notes of interest that were introduced throughout the story. This may include but will not be limited to the "meat-and-potatoes" information which was disclosed during the narrative. They may also include characters, locations, items, factions, historical occurences and many other things which might allow me to glance into that imaginary world, if just a bit further. They will not, however, be neccessary to understand the main storyline in any way, shape or form. The purpose of the material will then be of an exlusively supplemental nature - it will be "neat" but not "neccessary".

As such, the appendix would not be something that is vital to understanding the story, and therefor I would never need to address it until AFTER I have read the narrative, thus eliminating the danger that the I would stumble upon a spoiler as they would have no business being near the back of the book, unless I decide to of my own volition. As a writer, I would feel that I have failed if the reader felt obligated (not inclined) to look to the appendix before they finished with my story.


Maps are just the same way to me. As I said before, I only expect maps in fantasy or semi-fantasy novels. For the most part, I don't have to absolutely know where things are in direct relation to eachother. It usually isn't vitally important to the narrative, unless there are military maneuvers taking place, in which case I would expect the author to be able to offer up such information concisely. Regardless of this fact, I enjoy seeing a well-drawn map at the front of a book, especially in a multi-book series. This presents me with several elements which may add to the overall experience.

The map might include only important features brought up in the story, but I find I enjoy it even more when locations and land features not mentioned in the story are also presented. This opens up the idea that, while the author did not utilize these locations within the present narrative, they may be used at some time in the future. It also lets my imagination fly - "What could this hamlet called 'Darian's Crossing' be like? What is its importance? Will the author bring us to it eventually?" Even if they're never used, I still find their presence comforting, after-all, I'll most likely never travel to "Normal Square, Pennsylvania", but it exists none-the-less, no?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But if such information is so important to the story, why wouldn't it be stressed in the narrative.

You seem to have missed my point, Ian. To someone like me, it doesn't matter how much stress is put on descriptions of relative distances and positions. If it isn't information that my brain is equipped to process in the first place, how could stressing it or repeating it make it any more comprehensible? Meanwhile, the reader who did get it the first or second time is probably getting bored by the repetition. The map allows us both to enjoy the book. What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

[Spectrum]

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!

To dodge this danger myself, I have developed the habit of removing my glasses while browsing forward (if I am checking the total page count or trying to find out how long the current chapter is). Without them I can still read if I squint, but I won't accidentally read some words.

 

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Glossaries, maps, appendices, supplemental guides and encyclopedias...all of these are de rigueur in fantasy. Or, at least, you would get that impression based on the best sellers of the genre. (Or, perhaps, as iansales suggests, they are so last week. I dunno.) Anyway, I blame Tolkien and D&D. I believe the idea behind this extra-textual supplemental material is, ostensibly, to give the reader the sensation that he or she is reading a history rather than fairy tale. (Or, more cynically, maybe the purpose is to wring more cash out of readers. Or it is to satisfy the ego of the writer who is certain his readers will clamor to find out the exchange rates of his world's monetary system, and so on...)

I'm not interested in arguing whether world-building should be privileged over the story, whether checking a glossary or map spoils immersion in the reading, or whether people who enjoy learning extra-narrative factoids about their favorite stories are geeks. (You know who you are.)

Spectrum is asking about taking the convention of fantasy - the glossary, map, supplemental encyclopedia, etc - and taking it a step further. He wants to turn the act of reading his story into simulating an act of research into his created world. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Spectrum.) He will be counting on his readers to be sympathetic to his world-building conceit.

I think it's a valid idea in theory. The problem is, I think you'd have to be very talented to pull it off and make such an exercise satisfying. It's quite a gamble. Already, you're talking about an idea that will turn off a large percentage of potential readers who don't want to "do homework." (As evidenced by some of the responses in this thread.) Even Tolkien didn't expect any of his readers to be interested in his world building. And, as you said yourself, you don't have any fans yet. You're asking people to trust in your vision sight unseen.

And, more to the point, you're going to have to convince a publisher to take a gamble on this idea first. I'm not sure how you would go about pitching this unconventional idea through the traditional synopsis-and-sample-chapters route. I'm not so sure the question of whether your glossary appears in the front, or the back, or at all, will even be up to you.