Do people read glossaries?

[j d worthington]

One suggestion: It's your world and the rules of etymology are what you choose them to be, but shouldn't the word be "Scathese" rather than "Scathaese"?

 

[Spectrum]

One suggestion: It's your world and the rules of etymology are what you choose them to be, but shouldn't the word be "Scathese" rather than "Scathaese"?

Heh. Yeah, maybe it should. But I've been going around saying "Scathaese" for ten years now, so it's too deeply ingrained in my mind to change it.

 

[Ursa major]

Given the recent warnings, JD, is there any need for anyone to be scathing?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Not if they wish to emerge unscathed, Ursa.

Spectrum, it's always a delicate task including that sort of information without creating an info dump, or an "as you know, Dr. Watson," but I think you have managed it quite well.

 

[scifi_vision]

Personally I always read glossaries but if they are excessive and if there are too many madeup/obscure terms they become difficult to keep track of.

 

[lin robinson]

if there are too many madeup/obscure terms

What other words would be in a glossary for a fantasy book?

 

[j d worthington]

Given the recent warnings, JD, is there any need for anyone to be scathing?

Droll, U.M. Very, very droll....

Yep, Spectrum... I would imagine that would be just a wee bit difficult at this point.....

 

[dustinzgirl]

Hmmm...

You know, after reading through this I was thinking, what else could I add?

OK so here's what I really have to add. I have read so many books on writing and notes and organising notes and definitions and expositions and explanatins and maps and blah, blah, blah that really the only conclusion I can come too is thus:

You create something not because other people want you too, but because you want to.

If you are writing a glossary only because you want people to read it, you will miss some of the real important points of writing a glossary...that it is to define and track the meaning and origins of words used in a language.

If you are creating a map for a non existent place because you want people to use it, you will miss out on the fact that maps to made up places are how your characters and your story will, literally, find its way.

Now, as for the rest of the argument over the last few pages,

NANANANNANANNA

I win.

 

[Hilarious Joke]

I thought you were going to go

Naaaaa, naaa naaa NANANA naaa, nanana naaaa,

Hey Jude

 

[The Procrastinator]

For fans of the Goodies:
Naaa naaa NANANANA, naaa naaa NANANANA
Wild thang! (Grrrrrrr!)
You make my heart sing! (aaaaaaaAAAAAAAAaaaaaaa) (Tim in falsetto)

 

[Spectrum]

If you are writing a glossary only because you want people to read it, you will miss some of the real important points of writing a glossary...that it is to define and track the meaning and origins of words used in a language.

I'm not convinced that etymologies are one of the most important parts of a glossary. Sounds to me like a "because Tolkien did it!" argument.

I do intend to have an appendix with some language notes, though. Somewhere.

 

[daisybee]

The issue of glossaries reminded me of my A-Z book of ideas stashed somewhere-just found it again and rediscovered some cool ideas.

So cheers Spectrum- *coughs* er-carry on.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Having just finished reading The Lamplighter by D. M. Cornish, it occurs to me that the series "Monster Blood Tattoo" is a good one to bring up in this thread.

Both of the books to date (the first one is called Foundling) are heavy (an understatement) on invented words, as well as existing words used in new ways. In context, it's usually possible to get a rough idea of what the words mean, so the glossary (it's called an Explicarium) isn't absolutely necessary, but it certainly makes the going easier, as well as containing a dizzying number of fascinating details. In terms of reorienting one's brain to a bizarre new world these books take a certain amount of effort, so they are definitely not for everyone.

However, there is one thing about them that might interest you, Spectrum, in particular.

Instead of footnotes, each chapter begins with a lengthy definition, in the place some authors would put an epigraph. Sometimes the word is of little importance (although interesting), but sometimes a definition appears in a very timely manner in terms of understanding what immediately follows.

And it seems to me that for the kind of book you said you are writing, this method -- or one very similar -- might work very well.