Do People Actually Like This?

NiennaC · Jun 9, 2007

I recently read a book that was incredibly frustrating because the author barely ever explained the fantasy terms (new ideas/titles/places) and instead, directed the reader to the glossary at the back of the book.

I hate that. I really do. Are there people who like it? I don't mind if there's a glossary at the back for me to reference if the author explained something on page 12 and I'm on page 250 and I want to refresh. But I don't like it when you have to stop reading, look it up and then go back to reading. It really cuts into the flow of the book.

Here's to a movement to avoid this in coming fantasy titles.

veinglory · Jun 9, 2007

I was never a big fan of glossaries, family trees, pronounciaton guides or even maps. But some people seem to acually like interaction with the book in that way rather than just having things be coherent in context.

NiennaC · Jun 9, 2007

veinglory said:
I was never a big fan of glossaries, family trees, pronounciaton guides or even maps. But seem people seem to acually like interaction with the book in that way rather than just having things be coherent in context.

It truly baffles me.

AzBobby · Jun 9, 2007

Me too. My best guess is that for some, there's fun in putting the pieces together like a puzzle. I don't mind maps and glossaries, like say in Watership Down, where the terms and locations are actually understandable in context and the extras just add a little depth and fun to it. If the writing doesn't clear the hard job of working independently of the extras, though, it's just not very good writing.

Death Wizard · Jun 9, 2007

I love maps and glossaries and refer to them quite frequently as I'm reading.

The Lady · Jun 9, 2007

I don't mind this at all, and normally you find that if you hang in there, it'll all come right. I don't ever bother reading the glossaries until I come to them by finishing the book. Usually works out OK for me, though I once knew somebody who gave up on Dune because he had to keep checking the glossaries to see what things meant.
I told him to plough ahead. It'd all work out. But he couldn't and he gave up quite early on. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but from that day onward, I regarded him as "being from the other camp" whatever that means .

NiennaC · Jun 9, 2007

AzBobby said:
Me too. My best guess is that for some, there's fun in putting the pieces together like a puzzle. I don't mind maps and glossaries, like say in Watership Down, where the terms and locations are actually understandable in context and the extras just add a little depth and fun to it. If the writing doesn't clear the hard job of working independently of the extras, though, it's just not very good writing.

I agree. I don't mind when they have the extra stuff, so long as I don't have to go and look if I don't want to.

veinglory · Jun 9, 2007

One of my favorite books is Clockwork Orange--I don't mind working it out as I go.

FennelGiraffe · Jun 9, 2007

I rarely bother looking at glossaries, pronounciation guides, or character lists.

On the other hand, I do enjoy maps and family trees. But only as extra, added content. The book should stand on its own without them. Then again, I like all kinds of maps and family trees, anyway. Even if they aren't associated with a novel.

Dancre · Jun 9, 2007

NiennaC said:
I recently read a book that was incredibly frustrating because the author barely ever explained the fantasy terms (new ideas/titles/places) and instead, directed the reader to the glossary at the back of the book.

I hate that. I really do. Are there people who like it? I don't mind if there's a glossary at the back for me to reference if the author explained something on page 12 and I'm on page 250 and I want to refresh. But I don't like it when you have to stop reading, look it up and then go back to reading. It really cuts into the flow of the book.

Here's to a movement to avoid this in coming fantasy titles.

ARG!! i hate that!! It breaks up the story line!!

kim

alaskamatt17 · Jun 9, 2007

I like glossaries at the back. If the story is told in third person limited or first person, it feels more realistic to have the character refer offhand to familiar elements in his or her world that the reader might not understand. Moving the explanation to the back is sensible in this case.

Genealogies and appendices about things that aren't important to the story also make for nice additional content. Readers who are interested in the world can get a better understanding of it this way.

I've only used a glossary in one book, though, for a made up language that only gets quoted in dialogue three or four times, but appears in most city and character names.

NiennaC · Jun 9, 2007

Genealogies and appendices about things that aren't important to the story also make for nice additional content. Readers who are interested in the world can get a better understanding of it this way.

This I agree with. Genealogies and appendices are great; but only as supplement material. It should be stuff that could be left out without impacting a reader's ability to understand the story they are reading.

freethinker · Jun 9, 2007

I don't mind that sort of thing when it's got a limited impact on the gist of the storyline; when it starts interfering with important elements of the story, it pisses me off, a lot.

alaskamatt17 · Jun 9, 2007

I also don't mind huge stories that start off with three or four pages of Dramatis personae.

Zoombie · Jun 9, 2007

The only thing I use Dramatis Personae for is to see just how many flow chart's I'm going to have to make...

Though I did read a Dramatis Personae that had one saying: "Lola Vavoom: Does not actually appear in this novel, but has to be mentioned here due to contractually concerns.

Lyra Jean · Jun 9, 2007

I like it if I don't have to refer during the reading.

In historicals I like it when the author puts down what actually happened and what they made up for the purpose of the story.

Eudaemonic · Jun 10, 2007

I hate it - made-up names and invented words. If it's a fantasy world - then they'd be speaking another lang. surely. In translation then all their words would be our words. Like made-up terms kept to a minimum.

Don't mind maps though, or diagrams.

So - maps yes, but very few or no made-up terms except for the odd thing that would have no equivalent term in English.

daemon

Evaine · Jun 10, 2007

Coming at the problem from the other side, I remember reading The Strange Affair of Adelaide Harris, by Leon Garfield, a children's historical novel. My sister and I went through it and made our own family trees just to be able to work out who was related to whom in a very complex story.

alaskamatt17 · Jun 10, 2007

Eudaemonic said:
I hate it - made-up names and invented words. If it's a fantasy world - then they'd be speaking another lang. surely.

daemon

In works taking place solely in another world this is true, but in many fantasy stories a character from our world is transported into another. In this case I think it would be acceptable to include the foreign words that they find odd. It makes sense to have something be unintelligible if the reader is bound to a character's perspective and that character can't understand the words. Although, the character would have to be an astute listener to convey the sounds without knowing the word, so it might be better to describe the babble rather than spell it out. Important dialogue should probably not be spoken by a character whom the viewpoint character cannot understand--unless it is somebody arresting him/her or saying something that might have an equally drastic effect on the POV's life.

Anthony Ravenscroft · Jun 10, 2007

Let's say there's this really great novel. It's got three prologues, seven epilogues, a Dramatis Personae, an extensive timeline, four genealogy charts, a glossary in English & four made-up languages, & a brief technical dictionary in the language of the main culture.

How the hell is this going to be made into a movie? or even a radio play? or a graphic novel?

All that crap should be saved up & sold as a separate reference book or series. It's exceedingly lazy writing (& publishing!!) to simply print the author bible as though it's part of the story. It's about as pleasant to see as beginner poets who delight in glossing/footnoting their poems -- if you have to explain your joke, you've failed.

badducky · Jun 10, 2007

Huge pet peeve. Huge.

The only time I'm not genuinely peeved at this is when it's a translation of Leo Tolstoy or Homer or Virgil or what have you, and the culture gap/difficult naming conventions make such a thing a good idea.

If you read my fantasy books, you won't need a glossary. Promise.

badducky · Jun 10, 2007

oh, addendum

The dialogue in my first novel is all in Italics. Because I don't speak their language, and they don't speak mine, and I'm doing my best to translate it for you out of the foreign language into our own.

The very, very few words that were invented (two?) were part of character names, and explained immediately once. Then dropped. Forever.

The Lady · Jun 10, 2007

I'm reading The Book Of The New Sun at the moment. Loads of words I don't understand and no glossary. I'm coping well though.

Inky · Jun 10, 2007

I write epic fantasy romance. I've had a few people ask me to insert a list of names and who they are in the beginning of the next book.
I'm torn. I want to keep everyone happy, but for myself, I find that maps, characters names and descriptions, glosseries, they like hiccup the story for me. I work very, very hard to create such believable characters, that one wouldn't need to keep referencing them. As for the glosseries, I've created languages to coincide with the differenct cultures, but use only a few words repetitively enough that the reader will be fluent with them in no time at all. And they're easy to pronounce.

However, that said, those that can create glosseries, maps, geneologies, and whatnot have my utmost respect. Do you know the work/imagination that goes into such things? Ah, geniuses. Truly gifted beyond the mere ability to word-paint.

karey

The Grump · Jun 10, 2007

Glossaries remind me of textbooks, which have to be the dullest form of non-fiction with only a few exceptions. While I find maps invaluable when reading as well as writing. Prologues can be nice too to give the villains vp.

I'm never understood why writers of fantasy and science fiction felt a need to create worlds they can't explain within the text. If there is interpolation to be made, let your fans do it.

Do People Actually Like This?

volitare nequeo

Ought to be writing instead

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Critical Member

volitare nequeo

It's green they say

Just have fun.

Dragon of the Multiverse

Two years old now.

what? why!

Scribble, scribble, scribble

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

Critical Member

Eat, Sleep, Write...

Hates Marketing. Loves Writing.