Article
September 22, 2018
0 comment
by Stephen

Indexing Fiction: The Lord of the Rings

Happy Hobbit Day!

September 22 is apparently the shared birthday of Bilbo and Frodo Baggins. I wonder how old they would be.

Today is also a good excuse to examine the index for the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) trilogy. I was quite surprised to notice, a couple of years ago, that my omnibus edition has an index. Thanks to a comment from a colleague, I have learned that the box set also comes with an index, or at least some of the box sets do. 

To back up a moment, and briefly recap, last month I reviewed an online index for The Wheel of Time series. The indexing issues I raised for fiction included spoilers, the scope of the index, locators, and differentiation, for example if the reader has forgotten which is a person, place, or thing. I will not repeat my full discussion of these issues in this blog post, but I will be examining this index with those issues in mind. So, on to the LOTR’s index.

I am curious to know when this index was originally written. My omnibus edition is from 1995, though the copyright page states that the three volumes were first published together in 1968. Does the index extend that far back? I was able to find a copy of the index in a box set on Amazon, using their Look Inside feature. That version is from a mass market paperback edition from Del Ray, apparently from 1986. I do not know if that index is the one reproduced in other box sets as well. In any case, the two indexes are extremely similar. The box set edition appears to have been shortened, which I think makes it less comprehensive and useful, but otherwise I am willing to believe that it is simply a shortened version of the original. In this review, I will mostly be commenting on the longer version found in the omnibus edition.

The index itself is actually a set of four indexes. There is an index for songs and verses; persons, beasts, and monsters; places; and things. There is a fifth section in the box set, with the title of “Supplement: Persons, Places and Things appearing only in Songs and Poems,” only a page long. I am not sure why this fifth index is included, as it is very specific. What audience or need is it seeking to meet? Otherwise, I think splitting the index is a helpful decision on the part of the indexer. It directly addresses the issue of differentiation, and of informing readers what kind of entry they are looking at. Splitting the index also means that each section is not too long, which I think also makes the index easier to search. 

Splitting the index also speaks to the scope of the index, which is what does the index cover. Related to scope is also the use, or not, of subheadings, which also leads to the issue of spoilers. Can we get a sense of the story from the index entries? In this index, the focus of the index is on the tangible. As far as I can tell, there are no conceptual entries, nor do the entries give a sense of plot. There are a few subheadings, but they are mostly of alternative names or terms, such as “the Grey” or “Stormcrow” for Gandalf. I am glad that these alternative terms are included so that the reader can find all of the relevant entries (and I noticed that several of them were removed in the box set edition), but these don’t tell us much about the character, place, or thing. 

Also on scope—and an aspect of this index that I find frustrating—is that the index does not attempt to be comprehensive. The places index, in particular, has a headnote explaining that in most cases only the first mention is indexed, except for where the indexer thought there were other significant mentions. In the box set edition, the headnote actually admits, “This [index] is rather more arbitrary than the last.” The headnote for the persons, beasts, and monsters index simply tells us that “references are selective” (though this headnote is missing from the box set). Still, there are far more locators in the persons index than for places, giving me some confidence that I will at least find all of the major scenes or chapters for a character. I do not know why the same was not done for places. For the things index, there is no headnote, and relatively few locators. This is also the section that appears to have been shortened the most between the two editions. The songs and verses index is short, split between first lines and titles, and seems comprehensive. Overall, it seems like each section was given different treatment, without a lot of explanation to the reader as to why. This makes me doubt the usefulness and reliability of the index. Can I trust that I am being directed to all of the relevant entries? Part of the indexing process is determining what is relevant for the reader, especially if there is a space constraint, so I do not want to fault the indexer for making decisions that we all have to make. In the absence of more information, though, the discrepancies do seem arbitrary, which is not the impression that an index should give.

The locators are also worth commenting on. With no subheadings to indicate plot, there are long strings of undifferentiated locators. These are usually not ideal, but given that this index is trying to avoid spoilers and is only trying to direct readers to the relevant pages, I think the undifferentiated locators are understandable.

 One aspect I found interesting were the extremely long page ranges for main characters. Locators for Frodo, for example, included 21-145 passim, 148-86 passim, 190-209 passim. The term passim, not commonly used, is meant to indicate that the subject is discussed throughout the range, but not necessarily on every page or in a continuous discussion. I think the use here is unnecessary as the reader will probably figure that out from the ranges. Still, these ranges are an interesting solution for how to index main characters who are the focus of the book. The ranges allow those entries to be relatively short, compared to how much of the book the locators cover. 

The locators also, of course, have to be changed for the different editions. For the box set, the index seems to only appear in the third book, The Return of the King, and locators include the volume number, so readers know which book in the trilogy to refer back to. I see value in having the (mostly) same index across all editions, so readers will find the same kinds of information regardless of the edition they are using. It must be a tedious task, though, for whoever given the job of adjusting the locators for each new edition. 

All in all, I think that the LOTR index is decent. Its best feature is having separate indexes for the different types of content. The part of me that likes to be organized and thorough wishes that the index was more comprehensive, in both entries and number of references picked up. At the very least, a longer headnote would be helpful to explain the differences between the sections and what we can expect to find. I also wonder how this index would be different if the plot was at least hinted at, but I respect the decision to not include spoilers. For the reader, I think this index is certainly a vast improvement over having no index, and I am grateful for whoever had the foresight to create it and to keep it in publication.

 My apologies for irregular blogging over the last couple of months. I have had a lot of work this summer, which is continuing into the fall. More to the point, I’ve been away for about a week for each of the last two months, and I have another trip planned starting next week. I don’t usually stagger my holidays like this, and while I have enjoyed the people and places my wife and I have visited, I have also found it difficult to maintain routines in this pattern of intense periods of work interspersed by travel. I look forward to returning to a more settled schedule, including more blogging, when I return in October. 

Article
August 31, 2016
2 comments
by Stephen

Plotter vs. Pantser? The Indexer Edition

fashion-men-vintage-colorful

If you read my previous post on genre, I’d understand if you think that this is another post inspired by the When Words Collide writing festival that I attended mid-August. This post, however, was actually inspired by Larry Sweazy’s keynote address at the joint ASI/ISC indexing conference I attended in June. Summer is a great time for conferences.

You fiction writers may already be familiar with the terms plotter and pantser. They refer to how an author approaches the process of writing a story. Do you first plot out the story before writing, or do you start with a blank page and write by the seat of your pants? Larry Sweazy, who is both an established indexer and an award-winning fiction writer, adds a twist to this concept by applying it to indexing.

Pantsing an index is to read through the text and simultaneously create and input the terms into your indexing software, without prior reading or planning. To plot would be to read through the text, either the whole text or by chapter or section, mark it up so that you have an idea of what terms you want to use, and then create the terms in your indexing software based on your notes and rereading of the text.

There are excellent indexers who fall on both sides of this divide (just as there are excellent writers who swear by both). Pantsers say that they can always revise and finalize the index later, during the editing phase. Plotters take the view that they produce a better index, and have less editing to do, if they can first understand the text.

My take? I think a lot comes down to experience, though certainly work styles and how you process information are important too. When I first started to index, I would plot out the index, chapter by chapter. Eventually I started to pants. Part of my decision to change my indexing approach was from learning from other indexers that this was an actual, viable option. Time was also a factor. I was getting more work, feeling crunched, and wondered if pantsing would speed me up. The biggest factor for me, though, at least in terms of successfully transitioning to pantsing, was experience. I had indexed enough books to have a rough template in mind that I could use when indexing blind. I was confident that making a decision, and then revisiting that decision during the editing phase, was sufficient for creating an excellent index. Plotting added an extra step, in that I would make a decision while marking up the text, and then revisit that decision twice, while inputting the entry into the index, and again while editing. I decided that extra step wasn’t necessary.

Still, I sometimes do get a particularly difficult book to index, and for those books pantsing is not as effective. For those I may decide that I do need to do some plotting. Perhaps not pre-reading the entire book, but certain key sections that illuminate the whole.

I have also increased the number of notes I make for myself while I input the terms, which I skim when I am ready to begin editing. These are to remind me of potential trouble spots that I will want to revisit during the editing phase, or these notes serve as brainstorming of alternative terms, or of similar terms I am seeing in the index and want to mull over for which is best to use. I also sometimes use mind maps to help me organize and understand what I am reading. I find visualizing the relationships between terms to be a quick and effective way to understand the structure of the text and hence the index.

For the pantser, I think plotting can still play a role in certain circumstances. The trick is to recognize those circumstances, and adapt your indexing strategy accordingly.

Now as a writer, do I plot or pants? I have to admit that I usually plot. I can often get away with pantsing short works of nonfiction, but fiction is another story. Right now I am experimenting with different plotting techniques, seeing what works best for me. I wonder if this will change too as I gain experience.

And Larry Sweazy? A pantser all the way, in both writing and indexing. That man has it figured out, or, better said, doesn’t, but knows how to finish the project regardless.

 

Article
August 18, 2016
0 comment
by Stephen

The Uses of Genre

car-superhero-symbol-batman

I am currently recovering from a wonderfully exhausting four days at the When Words Collide writing festival in Calgary. If my notes are correct, I attended eighteen different panels and workshops, made new contacts and got to know previous acquaintances better, and had the world of genre publishing in Canada blown wide open for me. It was amazing. I am so thankful that members of my writing group in Edmonton mentioned that they were attending, so that I could learn about this festival and attend too.

One of the overarching themes of the festival, for me, is this question of genre. In the workshop on writing popular fiction I attended with Eve Silver, we were asked, what genre do you read in? The question stumped me. I have always read widely, across genres. Alright, so I rarely read romance or paranormal fiction, so I can broaden my horizons a bit more, but still, the thought of reading exclusively in one genre strikes me as boring.

What about literary fiction, which can be seen as a genre in its own right. If you are a Canadian writer, you want to win the Giller or Governor-General prizes, right? The Pulitzer, if American? Attending When Words Collide, which in some ways was a bit of a culture shock, I realized that my past exposures to literature have mostly been on the literary side of the publishing world. I have a BA in Creative Writing (and Political Science) from the University of British Columbia, which is definitely literary in its leanings. I also spent a year working for the academic journal Canadian Literature, which does review some genre fiction, from what I recall, but is far more in tune with “literature.” Professionally, working in publishing, I primarily work with nonfiction books, but the fiction and poetry presses within the same circles of the publishers that I am familiar with are also all literary. I was surprised that there were Canadian publishers at the conference, like Tyche Books, ChiZine Publications, Bundoran Press, and Five Rivers Publishing, that I had never heard of before. I guess in my arrogance I thought that I already knew who all of the Canadian publishers were.

I also wonder if my childhood in Taiwan had anything to do with my knowledge, or lack thereof, of genre fiction and its fans. I certainly read a lot of science fiction, fantasy, historical fiction, and mysteries–whatever the school library had–but I did not have access to the fan bases that these works inspired. Living in Taiwan cut us off, in some ways, from North American culture, or at least made it much more difficult to access, and my parents did not have the inclination or time to pursue and introduce us kids to pop culture trends. Every so often I become aware of blind spots in my cultural vision which I attribute to this isolation. Case in point, beyond an Alvin and the Chipmunks cartoon version of Batman, which we could borrow from the school library (the library had an eclectic collection), I did not grow up with the DC and Marvel universes, and so the hype over the superhero movies that have been coming out over the last few years mostly leaves me cold. I will watch the movie if it has a good story, but you are not going to sell me on the nostalgia. Japanese anime, on the other hand, usually makes sense to me in a way that Disney and Hollywood so often fails, because anime reflects a world far more similar to what I grew up with.

But back to genre. As I clarified for myself over the course of the conference, I view genres and their conventions as tools for telling stories. Some characters work better in a mystery setting. Or being on a different planet or a space station makes it easier to explore certain themes. But I am not interested in genre for the sake of genre. I know that some readers and writers love those plot lines, and a good writer seeking to speak to that audience would do well to adhere to the conventions, but that is not my only interest.

As Jane Ann McLachlan forcefully argued at the festival, and others as well, one definition of good writing, regardless of genre, is that it speaks to what it means to be human. Put another way, to quote the late Doris Betts, “Deny the metaphysical and the trivial will triumph.” These are the stories that resonate and make you question your beliefs about how the world works. These are the stories that I want to read and that I want to write.

So it sounds like all of my stories will be in the literary realm, eh? Character driven, idea driven, asking the big questions of life. Well, yes, I want all of that, but plot is important too. I just finished a mystery novel which sucked me in with its characterization and setting, but the plot reveals in the last chapter were a real letdown. I probably will not be reading that author again. As I wrote above, I see genre as a tool, and my favourite genre titles are the ones that marry the conventions with speaking to the human condition.

I also want my writing to be accessible to a wider group of people. This is not to say that literary fiction is never accessible–some of it is and some of it is not–but it does have a  reputation for being out of reach. Working at Canadian Literature I could see how some writers, who were also scholars, did seem to be primarily writing for other writer-scholars, and that created a rarified, closed world. That is not the world that I want to be part of. Even if it means foregoing a chance to win the Giller or a Governor-General award, I want to have a wider appeal, and genre fiction seems to be a way towards that. The attendees at When Words Collide were so much fun, out to enjoy themselves and enjoy good literature. I felt like I was finally starting to find my literary home.

Will jumping between or blending genres make it harder for me to sell my stories? Perhaps. Genre is primarily a marketing tool for agents and publishers to sell books, after all, and for readers to find more of what they want. But while it sounds like publishers do not always know what to do with mixed-genre works and authors, readers do not share that problem. I met many authors, traditionally published, hybrid, and indie, who share a similar vision with me and who are doing just fine.

First things first, though, is to hone my writing craft and get those stories written. I’ll keep you updated.