What does the process of indexing consist of?

Is it primarily a process of extracting terms from the text? I’ve noticed, when talking to readers and editors, that this seems to be how many people conceptualize writing an index. It is less writing and more data mining. 

I want to suggest an alternative approach. While identifying and picking up key words is important, I don’t think that that is enough. A excellent index should also contain an element of storytelling. 

I also want to address a mistake that I’ve seen newer indexers make. It is being so focused on the myriad details of the text that they—and the index—lose sight of the larger context. I’ve noticed this especially in subheadings. I don’t think that this is an intentional mistake. Books contain such a tsunami of information that it can be difficult to know where to focus. This is why I prefer to spread the work out over several days, so my mind has time to process and absorb what I’ve read. If you struggle to keep the big picture in mind while indexing, I hope this reflection gives you some pointers.

As a caveat, while writing this I have in mind narrative-driven books. Think histories and biographies. These are books that typically contain a lot of detail while also telling a story. Other sorts of books, such as in the social sciences, how-to guides, or law, are more technical in nature and may not have an overt narrative (though every book should have some sort of structure). But even for more technical books, it is important to keep the larger context in mind. 

Context, Context, Context

In my book, Book Indexing: A Step-by-Step Guide, I discuss what I call the hierarchy of information. At the top is the metatopic, which is what the entire book is about. Below that are the supermain discussions, which are the handful of major arguments or areas of focus that comprise the metatopic. Below the supermain discussions are the regular discussions, which are the sub-discussions which flesh out the supermains. At the very bottom are all the little details, typically names, places, events, etc… All of these layers are nested together and should be reflected in the index.

When I refer to the context or the big picture of a book, I am talking about the metatopic, supermain, and regular discussions. These are the overarching discussions that give meaning to the smaller details. Problems can arise when the indexer fails to link back to the context, leaving readers confused about the meaning or relevance of an array or subheading.

Audience as Context

Before I jump into some examples at the subheading level, which is where I usually see this issue, I also want to mention that the book’s audience is also an important context. Not every detail is indexable. Before starting the index, think about what is important to the readers.

I’ve seen it happen when the indexer is so focused on picking up the details that they forget to assess whether the details are relevant. For example (and this is a made-up example, as I don’t want to embarrass anyone), say the book is a memoir on hiking Mount Everest. The author also briefly discusses, over a few paragraphs, a previous trip hiking Mount Kilimanjaro. Since it is discussed, Mount Kilimanjaro should have a main entry, but because the overall focus of the book—and presumably of readers—is on Mount Everest, the indexer does not need to pick up specific details about people and places associated with Mount Kilimanjaro. Those details are not relevant and will bloat the index. Instead, focus the index on Mount Everest. 

Using Subheadings to Tell a Story

Now let’s discuss subheadings.

Subheadings are crucial for breaking down large arrays into searchable chunks, but they are only effective if they are clearly written. Subheadings which are too granular and disconnected from their context are not helpful.

Consider this example. This is also made-up and is similar to real arrays that I have seen.  

Obama, Barack: communications with; congressional leaders and; economy and; Iraq and; oil and; as president; Senate and

How much do you understand about Obama from these subheadings? Do you have a clear sense of what you will find if you let these subheadings direct you?

To start, who is Obama communicating with? About what? It could be about anything. The subheadings “congressional leaders and’ and “Senate and” are a little more specific. If the text itself is vague or if these subheadings cover multiple interactions, then this level of vagueness may be appropriate. But what if we learn that these three subheadings are all referring to negotiations over the Affordable Care Act? Now we have context.

“As president” is also an unhelpful subheading, since most readers should know that Obama was president. Does it help to learn that the context is being elected during the 2008 presidential election? The other subheadings, for the economy, Iraq, and oil, may be clear enough, though it again depends on what the text is actually about. 

While all of these subheadings are technically correct—Obama is indeed communicating with someone, he is president, and he is doing something in regards to the economy—these subheadings also feel disconnected from anything concrete, at least to me. If we revise these subheadings to more accurately reflect the larger discussions, we get the following array. Which seems more connected to his presidency? Which is more helpful to readers?

Obama, Barack: 2008 presidential election; Affordable Care Act; economic policies; Keystone XL pipeline; withdrawal from Iraq

Let’s look at another example. Sometimes subheadings within an array are treated as a list, as in a list of names. 

Microsoft: Allen; Ballmer; Gates; Nadella; Wallace

These are all key players in Microsoft’s history. They are important and should all have main entries, but is listing them as subheadings really the best use of the Microsoft array? It doesn’t tell us much except that these people all have links to Microsoft. Why not use the subheadings to instead tell Microsoft’s story? Gates, Ballmer, and the others can still be in the index; just not the focus here. 

Rewriting the Book in the Index?

At this point, I can imagine a couple of objections. Is storytelling really appropriate within an index?

A common rule of thumb is to not rewrite the book in the index. I understand the point, that the index is supposed to direct readers to where the discussion actually is. But the index can only direct if the entries are clearly written. One of the best ways to be clear, in my opinion, is to connect to the larger context. I enjoy stories, and so I like to think of this as storytelling. If it helps, think of this as being clear and specific. What will resonate with the reader? Use that to hook the reader and send them in the right direction. 

It is also important to select the level of specificity that matches the discussion in the text. Returning to the Obama example, the Affordable Care Act is much more specific, and therefore more meaningful, than a generic subheading for healthcare policies. But if the discussion in the book is more like a broad overview, as in an overview of various economic policies, then a subheading at a broader level, like “economic policies,” would be the better choice.

Storytelling vs. Lists

I am also not saying that you should never make a list. Using subheadings to gather information into a list is also a valid approach. The two approaches can even be used in the same index. For example, for a book about Margaret Atwood, the main array for Atwood could tell the story of her life and career while a separate array—perhaps appended using the em-dash-modified format—could list all mentions of her novels and other writings. Books that are more technical in nature, rather than narrative-driven, may also favor lists over storytelling. The trick is knowing when each strategy is appropriate.

I also think that storytelling—making sure that the big picture is adequately represented in the index—can be more difficult to do, or at least more difficult to remember. It is summarizing and pointing towards the narrative and structure that exists within the book. Gathering together a list is often easier. 

When indexing, remember that you have options for how to present entries and information to the reader, and that your goal is to clearly communicate what the book is about.

Taking a Step Back

So how do you see the big picture? How do you channel that wave of information that is threatening to overwhelm you?

I find it helps to pause and take a step back. I especially do this if I feel like I’ve lost sight of the author’s argument or point. Or if there are a lot of names and other details and so it is easier to make two passes over that section, once for the details and a second time to see the full picture. I ask myself, “What is this discussion about, anyway?” Once I’ve identified the overarching discussion, I may need to go back and create entries for the context that I’ve missed.

If you struggle to see the big picture or the hierarchy of information, try to develop a habit of pausing and reflecting. Read until you hit a transition. Pause. How would you summarize the discussion you just read? How does the discussion fit into the larger structure or narrative of the book? Try completing the following sentence: “This section is about…” Be clear, specific, and meaningful. Once you have your answer, put it in the index.