Article
June 25, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

When Subheadings Are Not So Useful

I love subheadings. They add so much to an index, breaking down long strings of locators into smaller chunks, highlighting meaning distinctions, and gathering related entries into lists so readers only need to search in one place. As I discuss in my last reflection, subheadings can also reflect the story that the text is telling. Well-written subheadings are clear, specific, and meaningful.

But…in indexing there is always a but. Occasionally, a project comes along that proves the exception. 

This happened with a recent index I wrote, for To See What He Saw: J.E.H. MacDonald and the O’Hara Years, 1924-1932, by Stanley Munn and Patricia Cucman (Figure 1 Publishing, 2024). J.E.H. MacDonald was a Canadian painter and a member of the Group of Seven. He fell in love with the landscape around Lake O’Hara, in the Rocky Mountains, and spent several summers there painting. This book takes an interesting approach to MacDonald. Over the course of almost twenty years, the authors sought to identify the exact locations where MacDonald painted. The bulk of the book is composed of a brief discussion of each of the O’Hara paintings, alongside a photograph of what the scene looks like today. The rest of the book is composed of an introduction, an overview of each of MacDonald’s eight trips, and excerpts from MacDonald’s diaries and other writings. The result is a beautifully illustrated coffee-table book. 

The instructions from the press were to only index the paintings, people, and places. While narrow in scope, there isn’t too much else discussed, and these are what readers are most likely to want to find, so I thought the instructions reasonable. Figure 1 Publishing is also very good at providing clear specifications for how long the index can be. For this book, the specs were 55-60 characters per line, for 675 lines total. 

I quickly realized that the book mentions a lot of paintings and places. The book discusses 226 paintings, almost all of them by MacDonald. With each painting taking up at least a line, some of them more, the paintings alone fill up about a third of the index. The rest of the index is mostly places—mountains, lakes, creeks, trails, huts—in and around Lake O’Hara that MacDonald either painted or visited. In comparison, only a few people are mentioned.

I also realized that the book contains a lot of repetition. For example, the same mountain may appear in a couple dozen different paintings. That mountain is mentioned again in the overviews of MacDonald’s trips, and then again in MacDonald’s diaries. This kind of repetition makes sense given how the book describes the same events and paintings from different angles, but it does mean that the mentions add up. Arrays with especially long strings of locators include Cathedral Mountain (49 page references), Hungabee Mountain (39 references), Odaray Bench (34 references), Lake McArthur (32 references), and Lake Oesa (27 references).

Normally, I would add subheadings to these arrays. Asking readers to look up each page reference is a big ask. But for this index, I left those strings, for paintings and places, intact. 

Not using subheadings was a conscious decision, and one I didn’t make lightly. My initial instinct was to find subheadings. But as I indexed and considered the entries, I also realized that subheadings would not be so useful in this particular index. Wanting a second opinion and to avoid surprising the press with a departure from my usual approach, I also queried the editor I was working with and got their approval.

I decided to not use subheadings for two reasons. One, I realized that too many subheadings would quickly make the index too long. Unfortunately, space constraints can sometimes mean putting aside the index that you want to write for the index that fits. In these situations, I need to be strategic about picking and choosing the subheadings that will have the biggest impact, while also being okay with other arrays not having subheadings. 

More importantly, though, for this book, I couldn’t think of subheadings that I was satisfied with. For subheadings to be effective, they need to clearly articulate additional information that readers can use to narrow their search. But what if there are no clear distinctions between locators? In that case, I think the long strings of locators should be left alone. It is not helpful to introduce artificial distinctions or to get so granular that context is lost. 

As I mentioned, this book contains a lot of repetition. Places either appear in MacDonald’s paintings, are places that MacDonald visited, or both. This doesn’t provide much to hang a wide range of subheadings. 

I briefly considered listings all of the paintings that each mountain or other feature appears in, along with a subheading for MacDonald’s presence at. For example, 

Cathedral Mountain: MacDonald at; in painting 1; in painting 2; in painting 3; in painting 4; in painting 5; etc…

But this approach presents a few problems. Some arrays would have been enormous, with a dozen or two subheadings for each of the paintings. Besides the space issue, I’m not convinced that listing each painting would have been meaningful to readers. Would readers remember the titles of individual paintings? In many cases, multiple paintings shared the same title. Thankfully, the authors give each painting a unique alphanumeric code, which I included in the index to differentiate. For example, “Lake O’Hara (25-1.3(S))” and “Lake O’Hara (30-3.1).” But I imagine it would still be difficult remembering which is which. Alternatively, I could have created a subheading for “in paintings,” but that would have still resulted in a long string of locators, as would the subheading “MacDonald at.” “MacDonald at” also isn’t very useful since readers can presumably assume that MacDonald was there, as that is the focus of the book. 

Given the space constraint and that either way—with a couple of generic subheadings or without subheadings—the arrays would have long strings of locators, I decided it was best to keep the arrays simple and to forego subheadings. This does mean that readers will need to search through each locator, though readers should also quickly notice the repetition, and it is all there for the dedicated searcher. 

This isn’t to say that I avoided subheadings entirely. I did use them in a few places, mostly for people, though even with people I found it difficult to avoid longer strings of locators. Many of these references are brief mentions and again reflect the repetition throughout the book. For example, here are two arrays for MacDonald’s friend, George Link, and wife, Joan.

Link, George K.K.
     about, 234, 343n83
     Lake O’Hara Trails Club and, 340n25
     MacDonald and, 82, 91, 104, 107, 113, 114, 143, 215, 224, 233, 234, 239, 243, 249, 252, 253, 254, 256, 258, 264, 294, 301, 307, 308, 310
     photographs, 246, 260

MacDonald, Joan
     encouragement from to travel west, 13, 202, 205
     letters to, 93, 96, 115, 120, 121, 122, 131, 167, 175, 200, 203, 204, 205–6, 211–12, 229, 230–31, 236, 240, 256, 265
     Links and, 341n47
     MacDonald’s departure west and, 250
     mentions in MacDonald’s diary, 304, 308
     O’Hara trip with MacDonald, 36, 123, 191, 217, 221, 222, 223–24, 259
     photo album, 224

While I highly encourage you to include subheadings and to make sure that subheadings are clear, specific, and meaningful, I think it is also worthwhile considering the exceptions to the rule. I hope that my approach to the index for To See What He Saw, about J.E.H. MacDonald’s paintings in and around Lake O’Hara, is helpful for considering when subheadings may not be useful. If there is a lot of repetition in the text, if it is difficult to find meaningful distinctions, and if there is a hard space constraint, then it is okay to have long strings of undifferentiated locators. It is not ideal, but it may still be the best solution for that particular text and index.

Article
June 11, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

Indexing as Storytelling

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.

Article
September 12, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Index Subheadings Q&A

Subheadings are, I would argue, essential for a good index. Not everyone would agree, apparently, as evidenced by the indexes one finds with long strings of locators with perhaps the odd subheading tacked on at the end. But as a way to deliver additional information to the reader, and to break up and add meaning to those long strings of locators, subheadings are the primary tool available. Yet subheadings can also be poorly written or included, which can sabotage the whole purpose of using them in the first place. While I realize that different indexers vary on how they use subheadings, here are some of the common considerations I face about subheadings, and how I resolve them.

How many locators must an entry have before subheadings are needed?

My rule of thumb is about six locators before I add subheadings, but I also consider the context before making my final decision. For trade books I might allow up to seven or eight undifferentiated locators, under the assumption that trade books can often have lighter, less detailed indexes. I also consider how important the information behind the locators seem to be, as well as how important the entry is in the context of the index. It also depends on what type of information is being conveyed. A distinction between almond milk, soy milk, and goat milk, as subheadings under milk, for example, seems important to make even if there are only four locators.  Alternatively, there could be nine locators on the same topic with very little to distinguish them, which would make subheadings seem forced. Ideally, my upper limit for undifferentiated locators is ten. 

Going back to those nine similar locators—what if there are fifteen and breaking them down isn’t practical or possible?

I once faced this problem in a book of local history in which a few people, still alive, had been quoted extensively, with like fifteen or twenty locators each. On the one hand, I felt that it was important to index these people, as they were alive and members of the community. On the other hand, they were rarely the focus of the text, instead offering little comments here and there. For that reason, and also for space, subheadings did not seem appropriate, as it would have resulted in long lists of one subheading per locator. My solution was to use a fake subheading, appended to the main heading, along the lines of,

Smith, John, reminisces of 

The locators were still undifferentiated (we do not know what John is remembering), but I think this worked better because the reader was still provided with some additional information about what type of information this was. I think the worst scenario for a long string of undifferentiated locators is to provide the reader with no context, so if all of the locators are similar in some way, it is worth adding a little extra to the entry. 

The space constraint is really tight. Should I just delete all the subheadings?

No. Some subheadings will need to be deleted, but try to do this in a controlled, mindful manner. I like to call it performing triage on the index, which I have written about previously. Basically, my goal is to keep the most important entries as intact as possible, while making most of my cuts on the entries that are less important. Cutting this way will mean more entries with undifferentiated locators, but done right, a good number of subheadings should still be preserved and the reader should still be able to get a good sense of the book from the index.

Is there a magic formula for writing subheadings?

One of the problems with subheadings is that they take up a lot of real estate. So one temptation is to make subheadings as concise as possible. I value concision too, but I have come to value clarity more, even if it takes an extra word or two. Part of this is also making sure that the relationship between the heading and subheading is clear. If the reader cannot understand the entry, then the entry may as well be removed as it is not fulfilling its purpose.

I also try to write subheadings in plain language, alongside the author’s terminology. I don’t want to assume that the user of the index has already read the book or is familiar with the jargon, though this does vary from book to book, depending on the intended audience. For me, using plainer or simpler language is part of making the index accessible.

Do you mix subheadings with undifferentiated locators?

Ah, probably the most contentious question of them all. Personally, I do not like mixing subheadings with undifferentiated, or unruly, locators. Ask a handful of indexers what those orphaned locators signify and you will get a handful of different answers. If indexers can’t agree, I suspect readers will probably be confused too, so I’d rather have no subheadings than have a mix.

I do have two exceptions that I allow. The first is to start the entry with a broad range, such as for a whole chapter, which is then broken down in the subheadings. This tells the reader (I hope) that there is a significant chunk of text on the subject and if they want to start on the first page and read through, they can. The second scenario, which I may do if space is tight, is to leave locators for illustrations undifferentiated, though they would be indicated by the locator being in italics or boldface, for example, so they are still, in a way, differentiated. 

But what about introductory material in the text? Does that really need to be broken down into subheadings?

Introductory material can be tricky to index, as it is usually brief and covers a lot of ground. This could be a paragraph per chapter in the introduction of the book, along with a couple of pages at the beginning of each chapter, as well as possibly a couple of pages at the end of each chapter, to sum up what has been discussed. I have heard some indexers say they leave these undifferentiated, with the assumption that readers will recognize this as introductory material. I don’t want to make that assumption, so I instead gather these into a subheading labeled something like, “about,” “approach to,” “introduction,” introduction and conclusion,” or “overview.” The exact wording varies according to what seems most appropriate for that particular text. I then force sort this subheading to the top of the entry, so readers can start with the introductory material, if they want. 

What are some of the common questions or issues you face? Do you have different solutions to these problems? Feel free to reply and let me know.