Article
0 comment

Index Profile: Placing (Hiding?) Sensitive Entries

Where do you put potentially embarrassing or upsetting information in an index? The information is true. It is discussed. It qualifies as indexable. But where and how should it appear?

I faced this question when I received feedback last year from Adele Weder, the author of the biography Ron Thom, Architect: The Life of a Creative Modernist (Greystone Books, 2022), about the Canadian modernist architect, Ron Thom. My original array for Thom, for which I used the em-dash-modified format (which I like to use for biographies), looked like this (for space and the sake of this example, I am only including the first three subheadings for each section):

Thom, Ron (Ronald James): Adelaide Street apartment, 255–56; alcoholism, 34, 212–13, 214, 239–40, 255, 257, 259–60, 272–73, 275; art and, 17, 288n20;…

—ARCHITECTURE CAREER: apprenticeship, 46–47; on architects, 208–9; on art and architecture, 38, 133, 200, 211–12, 243–44;…

—ARCHITECTURE PROJECTS: Atria North, 246–47; Banff Centre’s Thom Studio, 254, 254; B.C. Electric Building, 87–88, 90–92;…

—ARTWORK: At the Fair Grounds37, 38; Seated Figure, 41–42, 42, 290n2

—FAMILY AND RELATIONSHIPS: children, 54, 57, 101, 102, 172, 234, 237–38; courting Chris, 26; divorce from Chris, 113–14, 295n6;…

Do you see the problem?

Alcoholism is the second subheading. While acknowledging that alcoholism was a significant problem in Thom’s life, the author was concerned that having the subheading so early in the array overshadowed Thom’s architectural accomplishments.

Which I think is a fair point.

When I use the em-dash-modified format, I usually treat the first section as a catch-all for the subheadings that don’t fit anywhere else. These are often subheadings for childhood, death, miscellaneous jobs, hobbies, personal quirks, and, in this case, alcoholism. I think I did notice that alcoholism fell at the front, which struck me as unfortunate while also part of the vagaries of the alphabetical sort. So, I didn’t put too much more thought into it. 

The author was not so quick to let the index—and me—off the hook. I am glad she pushed back. After some back-and-forth discussion, I revised the array:

Thom, Ron (Ronald James)

—ARCHITECTURE CAREER: apprenticeship, 46–47; on architects, 208–9; on art and architecture, 38, 133, 200, 211–12, 243–44;…

—ARCHITECTURE PROJECTS: Atria North, 246–47; Banff Centre’s Thom Studio, 254, 254; B.C. Electric Building, 87–88, 90–92;…

—ARTWORK: At the Fair Grounds37, 38; Seated Figure, 41–42, 42, 290n2

—FAMILY AND RELATIONSHIPS: children, 54, 57, 101, 102, 172, 234, 237–38; courting Chris, 26; divorce from Chris, 113–14, 295n6;…

—PERSONAL LIFE AND VIEWS: Adelaide Street apartment, 255–56; alcoholism, 34, 212–13, 214, 239–40, 255, 257, 259–60, 272–73, 275; art and, 17, 288n20;…

That catch-all section is now labelled “personal life and views,” which sorts it to the very end of the array. The alcoholism subheading is still present, but it is no longer the first thing that readers see. Instead, Thom’s architecture career and projects play the starring role.

I took away three lessons from this experience.

One, it is a good reminder that alphabetical sorting isn’t everything and it is possible to manipulate where entries appear. The goal should be to make entries visible, of course, rather than burying entries. But depending on the material and the needs of the audience, it is possible to move entries around and to highlight or deflect attention as needed.

Two, sensitive information should be handled sensitively. I am not a fan of using the index to ignore or whitewash uncomfortable or difficult information. If there is a significant discussion in the text, then it should also be in the index. But I am open to considering how and where it appears in the index. In Thom’s case, what is the focus of the book? What are the elements of his life which should be celebrated? What are readers looking for, and what should readers be presented with first? The array can be structured accordingly. 

The last lesson is that feedback from authors can be invaluable. I don’t always agree with the feedback, and I may explain my approach if I think the index is misunderstood. But there are also times when I have made a mistake, or I didn’t consider other options, or fully think through the implications. I want to be someone who takes feedback seriously. Even if I disagree with the author’s solution, there may still be something there that I need to reconsider. For this Thom array, I am thankful that Adele Weder, the author, explained her concern and pushed me to look further for a better solution. I think the array and the index are better for it.

Article
0 comment

Index Profile: Tracing Complicated Relationships in Main Headings, in The Other Great Game

What can main headings be composed of?

Main headings, which kick off an entry or array, usually describe a single person or thing. It could be a name, or a government agency, or a physical object, or a concept. It is concrete and identifiable. Which is what we want in a main heading. Readers need to be able to clearly identify what it is they are searching for.

But sometimes the thing that we are trying to describe is complicated, and it is okay for the main heading to expand and help carry the weight of the text.

I ended up taking this approach for the index for The Other Great Game: The Opening of Korea and the Modern East Asia, by Sheila Miyoshi Jager (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2023). This is a delightful history, squarely within one of my favorite areas to index—East Asian studies—while also quite challenging in its scope and length, at about 570 indexable pages.

This book is about the colonial jockeying for power and control over Korea, with Korea ultimately becoming a protectorate of Japan. One of the challenging aspects was all of the intertwined relationships. Korea is a key player, of course. Japan is also involved, and wanting to be taken seriously as a great power. Russia also has its interests and influence. China is a waning influence, though still trying to exert itself. Though less involved, the other Western powers—US, Britain, Germany, France—all played a role as well.  Much of the book covers the diplomatic back-and-forth as all these powers try to figure out what to do with Korea (instead of respecting Korea’s independence). From an indexing standpoint, what is the best way to index all of these relationships?

Most of these relationships, say between Korea and Japan, or Japan and Russia, are too large to be contained within a subheading or two. These are relationships that span decades, and include wars, lengthy negotiations, and shifts in the balance of power. With so much material to cover, double-posting these relationships under each respective country would have led to enormous, unwieldy arrays.

The solution I landed on was to make the relationship itself the main heading. So, “Korean-Chinese relations,” “Korean-Japanese relations,” “Japanese-Russian relations,” etc… I still had arrays for each country, for subheadings specific to that country, but the bulk of the entries fell under these various arrays for these relationships. This meant that under Korea or Japan, for example, there are several arrays, which break down the discussions into manageable, yet still clearly defined, portions.

This also raised the question of which country to prioritize in the main heading. Should it be “Japanese-Russian relations” or “Russian-Japanese relations”? Because Korea and Japan were the two biggest actors, I decided to let them take the lead, so to speak,, with the Western countries generally being listed second.

These main headings also required a lot of cross-references from the other countries. As I mentioned, double-posting wasn’t a viable option due to the sheer number of entries. Better to pick a single array to place entries under, and then use cross-references to point readers in the right direction. For example, “Russian-Korean relations. See Korean-Russian relations.”

If you are interested in seeing all this in action, you can view the index here, on Amazon, using the Look Inside feature.

The number one goal for main headings is that they be clear. A confused reader is less likely to find what they are looking for. But while keeping clarity in mind, you can also play with main headings to better match the discussions in the book. Some subjects and relationships are more complicated, and a longer, multi-part main heading may be the clearest and best option.

Article
0 comment

Index Profile: Untangling Terms in Rediscovering the Goodness of Creation

Ever struggle to find the right term to use in the index? I do. From an indexing standpoint, ideally the vocabulary used in the book is clear and consistent, making it easy to extract terms and phrases to use as main headings and subheadings. Bu not all books are so clearcut. Some books require more thought and even, dare I say, improvisation when selecting terms. 

I don’t mean to suggest that such books are poorly written, though that may sometimes be the case. English is blessed with a multitude of expressions and synonyms, and an author may choose to use terms interchangeably. What works in the text, though, may not work in the index. The vocabulary used in the index should be controlled, with discussions gathered in a single location or with cross-references between similar discussions. When there are multiple terms to choose from, you need to make a decision about which terms to gather under

I faced this challenge a few months ago when indexing Rediscovering the Goodness of Creation: A Manual for Recovering Gnostics, by Robin Phillips (Ancient Faith Publishing, 2023). While beautifully and thoughtfully written, making full use of the language available, I did have several moments, while indexing, when I thought to myself, “Is the author writing about this, or that? Or both?”

First, what the book is about, which is the starting point for determining appropriate terms. Here is the synopsis I wrote for myself after I finished the rough draft of the index. I find that writing a brief summary can clarify the metatopic and the main points of the book, and focus my attention on the most important elements which need to be in the index.

This book is about rediscovering a Christian appreciation for creation/the world/our bodies/culture—how the redemption of all of these is part of God’s plan and work. An emphasis on the implicit Gnosticism in much of modern Christianity, manifested in a matter-spirit dualism, in which the physical is denigrated or ignored. Also frames creation as “already” and “not yet”—the tension between what God has done, and what is to be completed in the eschaton. 

Right from the start, I have a series of related terms that I am struggling to differentiate. I know that these terms are distinct, but how, exactly? What does “creation” encompass? Is “creation” different from the “world” and/or “earth”? Are “world” and “earth” distinct from each other? “Bodies” also seems distinct, though are they also part of “creation” or the “world”? And what about “culture”? An easy solution would be to have a massive main heading for “creation/world/bodies/culture,” but I don’t think that would be helpful for readers. It is better to have separate arrays for each of these concepts. The question then becomes, how to differentiate the discussions, and which references go under which?

Reading the book more closely, I realized that creation is the metatopic—the overarching concept tying the whole book together. The world, bodies, and culture are all different aspects of creation. So, I created an array for creation with a number of subheadings that speak to creation at a higher, more general level, with cross-references to specific elements of creation and related concepts that are discussed in more detail. (And, looking at this now, I realize I should have included a cross-reference to the “body, physical” array.)

creation: introduction, 7–10, 49–50; Augustine on goodness of, 231–34; coherence with heaven, 325–27, 327n7, 333n28, 334; continuity between present age and age to come, 173–76; Gnosticism on, 69; God working through means, 269–72; goodness of, 59–60, 220; participation of in God, 247–49, 247n5; redemption of, 60; sacramentalism and, 299–300; vs. sacred-secular dualism, 304–5; teleology and, 152; use in worship, 281–86. See also arts; beauty; coherence; culture; dominion (cultural) mandate; earth; Genesis Creation narrative; matter-spirit dualism; new creation theology

In addition to figuring out how creation is related to the other concepts, the book also seemed to use several terms interchangeably. The question I needed to answer was, are these terms synonymous (or close enough that they can be indexed together) or are these distinct concepts that need to be indexed separately? For example, is it the world or the earth? Eden or Paradise? The Church or the Kingdom of God? The dominion mandate or the cultural mandate? 

I eventually decided that it made the most sense to index these pairings together, and so created the following main headings: “earth (world),” “Eden (Paradise),” “Church (God’s Kingdom),” and “dominion (cultural) mandate.” I included the alternative term in a gloss so that readers understand that these are the same thing, more or less, and that either may be found on the page. I also included cross-references from the alternative terms. I also tried to be alert to other synonyms and create appropriate cross-references. For example, from “natural world” to “earth.” The alternative—having separate or duplicate main entries for earth and world, for example—seemed unnecessarily complex, and at times impossible to decide which subheading belonged under which term. 

A similar issue was how to index the various dualisms discussed in the book. The main one, mentioned in the synopsis, is the matter-spirit dualism, thought the book also discusses the grace-nature dualism and the sacred-secular dualism. The clue is the term “dualism,” which indicates that each of these is a single concept and should not be split into separate entries, such as for matter and spirit. I did, however, include cross-references, such as “spirit. See matter-spirit dualism,” for readers who might search otherwise. 

Term selection can be tricky. When writing a book, it makes sense to use the full range of language available, to create engaging prose, to dialogue with other literature and discussions, and to reflect nuance. The index, on the other hand, is a deconstruction of the text. Discussions need to be gathered and sorted into distinct arrays and organized in a way that facilitates search. When indexing some books, such as Rediscovering the Goodness of Creation, this means taking all of the terms available, understanding how the terms relate to each other, and then choosing to prioritize certain terms over others (while still including cross-references from the other terms), as it is not practical for all terms to have full arrays.

The goal, as always, is a clearly written index that points readers to the information that they want to find.