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 Grounds, 37, 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:

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.