Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/2534
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

This is a terrible idea. If _you_, who wrote the damned thing, are having trouble telling characters apart, keeping track of scenes, identifying key ideas, reflect on how much more trouble your reader, whose only source of insight will be the black-on-white text, will have! Seriously, if things are that dense and confusing, time to back up and rethink what you're doing.

I'm a little skeptical even of ordinary organizational tools like time-lines and outlines. Again, how can the reader digest all this information and keep it in his head if the writer can't? The only reason I give them a pass is because the much greater _time_ involved in the process of writing compared to that of reading.

Whenever I see a novel of fiction with a map, a family tree, or, God help us, a glossary, I'm strongly inclined to discard it unread. Although certainly fine novels have had these features (many people enjoyed the _Lord Of The Rings_ books, which had maps; _I, Claudius_ started with a tree of the Claudian family; later editions of _A Clockwork Orange_ came with a nadsat dictionary) but I think those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

In general the reader's, and the the writer's, understanding of a work should come from the text. We are writers, not typographers, illustrators, genealogists, or cartographers, and we should be doing what we are (supposedly) best at.

Original score: 4