Hello,

Indexing contains a strong subjective streak. For all of the rules and conventions that govern format and term selection, among other elements, there are multiple ways to write an index. Each indexer interprets the text differently, and each indexer has their go-to structures and methods.

I’ve been thinking about the saying that two indexers can index the same book and write two very different indexes. Which is true. This was demonstrated during the panel moderated last year by Jolanta Komornicka, at both the Indexing Society of Canada/Société canadienne d’indexation (ISC/SCI) and Society of Indexers (SI) conferences. For the panel, a number of experienced indexers indexed the book The Claremont Run: Subverting Gender in the X-Men, by J. Andrew Deman (University of Texas Press, 2023), and compared and discussed their decision-making, including how their indexes differed. I was not part of the panel, though I very much enjoyed the discussion at the ISC/SCI conference in Vancouver.

For all the differences—and each indexer did have their own approach—the overlap was also striking. It reminded me of something Enid Zafran said, that even though two indexers will write different indexes, there should still be significant overlap because the text itself remains the same. Everything that is in the book still needs to somehow be reflected in the index.

I am going to call what’s in the book aboutness, to use index-speak. In my book, Book Indexing: A Step-by-Step Guide, I define aboutness as “understanding what the text, at all levels, is about.” Meaning, what is the book as a whole about? What are the main concepts? Who are the relevant people? What organizations are discussed, or court cases cited, etc…? All of these discussions and mentions need to be in the index. How they appear in the index may differ, but one way or another, the contents of the book should be recognizable and findable.

So there is this tension, in writing an index, between the objective and subjective elements. The text is the text. The rules and conventions are the rules and conventions. But the application and interpretation will vary.

I’m conscious of this tension when I subcontract. I want certain elements handled a certain way, while also aware that the subcontractor may have a different view or may be dealing with a different preference if they also subcontract for another indexer.

I think this tension also exists for anyone who has served on a jury for an indexing award. When I was on the Award Committee for the Ewart-Daveluy Award, some submissions were written differently than how I would have written them. Yet the award is not for, “who can best mimic how the judges would have written the index.” The award is for excellence, firstly for how well the index reflects the book, and secondly for how well the elements and strategies used in the index work. As a judge, I need to put aside my personal approach and judge submissions on their own merits, accepting that best practices can be interpreted and implemented in a variety of ways.

So what does all this mean for you or I as indexers?

First of all, the objective side of indexing is important. It is important to understand the book and accurately point back to it. The formatting and other conventions exist for a reason. Rules can be broken, but any deviation should be well thought out and justified.

It is also okay, however, to develop your own style. I know it sounds weird to discuss indexing in terms of style, but I think our personal preferences and methods do add up to make our indexes unique. If we are going to push back against a bland average that AI seems to excel at, maybe we need to talk more about what makes our human-written indexes stand out.

So as you practice and write indexes, consider. Of various approaches available, which do you like the best and why? What works better in certain scenarios and not others? What looks more elegant? What saves space? What do you want to borrow from others, and what do you disagree with? While keeping an eye on the goal of creating excellent indexes for readers, put your own stamp on your indexes too.

Yours in indexing,

Stephen

​

PS. My apologies for missing the Q&A last Tuesday. January was incredibly busy for me, with a number of large indexes I was running behind on. By the time last Tuesday rolled around, I was worn out and still trying to wrap up the last outstanding index, and so I decided to give myself a pass on the Q&A. February is a new month, with new projects, and I’m hoping to get back on track.