Hello,

Thank you to everyone who participated in my survey last month, asking what more I might do to help you continue to grow and learn in indexing. The responses are very helpful.

A monthly Q&A received the most votes. So I am going to give that a try, starting today. I will reply to a new question on the last Tuesday of every month.

I’ve created a simple survey for you to submit questions. You can find the survey here. I have also included a link in the footer below, so you can ask a question at any time. Please do ask! The Q&A will only work with your input.

The second and third most popular ideas are live indexing and me learning in public. Thank you for that feedback. Both will take some time for me to figure out how best to do, so I am not going to make any promises right now, but I am also interested in both and will keep them in mind.

​

Writing Subheadings

To kick off this new Q&A, I noticed that someone asked about subheadings in their survey response. To summarize, “How can I become faster and more decisive when writing subheadings? I want to index more quickly, and I feel like subs are slowing me down.” Great question, and thank you for asking.

I agree that subheadings can take time. If I have a large index with a lot of subheadings, I anticipate that editing will take longer. I think this is partly because subheadings are more words which need to be written and then revised, and the more words, the more time needs to be spent. It can also take time to decide on the best phrasing for the subheading, especially if pulling the subheading directly from the text is not feasible. When editing the index, it is also not simply a matter of editing individual subheadings, but rather editing the array as a whole so that all of the subheadings work together. All that time spent on analysis and decision making can add up.

That said, I think it is possible to be faster and more efficient writing subheadings. For me, it comes down to understanding the two types of subheadings, as well as the qualities of a good subheading, so that I can write a better first draft, hopefully resulting in less time spent editing. This is what I will be writing about today.

(As an aside, I’ve checked Do Mi Stauber’s Facing the Text and I see that she discusses five types of subheadings. I see her point and there is value in understanding the different scenarios in which subheadings can be used. I also think five is a bit too much to remember, and for my purposes I usually think in terms of two types.)

​

Categorical Subheadings

The first type of subheading is categorical. These are for chunks of information that are all of one type, and are easily defined and identified. For example, works of art by an artist, specific species of plants or animals, products produced by a brand, or types of thermal conduction. For example,

This is essentially a list. Everything within the category is gathered together within an array for the reader to easily scan. The subheadings can typically be copy and pasted from the text. So long as the text is clear, this does not require much interpretation by the indexer; a black-capped chickadee is always going to be a black-capped chickadee.

​

Descriptive Subheadings

Descriptive subheadings, on the other hand, often requires more work. The indexer needs to interpret the text to identify the underlying aboutness and then write a subheading that both clearly indicates the relationship between the main heading and subheading and why this is of interest to the reader. That is a lot to put on such a short phrase. When I’ve seen subheadings go wrong, this is often where the problem seems to lie.

Good descriptive subheadings share three main qualities: they relate to the larger context, are at the appropriate level of granularity, and are clearly written.

To illustrate, consider this made-up example:

How well do you think these subheadings work?

​

The Larger Context

At first glance, the subheadings appear to be specific, concrete, and concise, which are all good qualities. But how much information do they actually convey?

For me, the first two subheadings, “in battles” and “communications with,” are especially problematic. Which battles are being referenced? For that matter, which war, the French and Indian War or the Revolutionary War? Also, could this subheading be combined with “as general”? Why is being a general relevant? Is the discussion about being commissioned as a general, his wartime leadership, or something else? Similarly, for communications, who is Washington communicating with? About what? Maybe those references would fit better under specific aspects of his life, such as his family, military experience, or presidency.

Establishing the larger context is crucial. The context is also not always easy to identify. It can be tempting, when reading the text, to latch onto terms like “battle” or “communication” because they are easy to spot. I can fall into this trap too, especially if I’m tired, in a hurry, or having trouble understanding the text. Yet while the discussion may well involve a battle or communication, that is often not the larger significance of the passage. What really matters is Washington’s military strategy at the Yorktown siege or communications with Congress about foreign policy, for example. That context is far more interesting and specific.

To borrow a phrase from journalism, don’t bury the lede.

​

Levels of Granularity

So establishing the larger context is important. But how granular, or narrowly focused, should subheadings be? The discussion may be about the Yorktown siege, but if other battles are also mentioned, does it make sense to give each battle its own subheading? Is there enough space for each battle to have its own subheading?

This is a question of finding the right level of granularity, which often depends on what the book is about. Is the book a biography covering Washington’s entire life? Or is it a history focused on a single aspects, such as his presidency? Or is the book about something else entirely, say foreign policy in the fledgling republic, and so while an important character, Washington is not the main focus. How Washington appears, and the number of references, will influence the number of subheadings, and how broad or narrow each subheading should be.

For example, if the Yorktown siege is the only wartime mention, then that would be an appropriate subheading. If there are a handful of discussions about Washington’s wartime experience, then a broader subheading for “Revolutionary War” makes more sense. Specific details about the war will not be included in the array (though there could still be a separate main entry for the Yorktown siege), but if the war is not prominent in the book, “Revolutionary War” strikes a good balance between being specific—the reader at least knows which war—while still broad enough to gather scattered mentions.

If, however, the book is about Washington’s wartime experience, or at least contains significant discussion spanning several pages, then a broad subheading like “Revolutionary War” is probably too broad. It would be better to create multiple, more granular subheadings for specific battles and other aspects, such as espionage, leadership, staff, strategy, etc…

Whether broad or narrow, singular or multiple, the subheadings should try to reflect the scope and depth of the discussions in the book.

As mentioned, space for the index can also be a factor. If space is tight, broader subheadings can still point readers in the right direction while also requiring fewer subheadings. If shortening the index is necessary, try looking for subheadings that can be combined at a broader level.

​

Clarity

The third quality I look for in subheadings is clarity. The reader should clearly understand what is being referred to. For that matter, the indexer should also clearly understand. If I re-read a subheading while editing the index and I don’t know what it is about, then I can’t expect the reader to understand either.

Clarity is intertwined with context and level of granularity. Try to be specific and concrete when selecting terms, which remains true whether the subheadings are broad or narrow. In the Washington example above, “family of,” “as landowner,” and “as president” are all clearly written. Depending on the book, they may be at an appropriate level of granularity or they may be too broad. Adjust as needed, while still aiming for clarity.

​

Mixing Subheading Types

It is acceptable to mix categorical and descriptive subheadings within the same array. I think the distinction is helpful for knowing which strategies to use when drafting subheadings. If the subheading is categorical, then you are likely copying the term from the text, as well as keeping an eye out for other terms within the same category. If the subheading is descriptive, you need to think more deeply about the context, level of granularity, and how to make it clear to the reader. I am not suggesting that these two types be kept separate.

That said, if there are several categorical subheadings, the array may be easier to scan if the categorical subheadings are gathered separately. For example, if several works by an author are mentioned, consider force-sorting them to the end of the array or place them in a separate, nested array. As in, “Oates, Joyce Carol” and “Oates, Joyce Carol, works by.”

​

Indexing Faster

Circling back to the question of speed, it helps to start with a good draft. I rarely write a perfect first draft, but if I can keep context, granularity, and clarity in mind while drafting, editing is often easier and quicker. For me, speed is mostly about learning good technique.

If I am not sure whether a name or concept will need subheadings, I often do a keyword search to see how often the term appears. Keeping in mind that names can appear in citations and the bibliography, this can nonetheless be a quick way to gauge whether subheadings are necessary.

I also try to look for clues as to how granular subheadings should be. How prominent is the person or concept in the book? Are they discussed in a specific context or more broadly? What can I learn from the introduction or from a keyword search? While not perfect, with a little thought and research I can base my draft subheadings on an educated guess and be closer to the final draft.

Also remember that each array tells a story and needs to hold together. If the subheadings are categorical, are all relevant entries in that category present? If the subheadings are descriptive, are all relevant aspects of the person or concept reflected? Is the point made in the book conveyed? Keeping this in mind from the start and connecting to the larger context can lead to a better first draft.
​

Subheadings can be tricky to write. I wish there was a shortcut, but the only shortcut I know is to understand what makes a good subheading and to practice applying those elements right from the start, to the point where good technique becomes habit. Don’t worry about trying to create a perfect first draft, as I don’t think that is possible, but the better the first draft can be, even if it takes a little more time to write, the quicker it will be to edit and the less time spent indexing overall.

Yours in indexing,

Stephen

​

PS. Please ask me questions! I will choose one to answer next month. And, if I misunderstood your pain point with subheadings, or you have a different question about subheadings, please let me know. I can try coming at this from another angle.