Fictional characters in non-fiction works

Transcription

1 Fictional characters in non-fiction works Madeleine Davis Drawing mainly on postings to Index-L in the period , Madeleine Davis explores the various approaches indexers have taken to the indexing of fictional characters in non-fiction works. She concludes that there are no authoritative pronouncements on the subject, that any rules there may have been have become less prescriptive than they once were, and that (as so often in indexing) the only rule is that it all depends. This article harnesses my interest in gathering together the indexing wisdom from Index-L discussions and other sources (very few) relating to the indexing of fictional characters in nonfiction books: biographies of authors, reviews of books and so on. It is not about indexing characters in fiction works. I have gathered together, then reorganized, ideas and extracts from comments made on the Index-L list from numerous contributors in the period The names of contributors are listed at the end of the article. And I have inserted some of my own ideas (in italics) as commentary. There is no implication that any of the ideas below are rules or whatever, but I hope the ideas may assist indexers in thinking about options for their own particular indexing problems and challenges in this area. Inversion? When indexing a book that includes fictional characters names (say, a literary criticism book discussing Madame [Emma] Bovary), is the name indexed under the first name or surname? (That is, Emma Bovary (fictional character) or Bovary, Emma (fictional character)?) There is nothing in Mulvany about fictional characters I looked years ago when I did a literary work which had loads of them. It is best to put them by surname so if there are family groupings, they are all together. I also put quote marks around them to distinguish the fictional names, i.e. Bovary, Emma (fictional character). You can still find them in the normal way but they are different. I have seen one index where they had them the other way, i.e. Emma Bovary. It got really confusing and I could never find what I wanted. There are several different approaches to this problem. Back when I first learned indexing, working in-house on several encyclopedias, around 1969, the rule we used was, roughly, that the indexes included people, places and things. Fictional characters are not people, they are things and are not to be handled as if they were people, so their names are not inverted. That is one possible rule. Other indexers don t follow it. I don t follow it all the time, but I try to avoid indexing literary criticism where names of fictional characters are common. An index must make the information in the book accessible to the reader. If the indexer follows a consistent style which deviates from the rules there are no index police who will challenge them. What it comes down to is that there are two defensible positions on this issue. I am going to stick with treating fictional characters as things and not inverting them, unless my client tells me to do otherwise. It is the client s book and I will follow their instructions. As an avid reader of books on writers, writing and books, I would say absolutely yes, do index the characters; yes, do make them main headings; and yes, do include subs when and as needed. I believe the convention is not to invert fictional character names (thus giving one cue to the reader that the character is fictional) because fictional characters are not considered people but rather things, as they are the creation of an author, but others may disagree. If necessary to avoid confusion one can always add a gloss, such as: Huckleberry Finn (character) Oliver Twist (character) I would also add subs as and when needed, e.g. Huckleberry Finn (character) author s brother compared to, x-x as Peter Pan figure, xx quotations by, x, x, xx Instead of author s brother you could of course use the brother s name if you have it, such as John Smith, and then you may want to dp under that name: Smith, John Huckleberry Finn compared to I believe the convention is not to invert fictional character names (thus giving one cue to the reader that the character is fictional) because fictional characters are not considered people but rather things. I would say it is a rule (mostly so I can call it the Mouse, Mickey rule ). If, however, I had families of fictional characters to deal with I would make additional subentries under a surname main entry: Forsyte family characters Irene Forsyte Soames Forsyte I started out trying to index names inverted, but it became harder and harder to even find the last names, so I switched 65

2 to filing by first name. Characters were typically referred to by first name only. The online era may be inclining us toward first-name-first sorting, anyway. For example, my i.e. address book is mostly in order of first name: Frank Smith Fred Brown George Apley (the late) and so is my cellphone contact list. This kind of ordering might also be called Icelandic. 1 If we take, for example, a discussion of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, then it would be sensible to list any characters mentioned in inverted order to show the whole Bennet family together, particularly as neither Mr Bennet nor Mrs Bennet appear to have any first names in the book they are either referred to as Mr Bennet or father, and Mrs Bennet or Mama! Bennet, Elizabeth Bennet, Jane Bennet, Kitty Bennet, Lydia Bennet, Mary Bennet, Mrs Bennet, Mr But you also need to take into account the way the author uses the characters names in the actual novel that is being described. In Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, if Estella is always referred to as Estella, and Pip is always referred to as Pip and Miss Havisham is always referred to as Miss Havisham, then perhaps our duty as indexers is to index under these names as the main entry with a gloss (fictional character). Would I include a referral from Havisham, Miss to Miss Havisham? (Maybe.) Would I include a referral from each of the other characters inverted surnames to their first name? Here is the dilemma: does anybody know Pip s full name? Or Estella s birth surname? Or the first names of Miss Havisham, Magwitch or Jaggers, Mrs Joe, Mrs Wemmick, Uncle Pumblechook, Mr Wopsle? Or the second names of Biddy, Mollie or Compeyson? Then again, we do have the full names of Herbert Pocket, Dolge Orlick and Bentley Drummle. In this case I would find it almost impossible to be consistent with the filing of these names, and would simply follow the most common usage from the text with an appropriate gloss. Other questions one might ponder include, should there be a cross-reference from Uncle Pumblechook to Pumblechook, Uncle? Or from Pumblechook, Uncle to Uncle Pumblechook? Ditto Mrs Joe and Wemmick and Mr Wopsle. (Note: If you want to explore further the names of characters in the novels of Charles Dickens, see org/wiki/list_of_dickensian_characters) Distinguishing fictional names from names of real people: the options It may be desirable to distinguish between fictional names and names of real people discussed in the text. Glosses, italics and quotation marks are all ways of doing this, but if we value consistency in an index, these must be used consistently too. Whether a character s name needs both a gloss in brackets and the use of italics or quotation marks really depends on the use of these in the rest of the index. If italics are used for a character s name, the title of a book, play, poem, the name of a ship and so on, it may be necessary to add a parenthetical qualifier to each entry, although to add both may seem excessive. It may also be important to be consistent with the book. If the book refers to characters without any italics or quotation marks, then it will probably be appropriate to do the same in the index, especially since the simpler the entry, the easier it is on the eye, and the more readable. A headnote may be needed explaining how fictional and non-fictional characters, places, events etcetera are distinguished in the index. Real characters in fictional mode Hazel Bell (2004) discusses the distinction between real people discussed in the book, and their appearance in fictional guise. She writes: The question is often argued... of whether typographical distinction should be made between real characters in fiction (i.e. those with historical life in the real world) and those of the authors imagination. I would suggest, no; although Sir Winston Churchill undoubtedly has historical reality, his actions as depicted in the novels of Angela Thirkell, for example, are fictitious, and should not be accorded apparent historical authentication by use of a specified reality-indicating typeface. Fictional characters as subhead to a main entry book title When I was indexing Victoria Glendinning s biography of Anthony Trollope, in which dozens of fictional characters are mentioned, often discussed in detail, I consulted the author on this question. She was very keen that they should be included. We agreed that they would all appear as subheadings under the main heading characters in AT s novels, inverted as for names of real people, so that Eustace, Sir Florian, Eustace, John, and Eustace, Lizzie were all to be found together. (The Sir is of course ignored in sorting.) I indexed a biography on the Australian author Miles Franklin a couple of years ago. She had written several novels, and the main fictitious characters as well as fictitious place names and so on in these novels were mentioned throughout the book, including comparisons with other fictitious characters in other novels. I did not enter fictional characters as main entries. I treated each novel as a 66

3 mini index, so under the main entry for each novel (in italics) were subentries about the book such as rejections, publication history, reviews, sales and royalties (in Roman), and also a subentry for characters and places. Under this subentry I entered fictional characters in direct order (and in italics).... every book is different. If it is a biography of an author, there may be lots of novels to index... or only a few, with many references to a fictitious character that warrants a main entry unto itself. It may be that a cross-reference to a main entry for a fictional character from under the novel s title is necessary so that further subheadings can be entered under this character. I would think it is useful to indicate that such an entry should be in indirect order (that is, surname first) and needs a gloss in brackets. Books about multiple authors In a book dealing with multiple authors I would probably have no entries for fictional characters. For example, in a book I indexed early in 2010 on Modernist literature, I got by with including James Joyce and Franz Kafka but not Leopold Bloom or Gregor Samsa. However, I see that I did include the following entry: Satan Baudelaire on Stevens on You may or may not consider Satan a fictional character. Or you might consider that Satan is a topic rather than a name. I wouldn t like to make a general rule. If a book had passages of sustained discussion of fictional characters, I might or might not want to find some way of including the characters in the index. In an index to a book on the film Psycho, I included an entry for Perkins, Anthony, but not Bates, Norman. If the book had been all about Perkins and his dramatic roles, I might have had a subheading: Perkins, Anthony and role of Norman Bates. If the book you are indexing is a review of many authors and novels then I might make a cross-reference from under a novel s entry to a character (indirect order) and put the name of the novel in brackets after this). Also, in cases in which two or more books are discussed, I like the suggestion of creating character glosses that include headnoted abbreviations for the book titles, as in, HOSG (or better, HoSG), for The House of Seven Gables, at least when there s not enough space for full titles, as in: or Pyncheon, Clifford (in HoSG) Clifford Pyncheon (in HoSG) Human fictional characters and non-human characters including alien species and cartoon characters Our approach in The indexing companion [Browne and Jermey, 2007] (p. 64) is that Fictional characters with authentic-sounding names are inverted (Hornblower, Horatio, and Finn, Huckleberry) but obviously made-up names are usually entered in direct order (eg, Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote). This approach follows library practice (as far as I could determine it, although I didn t find a quotable rule). I indexed a book on leadership a few years ago. Albus Dumbledore and Captain Kirk were given as examples of leaders, and I indexed them under D and K. When Jon reviewed my index he asked, Isn t the rule not to invert? I then looked into it (so the archives might have discussion found by a search for Dumbledore ) and found that there is really no agreed rule. I could find nothing in Mulvany or Wellisch and others. I gather that the library rule is invert it if it seems like a name/surname combination... but I never found this written as a quotable rule, although I did find examples in catalogues of Hornblower, Horatio and Baggins, Bilbo. With fictional characters as with real characters there are some advantages to grouping by surname (as the example below suggests). I often ask students where they d look for, say Harry Potter (where the character was discussed). They are usually divided between H and P. When I follow up with a question about Hermione Granger they usually say G. They describe Harry Potter as being a brand that seems to warrant direct order, while Hermione seems like a person, who should be inverted. As with so many indexing decisions, it is hard to find one place that all people would look. While I might not give the same answer for Harry, I think the above may be one of the very few clues indexers have as to where real readers look. If the indexer can figure out, for each specific name, where that has a high probability of being, fine. If she can t, perhaps the answer must be to double post. Their logic makes sense, but your anecdote tells me that there is a clear case for double posts or cross-references. If readers are likely to look in either place, then the entries should be in both places. Interesting! I wish there was more research on where people especially kids look for expect to find things in indexes. Perhaps it s because in the books everyone calls him Harry Potter while they usually call Hermione Miss Granger ; and Dumbledore is almost universally referred to as Dumbledore... I think the only conclusion we will ever be able to draw is double post unless a particular name is manifestly a Mickey Mouse. And the explanation, if needed, is that there is no consensus among index users as to whether or not a name like... should be flipped. 67

4 What do you do for fictional characters that are intelligent alien species that have two-part names, like Jadzia Dax? My personal rule is simple: names of human fictional character (such as James T. Kirk, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Scarlett O Hara), are inverted, because human characters in a well-told story are people to the readers or viewers. So I treat them as people in the index, with crossreferences or double-postings as justified, such as 007, see Bond, James. Names of non-human fictional characters (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Energizer Bunny) don t get inverted. And as always, the client s preferences take precedence over mine. I vote for inverting when it makes sense, with doublepostings/see references if that seems helpful. And if the text covers more than one book, I would put the title in parentheses after the character s name: Gandalf the Grey (The Lord of the Rings). I m waiting anxiously for The Indexer s forthcoming insert on how to index names of the Bajoran, Cardassian, Vulcan, Romulan, Klingon and especially Borg. What the authorities say Library of Congress As one of the contributors to the Index-L discussion explained, library practice for names is based upon Library of Congress authorities. The LC authority is Potter, Harry (Fictitious character), cross-referenced from Harry Potter (Fictitious character). If there is room in the index, Fictitious character in parentheses after the name seems like a good way to list these characters, but (see above) there is a case for avoiding such glosses if possible. For Bugs Bunny, LC authorities do not invert. The authority is Bugs Bunny (Fictitious character), cross-referenced from Bunny, Bugs (Fictitious character). This format, along with a listing under a main heading characters, fictitious (or maybe, fictitious characters?) seems like a reasonable way to treat these names, space permitting. Library of Congress authorities determine how the characters would be listed in a library catalog if the reader wanted to do some additional research. The guidelines are in the multi-volume Subject cataloging manual. Libraries can create their own authorities, but names and subjects go through quite a process to become LC authorized headings. I think that even if an indexer does not choose to use the LC authority, it s always interesting to see what LC has to say about it, and their version could help to make a decision. 2 Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (ACCR) The same Index-L contributor went on to say: The ACCR 3 general rule on entering surnames (Rule 22.5A) reads: To enter a name containing a surname or consisting only of a surname under that surname unless subsequent rules provide for entry under a different element. Rule 22.11A Entry under Phrase may also apply, if you read it enough times: Enter in direct order a name that consists of a phrase or appellation that does not contain a forename. Also enter in direct order a phrase that consists of a forename or forenames preceded by words other than a term of address or a title of position or office. If, however, such a name has the appearance of a forename, forenames, or initials and a surname, enter under the pseudosurname. Refer from the name in direct order. Textbooks and manuals There seems to be no discussion relating to the indexing of fictional names in non-fiction books in the Chicago manual of style (CMOS) or the Oxford style manual. Nor does it seem to be addressed by Mulvany (2005) or Booth (2001). Wellisch (1996) says: Quotes are also necessary for the indication of nicknames, e.g., Cody, William F. ( Buffalo Bill )... and for the names of fictitious characters in order to distinguish them from names of real persons, e.g., Colonel Blimp or Olive Oyl. Hazel Bell (2004) writes: Characters Entries in indexes to biographies for characters in works of fiction may bring further problems. Forenames only may be given; or they may always be known as Little Em ly, Little Nell ; what form of name to give for these? And where? Characters appearing in a single work may be listed under the title of that work Ophelia under Hamlet ; Fagin under Oliver Twist but recurrent characters, such as Dorothy Sayers Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane, may be best entered directly under their names. They should then be typographically distinguished from real people; if italic type is used to indicate illustrations, and bold for main entries, then quotation marks could indicate the fictionality of Bond, James, Wooster, Bertram. Browne and Jermey (2007) discuss the problem of inversion as follows (not distinguishing between fictional names in fiction and fictional names in non-fiction): Fictional characters with authentic-sounding names are inverted (Hornblower, Horatio, and Finn, Huckleberry), but obviously made-up names are usually entered in direct order (e.g. Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote). There are, however, exceptions... A message to Index-L headed a quick inversion question brought 19 replies, showing that there can never be a quick inversion question.... Double entry is therefore the best option. 68

5 d A changing world As the editor of The Indexer commented on reading this article, one thing we must surely have regard to as indexers is the impact of electronic searching, both on user habits and expectations, and on the relevance of alphabetic order. As far as habits and expectations go, users increasingly work on the basis of natural (or direct ) word order, and often simply do not have the built-in analytical instinct on which inversion depends. So where natural word order is acceptable in indexing terms, this is surely the better route to take: and where in doubt follow Browne and Jermey s double entry/cross-reference recommendation. But we need also to recognize, like it or not and surely it is a helpful development that if you have a searchable index, alphabetical order becomes of much less importance than in print indexes. Consistency of indexing, and avoidance of scattering, yes, but alphabetical order? The list of fictional characters at offers an example of this in action. For the moment, however, alphabetical order still does matter, and so therefore do questions of inversion of fictional names. And the answer, of course, is: It all depends... Pick any noun you like, to describe the up-until-fairlyrecently rule regarding not inverting characters names. When I started indexing, that was the guideline/convention/ suggested usage/whatever. Now, I find more and more that it doesn t seem to make good sense in many contexts. So I try to match the usage to the audience and the author s work.... that s why I said that this discussion is a perennial one, and the rules are re-argued every time. I myself can t seem to make a hard-and-fast rule for ALL occurrences. I find myself rethinking it every time it comes up. Rush, Janet Russell, Christine Shuttleworth, Scott Smiley, Do Mi Stauber, Michele R and Carolyn Weaver. Every effort has been made to contact all the people mentioned in this article, in a few cases without success. We hope they will not feel their names have been taken in vain. Notes 1 The telephone directory in Iceland uses un-inverted names see 2 See 3 AACR2 has now been replaced in the library world by RDA (Resource Description and Access). The instructions for handling names are essentially unchanged, but the rule numbers have changed. References Bell, H. K. (2004) Indexing biographies and other stories of human lives, 3rd edn. Society of Indexers Occasional Papers on Indexing. Booth, P. F. (2001) Indexing: The manual of good practice, Munich: K G Saur. Browne, G. and Jermey, J. (2007) The indexing companion, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Mulvany, N. C. (2005) Indexing books, 2nd edn. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Wellisch, H. H. (1995) Indexing from A to Z, 2nd edn. New York: H. W. Wilson. Madeleine Davis has extensive experience as a back-of-book and loose-leaf indexer, including indexing over a dozen biographies. She has, over the years, also morphed into a web surfer and classifier, a thesaurus/taxonomy developer and a lecturer for online legal research. She is currently also co-general editor for Thomson Reuters Online Currents journal. madeleinedav@gmail.com I agree, every book is different, and that s why no rigid rule can be applied to indexing fictional characters... indexing can be such fun you get to decide the most appropriate technique in each case and apply it in practice. What it comes down to is you have to use your judgment and try to imagine where the reader will look and be internally consistent. As so often in indexing, the only real rule is It all depends, but I hope that this review of the various approaches adopted by indexers experienced in this area will help to suggest what the options are, and make the choice a little easier. Acknowledgements Extracts and ideas discussed above are taken from contributions to the Index-L discussion list since 2008 by the following: Joel S. Berson, M. Bennett, Michael Brackney, Glenda Browne, Ellen Chapman, Sonsie Conroy, Sarah Statz Cords, Madeleine Davis, Tordis Flath, Judi Gibbs, Elliot Linzer, Shelley Quattrocchi, Pam Rider, Peter Rooney, Ed Ken Bakewell with Nancy Mulvany at the ASI conference in Photo by Hilary Calvert. See the obituary on page