New indexing client, and I was so bold as to offer this slightly edited in-progress report:
"The index is presently running about 26 double-spaced pages,
short of the allotted 34. I didn't try to hold back on length when indexing. As
any of my clients can tell you, if anything I'm usually trying to cut my
original data drastically to make the text fit. I think the length is more a
factor of the book's organization. The author is fond of the 'say what
you'll say, say it, say what you've said' approach -- not only within
chapters but through the whole book. Too, the same ground sometimes seems to be
covered in two or three places (at least), and as an indexer I'm not fond of
sending readers to multiple pages only to find the same information. I hope my
approach is okay. I've also tried to follow the press guidelines on not trying to
outline the book or capture every detail. Having said all that, I don't feel
that someone looking at the index would conclude that I'd cut any corners."
Response (slightly edited)
"Thanks for this update, Bob. Your approach to indexing this
book sounds right. You don't need to hit the max no. of pages. This author's
dissertation advisor should have steered him away from this topic, which sounds
good but is almost impossible to pull off and still do justice to all the issues involved. So I'm not surprised at the vacuity you have
encountered. We rejected the ms at one point, but a 'friend of the
Press' thought we should reconsider."
+++
"Vacuity." That's some harsh stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment