SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I don't care because I don't read ebooks so I usually skip it or immediately forget it after reading the list. But I rather see it at the end of the book.

Depends on the book. Sometimes you need it to keep everyone straight. As for it being at the front, I generally prefer it there in books since it's easily accessible that way. I don't use an ereader, but a case can certainly be made for putting in an appendix since you can bookmark it and immediately go to it should you need. (As long as its existence is noted at the beginning.)

Tangentially, I *really* hate it when a dramatis personae contains spoilers. You forget who Lord Muckety-Muck is related to and look him up and it says, "Lord Muckety-Muck, former ruler of Whereville, now Lord Regent of the entire Realm." And that hasn't happened yet! I don't recall the book, but it was a Fantasy trilogy where a similar spoiler was contained in the first book's notes but it didn't happen for another 800 pages, two books later.

It's nonsense. You are writing for an audience. The written word should be treated no differently than any other medium for an audience. If a mystery movie produced the murderer in scene 1, it wouldn't sell many tickets. If a televised doctor drama showed patients walking away cured after the opening credits, it might be a bit boring. Authors should learn to construct a book with little or no evidence concerning what the true "guts" of the novel will eventually reveal.

However, a character list can be an extremely helpful addition to the back of a book. Especially when the plot expands to encompass massive worlds. The solution to this problem is hard work. Authors should spend the time to create edited versions of these character lists that apply to each book in a series. The final glossary from the final book in a series just won't do for each book in the series. It's definitely TMI.

It's definitely a forced manner of introducing characters. I myself perfer the author introducing character through action, not mindless description (unless of course the story is in first person [but even then, description is very sketchy to me])

Sometimes the author has no choice. If you are writing about Richard III there is no getting around all his relatives, enemies and associates named either Thomas, Edmund or Henry. You definitely need a cast list and perhaps a genealogical chart to keep track of them all. And all the women were named either Elizabeth or Mary, too -- it gets so bad that in THE TUDORS they combined a couple of Marys just to save on confusion.

Canary wrote: "I don't know. For me, if I need a cheat sheet for keeping the character's straight, I kinda think the author isn't doing his or her job. The only exception to that rule that I can think of is when the author creates a system where names all look alike. But even then, iffy authorial decision."

Anything can be done badly. The terrible book Robopocalypse manages to screw up the tried-and-true "fictitious quote at the start of a chapter", which is about as easy to do as coming up with character names.

Two series I'm currently reading have cast lists,Destroyermen by Taylor Anderson and Safehold by David Weber, and I do consult them. Both are world-spanning epics which feature a dozen main characters with many more secondary and tertiary players. While most of the main characters are well-delineated enough to be memorable, it is sometimes hard to jump back into the story after a year's hiatus and recall who did what to whom. Especially for those second- and third-tier cast members.

They also feature maps and glossaries, which I find tremendously helpful. Destroyermen also has a side view of the destroyer, which looms large in the story the way the Enterprise does in Star Trek.

Casts of character lists are an OLD tradition - many books had them, at one time; to put them in the front of a book was (once) common.

Certainly now they are best seen at the end, IMO. If the book has a table of contents (in a paper book) the reader would see that it was there, as they page by. The common practice of e books starting on page 1/without the reader paging past the front matter, means they don't know the resource exists Unless they check - and they may not.

Where I find such things helpful is in very long series still in progress, where there has been the unavoidable gap between books as the author writes. A well done glossary list (re-done at each volume to insure there are no spoilers for that volume) can help bring the reader up to speed on a character list, without having to re-read. But I do prefer to see this as an appendix.

If I am reading a VERY complex historical mixing a large cast of real and fictional characters (such as Dunnett) I don't mind the cast list at the front, showing family relationships. Those books are being styled after an older era, anyway, it suits the tone and helps to involve the reader (for reference) without listing, tiresomely, all the family relationships over and over in the text.

They are very helpful in the Falco series by Lindsey Davis, for keeping track of all the characters (sometimes with quite complicated names).

Where Davis scores is managing to avoid spoiling the story while providing a little introductory humour (she never exactly lies but sometimes the list can be a trifle misleading: on at least one occasion a character in disguise turns up in both guises ;-) and reminding us of some characters we might not have seen for several books.

Derrick wrote: "It bugs me too, in ebooks. Because as you stated, you have to page turn past them, not just skip like in a paperbook."

I think it depends on where in the ebook it's located, and where they set "Beginning" in the file. I have Judas Unchained on my Kindle, and it starts on the first page of the Prologue. But, if you hit the back button you will see the Character list. I didn't even know it was there until I saw the paperback. I rarely see character lists but if I do I just skip it, usually. I don't understand how it can be an annoyance, but whatever floats your boat.

I prefer to have them at the back if they're needed. The only time I've enjoyed a Dramatis Personae at the beginning of a novel (as opposed to a play) was in Good Omens. Sometimes I find the lists at the back helpful though, mostly when it's a long series with a lot of different characters.

I like a character list aka Dramatis Personae first thing, especially when the names are of a format or linguistic origin unfamiliar to me. Seeing the names first gets me familiar with with what and who to look for. Also helps me get familial or personal relationships straight as I discover them in the text. "Oh THAT's who that is". My preference. Obviously not yours.

Jaq wrote: "Pratchett gets away with many things that would make me think less of anyone else's novel. Footnotes for example. In a reference work, sure. In fiction, it's disruptive. Unless it's Pratchett, then it's funny"

I'm not so sure if it really applies to all pratchett's book, but yeah, i agree with you. :)

One of my favourite lists of characters at the front of the book is in John Crowley's 'the Deep', which includes the following:

Red Senlin
Red Senlin's Son (later King)
Sennred, Red Senlin's younger son
Redhand
Old Redhand, his father
Younger Redhand, his brother

I think maybe this list is basically there to warn us that the characters in the book have very similar names, and we'd better get them straight from the start or we're going to be hopelessly confused.

However, I think I agree that lists of characters at the front of a book are off-putting. We want to get on with the story, not be wading through lists of names.

Jaq wrote: Footnotes for example. In a reference work, sure. In fiction, it's disruptive.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I didn't find the footnotes in Susanna Clarke's 'Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell' disruptive: I felt that they added to the scholarly atmosphere of the book.

Jaq wrote: It's still a pain to keep stopping to go read the footnotes though, especially when they go on a bit.

I didn't find it a pain, I found it a pleasure, because the notes were always interesting: but maybe I'm in a very small minority.

While it isn't my favorite thing in the world, when reading Steven Erikson, I need that freakin' dramatis personae just to keep everyone straight.

Also, don't blame an author just because e-books suck.

I didn't find it a pain, I found it a pleasure, because the notes were always interesting: but maybe I'm in a very small minority.

If you are, I'm in it with you; I loved the footnotes in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell.

Derrick wrote: "Stan wrote: "Also, don't blame an author just because e-books suck."

Please watch your comments. Thank you."

Funny. I don't see your name in the moderator's list.