A simple request: would the publishers of non-fiction books please go to the bother of including an index? Even in the age of digital domination and search functionality, a print index serves a great purpose. And I remain unconvinced AI will sort out this problem.
I can list numerous books published in recent years by scientists, naturalists and even biographers whose writings are undoubtedly significant – and sometimes outstanding – yet they come without an index. Some are household names. I won’t name and shame them but be warned – you’re in the last-chance saloon!
To explain: a journalist, researcher, fellow writer or commentator often needs to source material, to use a quote or echo a great thought or idea that needs sourcing reasonably quickly – if only to quote an author accurately. It can enhance an article that has to be written to a tight deadline. Recollecting that the needed quote is somewhere between pages 150 and 250 is not helpful.
I grew up in a household that regarded most books as sacrosanct. My mother felt that to adulterate the page with markings – such as crude indexing – was the equivalent of scrawling over the Bayeux Tapestry. Post-it notes emerged later, but they bulge out of a volume or become unsticky, with obvious consequences.
READ MORE
Give me an example of being shortchanged in this way, you ask. I would highlight the case relating to the intriguing history around the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure in 1953 by the unlikely duo of Watson and Crick. One of my afflictions in life is to acquire books on what is probably the most consequential breakthrough of the 20th century. It is remarkable how new insights have emerged, even of late.
One excellent book of popular science emerged with a section that provided compelling context in the race to determine DNA’s structure. Unquestionably, it provided new insight – probably because the author is at the frontier of globally significant scientific endeavour. This was not an aside of a few paragraphs, it was a substantial and fascinating take. The book, however, came without an index.
In such cases, the offending volumes, which offer singular pleasure, remain on the shelf, barely dipped into; uncited, their message is blunted unless you have the patience to read large chunks of text again.
In the interests of compromise, I suggest that book publishers, if they are not inclined to provide indexes for reasons of being strapped for cash, should provide a searchable ebook free of charge to purchasers of hard copies. After all, it is not unusual for a hardback to cost a hefty €30 or more. I’m not aware of any progressive publisher doing so – though some in the academic space do through Open Access initiatives, grant funding or institutional library packages. Why not go mass market on this for the common good?
[ Top companies keep talking about AI – but can’t explain the upsidesOpens in new window ]
Of course, there will be those who say AI will inevitably perform the task of creating an index, so why get into a huff? Anecdotal evidence online questions its effectiveness, however. As noted elsewhere, AI is almost a pejorative term in the indexing community. One indexer noted: “AI tools do a bad job of indexing: they tend to under-index, cannot bring together related material, cannot identify implicit topics, and introduce inaccuracies and errors. So you still can’t index a book with a chatbot – you need a human indexer for that.”
Nonetheless, I’m not a Luddite. The evidence suggests there are effective ways of integrating AI into the work of an indexer to speed the process along (and reduce the cost).
To divert a little: In 1982, I and some of my journalistic peers made up the first group of young mavericks to complete Ireland’s first third-level professional journalism training course in what was then NIHE, later to become Dublin City University.
Some things stand out from that time under the tutelage of journalism master supreme John Horgan. Firstly, getting a place on the course hinged on an interview and spelling test; the latter being trendy at the time; an indicator of precision and observation, considered essential for good journalists.
Secondly, there were seemingly endless lectures on public administration and communication theory, when we wanted to be out in the field. But there was one aspect of the latter that stayed with me – the concept of “unity” in print and graphic design. It can be best summed up by looking at a page and concluding it doesn’t look right; there is something jarring visually. It can equally apply to a newspaper as to a page of a book. It is the principle that ensures all visual elements work together to create a cohesive, harmonious and clear whole.
May I suggest the principle be broadened to include the non-fiction book. Put another way, the absence of an index makes such volumes incomplete. It is an egregious example of “disunity”.
Kevin O’Sullivan is an environmental commentator and consultant
