Many works of fantasy have maps. I mean, these are created worlds, so you need to have a map, right? Some have more than just a map. Some have glossaries and histories and everything but the architectural blueprints to the Evil Overlord's fortress. And, of course, some even have that. How necessary is all this stuff? Forget necessary, how useful is all this stuff?

I think we can pretty much trace most of this--as with so many other things in fantasy--to J. R. R. Tolkien. His map in the Lord of the Rings is the scale by which all others are measured. It is a damn fine map. Then there are his appendices, complete with entire alphabets. Well, the man was a linguist. He had calendars, family trees, histories and even a love story hiding back there. No wonder there are people who still claim Middle Earth is--or was--a real place.

Since the Lord of the Rings--and, for the map, the Hobbit as well--had it, every good fantasy book should have it. There are those who will argue that since the Lord of the Rings had it, every good fantasy book should not have it. Leaving one's love or hatred for the good Professor Tolkien out of it for now, let's consider the utility of these additions. Should one include them in one's work?

One might say that a map is essential in most fantasy works. If the setting is completely fabricated, the reader is going to be lost without a map. Heck, even if one's work is set in Historical Earth, like, let's say, London England in the late 16th century, the reader is probably going to need a map. When one rhymes off the various country names, or one discusses the relationship of the Kingdom of A and the Empire of B, the reader will need something to refer to, right?

Well, in counter-point to this, I'd like to point out that one of my favourite series, a series that has lasted ten books, has no map at all. The series to which I refer is Glen Cook's Black Company series. Mr. Cook has never provided his readers with a map. I, for one, never got lost, per se, while reading. He offered the reader what orientation was necessary for following the story. I mean, honestly, did you need the map to follow the action in Lord of the Rings? Sure, it helped, but the text did a pretty admirable job of keeping the reader up to speed.

I think maps can be very useful for readers of sprawling fantasy works. Even if the action is restricted to a single city, a map of that city might help readers to feel more comfortable when the action or places in the city are described. Is a map necessary? No, I would say that a map isn't necessary at all. As with most things, it comes down to the decision of the writer, either for artistic or practical reasons. If a writer enjoys creating maps, or has an artist friend who is willing to help, a map is certainly a nice addition. On the other hand, some writers don't want the reader to have a map so that when the characters in the story travel between two points, the readers have no scale with which to measure the trip or the time taken other than what the author tells them.

Glossaries may be important when one has an author that has decided to rename everything in an invented language. It might be important that the reader realize that the hfgyrpa is in fact a horse while the hovpyrga is a dog. I think a better use for a glossary is as a list of important characters. Shakespeare always has his dramatis personae, which explains each character and that character's role. The same is useful in those books that have a multitude of characters, with a multitude of alliances and differing agendas (sometimes even within the same character).

However, if one's work necessitates a glossary in order to keep everything clear, maybe one's plot is needlessly complex, or one has not written clearly enough. I don't think that any work truly needs a glossary. It seems to be the style, these days, to have uber-complex, convoluted plots with a massive cast of characters. In such a case, it is certainly easier, for the writer, to simply offer up a glossary rather than worry about writing so well that a glossary is redundant.

In the end, I would say that while a glossary might be fun, and might be of interest to a reader, if the work necessitates one, then there is something wrong with the writing. The story itself should be the roadmap, rather than needing one. If the writer is creating a language, the use of that language should be understandable in context, or through the understandings of other characters. So while a glossary may or may not be a selling point dependant upon one's intended audience, I, personally, don't believe they are ever necessary.

Additions can be fun, and the reader may desire them. If the writer enjoys creating languages, family trees, and other fodder for appendices, then the writer should certainly indulge in such creations. However, I don't believe that a writer with no interest in such incidentals should force him/herself to create them out of a belief that it is expected. Many works of a complex nature have none. Many works based in fantastic lands of the imagination, have none. It is, in the end, like so many other things, predicated upon the writer's interests as to whether additions should be included or even created.