I still have them, and most of one story that went with them….some day…

All that being said, when the book draws me in, I always am glad that there’s a glossary. And I love a good map. Really, for a great map, it can stand on its own as a work of art. I just saw a huge exhibition of maps of all types. Amazing.

It isn’t that readers are too stupid to remember everything, but sometimes it is nice to have a brief refresher on who exactly a character or unfamiliar term is.

Plus, nothing says we *have* to read the glossary. Most of the time I won’t read the glossary, but I think it is way cool that some authors take the time to put in a glossary and an appendix for those readers who just want a little bit more detail than was necessary to tell the story.

I figure that you sold the novel on the strength of the story, and not so much on the glossary. It’s like a bonus feature on a DVD. You don’t *need* it, but it’s nice to have.

Besides, if the book–that is, the actual text of the novel–is done well, I find myself poring over the extra stuff because I wish there was more of that story to read.

As long as everything is explained, or can be understood, by reading the actual story, the glossary is a good thing.
It can provide a quick reference for a reader who hadn’t paid attention to something that appeared a minor point at first glance, or help with the main incomprehensibilities after taking a long break and then resuming the book.

Just as long as the glossary isn’t, as Cindy wrote in the previous comment, necessary. When the author uses a term in a book, without explaining it, and just expects readers to go look for it in the glossary, that’s bad. The same when the term is explained briefly in the story, and the glossary just expands on it, but the narrative requires knowing the extra stuff in order to make sense.

As for maps, well, I rarely pay attention to them, but I also don’t quite see why they should be considered harmful.
The maps are only a problem when they don’t match the plot. But that rarely happens. (though, unfortunately, not never. Cue protagonists crossing a huge continent on foot in a week, then spending a gruelling three months or so making their way back to a city in the middle of the road, or maybe just a couple of miles to the north.)

Generally maps would only be an issue if the book involve a lot of travel, but the travel is only described by stating that someone left city X and reached city Y in country Z some time later. If you have a lot of places in the story, but nothing in the story to connect them, a map can help to understand how the world looks like.
But if a map is needed for this, that can indicate bad writing. (Teleportation technology excluded. In that case we don’t need the travel stories. Though a little geographical, political, and socio-economic background details may still be in order)

Or, well, most (or a lot of) fantasy books, good or bad, include a map. Sometimes it almost feels like a pre-requisite. You hardly ever see maps in pure SF books, and they’re right there in almost every fantasy.
So if the reviewer thought there are more second-rate fantasy books than first-rate one, the statement can make sense, without actually indicating that he thinks the maps themselves are a problem.