Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Combining editions with extra material
date
newest »
newest »
These two examples sound like they should be separate to me. But wait and see what Lisa, Rivka, or one of the other superlibrarians has to say about it. They've had much more practice than I have!
I agree with JG. I would keep them separate; they're more than just the book. Other librarians?
I agree. A book containing whole sections of extras/new content written by someone else isn't the same as the original work. Just like Cliff Notes aren't the same as the original.
I don't completely agree. In the second case you have an expanded version versus the original version. By that argument one would never combine abridged versions with the original version. The first case is more complicated. How much commentary is enough to make the work separate? One essay? Two essays? Three essays? A detailed forward or afterward? Cliff's notes are a completely different issue because they do not contain the original work. My understanding is we're talking about the original work plus some essays about it. How much commentary is necessary to separate it? Where is the line drawn? Here's another example: Crime and Punishment. It has 460 some pages containing the text of the novel and then almost 200 pages of essays about the novel. It is currently not combined with other versions of the novel, and I can see the argument as to why given that 1/3 of the pages are additional material, but where, in general, do you draw the line? There are plenty of forwards that are just as insightful as much longer literary criticisms...how does one decide to combine or not? What is the criteria?
Michael, I agree with you that the first case is more clear than the second but I'd keep the second separate as well. The first for sure because criticism and essays are different than forwards no matter how insightful they might be.
By that argument one would never combine abridged versions with the original version....I almost never combine abridged versions with the originals, and often separate them when I find them. Have we been working across each other?
(I generally think that anything described as "forward", "introduction", or "notes" is rarely enough cited on its own merits that it's not worth separating editions over, but things that could be published elsewhere and just happen to be published here with their source material count as different enough. Sometimes it's a judgment call, but I'm comfortable with it.)
Cait, I also never combine abridged versions with complete versions.
By that argument one would never combine abridged versions with the original version....I almost never combine abridged versions with the originals, and often separate them when I find them. Have we been working across each other?
This is a good subject to bring up - I have also been separating abridged versions, mainly children's versions from classics.
Interesting...I was under the impression that abridged works should generally be combined with the unabridged work. I'm not sure where I got that impression...I thought it was part of the combine instructions, but nothing there mentions it (it may have been some sort of mental translocation based on the instructions regarding translated editions).
For what it's worth, I very rarely have worked on authors which would have abridged versions so I have not likely worked at odds against another librarian who had been separating these, but it would be good to establish (or find out from Otis et al.) an official policy.
Out of curiosity, if you're not combining abridged and unabridged versions, do you combine the abridged versions together? Any two abridged editions could be abridged in very different ways or to very different amounts... Just as two different translators could translate the same work very differently (even though translations are supposed to be combined...)
Michael,Because I'm a little uncertain about this, I've mostly just been working with books that I own - and usually I separate out the abridged version from the full length version. I've been trying to add ABRIDGED in capitals in the title, so other librarians will know why it's separated. For many of the others, it is hard to tell if it is the full version or an adapted or abridged version without physically having the books in front of you.
For me, it's about accuracy of what I've read - reading a children's adaptation (especially a poor one) can be like reading a cliff's note plot summary (or the wikipedia entry) with pictures. I keep the adaptations in the hope of luring my daughter into reading the original.
I think this is different from translation in that even if translations are different, they still have at least an attempt to translate the full text. Otherwise, they would also be abridged/adapted? But I don't read very many translated works...
As for combining abridged versions - I do this if I know they're the same (some recent graphic novel adaptations come to mind).
I agree that this should be addressed in official policy - this was previously discussed a little bit in this thread:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show_g...
I personally think having two categories for a classic work - "Treasure Island, full text" and "Treasure Island, adapted/abridged" would work.
The problem with combining all of them together is that some books have hundreds of editions, and it is very hard to find the addition you own in that long list.
Hmm. Let me try writing this out. Here's what I do--I do combine:
* Full-text editions and unabridged audio editions, even if they differ by forwards, introductions, notes, incidental illustrations, or narrators
* Partial collections of an author's work if the title and publisher are the same or the works are clearly the same
* Text collections with audio recordings of the exact same works
* Yearly editions of textbooks, even if new editions are "expanded" or "revised" and even if there is a new editor
* Books with different subtitles (note that it can be tricky distinguishing "Title: Subtitle" from "Series: Title" sometimes)
* Books reprinted with different titles
* Full-text translations
* Partial volumes of a book with other partial volumes at the same number if the number of total volumes is the same (even in translation) -- eg, "part 1/3" with "volume I of III"
* Volumes of a collected set with standalone publications if they contain exactly the same work
* Abridged text/recording with the same abridgement
* Collections of an author's work described as "complete"
* Books and "facsimile manuscripts"
* Large print editions with standard-print editions
* Omnibus editions with other omnibus editions containing the same works
I don't combine:
* Full text/recording with abridged text/recording
* Different abridged texts or recordings
* Graphic novelizations and original books
* Movie tie-ins with the book the movie was based on
* Reading guides and original books
* Critical essays on books and original books
* Student editions and teacher editions of textbooks
* Yearly collections with different works each year
* Different volumes in a series
* Different parts of a book published in parts
* Same-numbered parts of a book published in parts if the total number of parts differs
* Collections of an author's work that do not clearly contain the exact same works:
** "X and other tales" vs "X and other stories"
** "X" vs "X and other stories" (note that "and other stories" is not always given in the title: check catalog records by ISBN)
** "Letters 1900-1920" vs "Letters 1900-1925"
** "Selected poems (publisher A)" vs "Selected poems (publisher B)"
I put the ones I'm not as confident about in italics. Thoughts?
Cait,First: Thanks for the long description! It's very helpful for all librarians to see, and discuss.
I do exactly as you do!
Except, I've learned to be very careful about different subtitles. While they're most frequently the same book going from hardcover to paperback publication, it's amazing how often I find they're completely different books by the same author.
I have also combined "...and Other Stories" when I am relatively confident they're the same collection of stories in each edition.
Thanks, Lisa! :)What sort of books do you see with same-title-multiple-book situations? I've seen it maybe once or twice on science books aimed at younger readers.
Nice list! I disagree with a few of these, though. Cait Combines:
* Yearly editions of textbooks, even if new editions are "expanded" or "revised" and even if there is a new editor
I've been separating different editions (1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition, etc.) of text books. It's a tricky thing, because sometimes new editions are virtually identical to older editions (publishers like churning out new editions because it keep sales up by preventing too large a used-book cache from accumulating) but sometimes new editions can be very different from the older editions. Also, very very few textbooks are actually revised yearly. I think the fastest rate you tend to see is every 2nd or 3rd year, with most having longer gaps.
* Books with different subtitles
As Lisa already mentioned, this one is complicated because sometimes the different subtitle actually indicates a different book and sometimes it doesn't.
Cait Does Not Combine:
* Movie tie-ins with the book the movie was based on
You have to watch this. Many books marked as movie tie-in are simply the original book with a different cover. Why not combine them?
I agree with avoiding combining story collections unless you are sure they're identical. Some publishers have annoyingly even published different collections under the identical title!
One of the key words that's come out of this is ADAPTATION. Usually adaptations have a primary author different than the original author, that is, the person who did the adaptation. At least, that's usually been the tack taken with graphic novels in order to help avoid having them combine with the original work (unless the original author did the adaptation themselves)...wouldn't the same be true for children's books? (except that the adapter is probably not listed)
Michael & Cait,I agree: some movie tie in are the book with different covers and those I do combine.
Re textbooks: Even though I know much new information or changed information can appear as editions are added over the years, I still combine them. My thinking is that when members compare books with each other, it's helpful for them to see they both read "Introduction to Biology" by the same author (or whatever book) than it is to separate them out. Even if they read the book a decade apart and different info was contained in each, they both basically read the same book. In my opinion.
Well, I'm an academic (and thus biased) and I tend to view these as very different works. While I have not written a textbook myself (my first edited book is currently in press), I know a number of people who have and in every case the second (and third and fourth) editions are as much work (or more) as writing the first one was. That hardly seems to me to be the same work.When we combine editions of a novel (for example), we are generally (ignoring translations and such) combining the identical text. The differences from one edition to the next are predominantly typesetting differences (due to things like paper size and/or font size), hardcover vs. softcover, US vs. UK vs. other countries, correcting of typos and grammatical errors (hopefully), etc. On the other hand, a new edition of a textbook is (well, may be) a newly written work...while some of the text may be carried over, other parts will be completely rewritten: new chapters are added, some older chapters may be eliminated.
Hmmm....here's a wild idea for GoodReads: Ãœber editions
What about having an option/way of combining books into large units as well as combining into subunits. Thus, every edition of a textbook could be combined into a single listing for that book, but different editions could be subcombined to make 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. distinct. Similarly, all versions of something like Huck Finn could be put together, but one could subcombine full length, abridged, children's books, etc., within it? I can see some functionality issues, but it would allow for some interesting flexibility.
The way I would set it up, each of the subcombined groups would be listed as separate books (essentially, the subgroups would be equivalent to our current combined books) while the überbooks combination would be in a separate listing or linkable in some other way.
(Thus, I would add the überbook combination on top of the current combinations, rather than adding the subcombinations within the current...hope that makes sense).
Thoughts?
Addendum: the idea would be to produce a structure like:
* The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
* Full length
* ISBN1
* ISBN2
* ISBN3
* Abridged v1
* ISBN1
* ISBN2
* Abridged v2
* ISBN1
* Picture Book Adaptation
* etc..
* Biology
* 1st Edition
* ISBN 1
* ISBN 2
* 2nd Edition
* ISBN 1
* ISBN 2
* 3rd Edition
etc.
Michael,I love your über editions idea! Wondering how easy it would be to implement.
I know how different different editions of a text can be, which is why it's helpful if you see which edition a member read and when they read it. I'm open to changing my mind. But I like the idea of combining because if somebody else read the same text as me, even if in a different edition many years apart, I think we still have something in common and I personally would like to know about it.
And congratulations on the book! What is it?!
Could the über editions concept also be used for series books? Seems like it could solve two problems.....
I thought about that (über = series) but I'm not sure that would be the best solution.First, books in a series are fundamentally different from the edition differences which we are talking about.
Second, books in a series may have different edition types that one would want to separate out in the über book concept so you'd have to choose between series and book. For example, The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years Later, Ten Years Later, and The Man in the Iron Mask form a series. There are certainly full editions, abridged editions, and children's editions of the first and last of these books (and possibly the middle two as well).
Third, I'd prefer a series system which allowed books from multiple authors to be part of the same series. Depending on implementation of the über book concept, it might not be possible.
Finally, I'd prefer a series system which allowed books to be placed in multiple series simultaneously and the über book system wouldn't allow for that. For example, if an author writes a trilogy and then a second sequel trilogy, you might want each trilogy listed as a separate series as well as all six books listed in a more über series (I'm using that word a lot here). If it is ever implemented the way I would like, I already know of one large set of books which will be categorized in at least three semi-hierarchical series.
This is an excellent thread for a new librarian wondering what to combine or not to combine - thanks for the information. I'd particularly been wondering about different abridgements, so it's useful to know that they should be listed separately.
Michael - Love your ideas for über editions and über series. I haven't even started including my textbooks/ technical books here, but I would love to be able to distinguish "the real book" from a children's adaptation (or an abridged version).
Michael, I think über-editions would be completely awesome! I don't know how well they would work (I think they would need a very good UI design to be at all user-friendly!), but they would certainly make the obsessive cataloger in me very, very happy. :)
Mod
On the abridged v. unabridged, I combine them (say, the long version of Dickens' David Copperfield with the various abridged editions), but would not combine a children's edition or graphic adaptation. IMO, there is a definite difference.
I agree with Michael on the "books with extras" question(s), especially regarding the nuances thereof.
rivka, can you say more about why you combine abridged and unabrdiged versions? I tend to think of it how I think of, say, "Complete Works" vs "Selected Stories", but I'm willing to be persuaded....
Mod
I figure the various versions of Great Expectations have at least as much in common with each other as different translations do. Within limits -- an adaptation (which IMO is distinct from an abridging by being either a very small fraction of the overall tale and/or being in very different words or format) I would not group with the others.
Abridging a book (assuming it's done properly) should not change the overall plot, should not leave out any critical details, etc. It's (essentially) the same book. Just trimmer. ;)
First, I agree with Rivka which is why I originally posted that I thought abridged and unabridged versions should be combined.Second, I've been thinking about the textbook issue a bit more, and have very mixed thoughts on it. It's also led to some expanded thoughts.
The primary argument most people are making is that any edition of a text book should be combined, even though they may be completely rewritten from version to version and even if two consecutive versions are quite similar, versions which are farther apart in time (e.g., 1st vs 10th) may not have a single common sentence.
What about when authorship order changes? Do they magically become different books because there is a different first author? For example, Introduction to Physical Anthropology was originally written by Nelson and Jurmain (at least ,these were the authors by the time of the 5th edition). By the time of the 8th edition, there were four authors: Jurmain, Nelson, Kilgore, and Trevathan (note that the first author has changed). In the 9th edition, the same four authors in a different order: Jurmain, Kilgore, Trevathan, and Nelson. By the 11th edition the authors were: Jurmain, Kilgore, Trevathan and Ciochon. The original first author of the book (Nelson) is not even an author by the time the 11th edition is reached!
So what do you do? Do you pretend the book has magically become something different when the first author changes? Do you fake the authorship order and combine anyway? Do you change the authorship in order to combine, then fix the authors so the books are combined across multiple first authors?
What about books published annually? Almanacs? Collector's value guides (coins, stamps, comics, etc.?) These are often published every year. Do they get combined or not? Is the 2005 Almanac the same as the 2006 Almanac for combining purposes? What makes the 1998 Black Book Coin Value Guide fundamentally different from the 1999? Of course, books like this contain different information: updated facts or values. But by the textbook argument everyone made, these should be combined as well. But again, what do you do when the authors change (some of these have editors or authors who do it for a few years than rotate out)? How about dictionaries and encyclopedias that don't necessarily have yearly editions, but get updated on a regular basis?
While people will rarely (outside of book collectors) go out of their way to get five different versions of the same novel (yes it can happen...hardback vs. paperback, 1st printing, etc.; I have multiple copies of a few novels for any number of odd reasons), many people will get each of the serial publications because they contain fundamentally different, yet useful information. A coin collector may get an updated value guide every year. I get updated versions of certain textbooks, not because I teach with them and that's what is available for my students, but because the information content is different.
Again, every single one of these is a fundamentally different case than the standard combining of a novel where the text is essentially exactly the same (typos not withstanding) and the different editions are due to changes in things such as typesetting, format or publisher.
I don't know the answer and have mixed opinions on this, but I think there's some ambiguity which needs to be explored and settled. Not all of these cases may have the same answer, but it would be good to settle some of them.
Michael, Rivka, and All, Yes, these issues are thought provoking. It would be good to come to some consensus for all cases and then abide by the decision. Once we do this, the information should be included in the librarians' manual and on the combining instructions page. Obviously, there are many viewpoints about these instances; I am happy to follow all set standards so that the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ database is consistent.
rivka said: Abridging a book (assuming it's done properly) should not change the overall plot, should not leave out any critical details, etc. It's (essentially) the same book. Just trimmer. ;)Hmm -- that is a compelling argument! And, in fact, it gets to why I want to combine textbooks: because each edition is (trying to) be the same book, just better.
Michael said: What about when authorship order changes?
I would change the order to combine and then change it back to match the edition.
Lisa said: It would be good to come to some consensus for all cases and then abide by the decision.
Hear, hear! :)
Mod
While certainly Michael is correct, two different editions of a textbook certainly can be extremely different, IME that is very rarely the case -- at least not for editions relatively close in sequence. (And these days, with new editions coming out every 2-3 years in most cases, even more so.) The bare minimum to get a new copyright and/or to make using a previous edition difficult (which often mostly affects the problems at the end of chapters and the like) is often all that is changed from one edition to the next.
However, unless it is always the same section(s) that are changed (possible, and likely in some cases while unlikely in others), you will end up with cases like Michael's 1st->10th editions example.
Then there's the changing author issue. Again, this varies a lot, however: bringing in a new author is actually quite likely to indicate (and/or cause) a more significant change of content. (It's like NYC potholes -- they stop the speeders. Not a bug but a feature! ;) ) Anyway, the change-the-authors-to-group-and-then-change-back solution has always bothered me. It's so inelegant! ;D
WRT abridgments: I'm not sure I agree. Reading an abridged version is something you generally choose to do specifically because you don't want to have the experience of the full work, as written.While this may be a matter of self-protection (I know quite a few authors who could do with an editor), I'm not sure I can think the same thing of "War and Peace abridged".
The whole point of the novel is exhaustiveness, so choosing for an abridgment to me just means you don't want to read the original. Sure, it might not be missing much, but to me it feels like choosing to read the Cliffs notes ;-)
Anyway, I would venture that different abridgments can be combined, for the same reason: it's the intent that counts (I'm not maligning reading abridgments here, really :P).
WRT incremental textbook updates: I would suggest that combining editions is more easily justifiable in the social sciences textbooks (though even there some fields are worse than others) than in the natural sciences books (which tend to go 10-15 years between editions). You can still select the edition you actually read, so to me it's not overly problematic that the editions are combined. Still, even in SocSci there will be notable differences between, say, the first and eighth editions. so it's a hard one.
Or as an alternative, might I suggest combining everything by McGraw-Hill (and kindred publishers), and don't combine editions by other publishers? :-)
Mod
I'm not sure I agree. But regardless, the same argument can be made for audiobooks.
I have a quick question and besides one reference to it above couldn't find an actual answer yet. When something is abridged- where do we put that info? Someone said above that they put it in the title line and I was under the understanding it doesn't go there. I've also seen it in the description field along with behind what type of book it is, for example: Hardcover Abridged.
Personally I think that all looks bad but I don't have any idea where it would look good to put it. Does it normally go behind the title in that field?
♥Eva� wrote: "I have a quick question and besides one reference to it above couldn't find an actual answer yet. When something is abridged- where do we put that info? Someone said above that they put it in the..."
Personally, I put it behind the title within parentheses. (similarly with adaptations)
the binding types have that neat drop-down box that I respect very much, so I don't tamper with that. Also, "Abridged" is not a type of binding, it's a type of editing.
I know and agree with you about the binding which is why I never understood finding that there personally. I don't like the look of it behind the title either but like I said above, I can't come up with a better alternative to throw out there. If the general consensus is behind the title then I'll go with that. Thanks for your response.
As a bookseller (used books) for many years, I have a firm opinion on "abridged" fiction books -- we never bought them for stock. The abridgement was not done by the original author, so it isn't the same book. You can have any number of abridgements, each different, each trimmed by a different editor. It seems to me that it shouldn't even be listed under the original author's name (but that's a separate issue). I understand that GR wants them listed in the original author's list, but I certainly don't think they should be combined with the original book.I don't think the foreword, afterword, essay, introduction, book club questions, etc. affect the original text at all, so changes to those materials don't matter. Changing the original text does matter.
Stepping off my soapbox now.
I also put "abridged" in the title, in parentheses because that usually how I've seen it done -- I feel that it's a fundamental enough change to the book that even if it's combined as an edition of the original that this information should be front and center on the book record.
Good point- thanks Cait. This is something that doesn't come into play too often when I read so I'm only learning about it now. Thanks a lot!
Cait,What about the SparkNotes Editors No Fear Series - as an example: Othello. These have the complete text of Othello on the left-hand page, side-by-side with an easy-to-understand translation on the right.
Do we:
Keep Shakespeare as first author, then list SparkNotes Editors listed second and combine with the original work (after all, it does have all of the text from the original work)?
or
Keep Shakespeare as first author, then list SparkNotes Editors listed second and don't combine with the original work (after all, it does have substantial additional text not from the original work)?
or
Keep SparkNotes Editors as first author, then list Shakespeare as the second?
There isn't a hard and fast rule, really. The usual guideline is to work with the content that's important to the edition -- so, for example, we combine two editions with different introductions because the introductions, while not meaningless, are not really the content of the book. For the "No Fear" books, are they editions with the original and translated content, or are they new critical content plus source material? That SparkNotes also produces more "traditional" critical notes suggests to me that they're translations and could be combined as per your first option.
I have a question about textbooks. I've seen that there are many entries for the same book. As an example, take Kuby Immunology, 6e. I've found three separate hits for it. And do I combine International and region specific editions? The content is the same.Also, I'd like to know if anyone is focusing specifically on textbooks. I would like to do so. So I'd like advice on how to combine or separate editions.
Mod
Yup.
Sohail Keegan wrote: "Also, I'd like to know if anyone is focusing specifically on textbooks."
No idea. Certainly there are enough of them that I can't see any reason why you shouldn't. Have fun!
Thanks. I'll get started right away. If I have any doubts, may I post here?
Of course! If you have questions about specific books, the best way is usually to create a new thread in the "Book Issues" folder; if you have more general questions, you can find a related thread or start a new one in the "Policies" folder.
I'm sure this has been brought up before but I can't find it.
In the specific case, I'm looking at the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, but I'm it occurs with other books.
There are a couple of editions (someof which that are currently separate) that have "extra material" and I am wondering if these are different enough to not combine them
e.g.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/edit/59...
Title: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: A Case Study in Critical Controversy (Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism)
From the description:
This edition contains extensive background on the novel as well as literary criticism focusing on three different controversies surrounding the novel.
The second one appears to have extra material in the actual story:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41...
with the title "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: An Authoritative Text, Backgrounds and Sources, Criticism"
From the description:
"The recent discovery of the first half of Twain's manuscript, long thought lost, made front-page news. And this unprecedented edition, which contains for the first time omitted episodes and other variations present in the first half of the handwritten manuscript, as well as facsimile reproductions of thirty manuscript pages, is indispensable to a full understanding of the novel."
Separate? Combine? How different do they have to be to be different?