This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1myshelves
I have a puzzling one here. I have 2 books. They are the same story, but one is a version that was cut by 30,000 words to please a publisher, the other is a restored full version.
They are Stonehenge and Stonehenge: Where Atlantis Died by Harry Harrison and Leon Stover.
They are currently combined. But are they the same work, when one has such massive cuts?
They are Stonehenge and Stonehenge: Where Atlantis Died by Harry Harrison and Leon Stover.
They are currently combined. But are they the same work, when one has such massive cuts?
2reading_fox
Yes and No. It depends. I don't know the books in question which is the only way to solve this issue?
When you read them are the works substantially the same, or are they different? What has been cut? footnotes, introductions, odd unncessary verbosity? Or whole chapters/themes etc
I'd suspect at 30k words they are as different as an abrieviated novel is to the full work - which are normally seperated on LT, but as the owner of both you are in the best place to decide, and it is possible that they feel more like 1 work than 2.
If you do decide to seperate them, it may be wise to add (abbrivated) or some such to one title, indicating to a passing combiner that they are deliberately seperated.
When you read them are the works substantially the same, or are they different? What has been cut? footnotes, introductions, odd unncessary verbosity? Or whole chapters/themes etc
I'd suspect at 30k words they are as different as an abrieviated novel is to the full work - which are normally seperated on LT, but as the owner of both you are in the best place to decide, and it is possible that they feel more like 1 work than 2.
If you do decide to seperate them, it may be wise to add (abbrivated) or some such to one title, indicating to a passing combiner that they are deliberately seperated.
3drbubbles
It occurs to me that the problems of organizing works are not unlike those of classifying organisms, particularly those known only from the fossil record. Both the species and the work concepts tend to suggest some Platonic forms to which we must adhere, but in fact that's not the case. The fundamental concern of both works and biosystematics is variation: how to handle it in a meaningful way. People can tend to be 'lumpers' or 'splitters;' likewise, different generations in a discipline can have different lumping or splitting gestalts. The principle concern, though, should be the utility of the entities we create.
The point of LT's work concept appears to be primarily social in nature: to connect persons having the same work. For that to...well, to work, the number of connections is important: too few tends to be uninteresting, too many and it's overwhelming (consider what one Harry Potter book can do to a small library's Zeitgeist).
So it seems to me that the number of copies floating around LT ought to have some bearing on whether to combine (N.B. I say some bearing). If there are just a few, the difference between complete and abridged copies might matter less than the value of the larger social web allowed by combining them. In time the number of complete and abridged copies may become great enough that it would be socially worthwhile to separate them.
There are, of course, other considerations, like what proportion 30K words represent, or what can possibly be done when 70% of copies in LT are not just 1st editions but 1st printings of 1st editions (as is likely the case with the most recent Harry Potter books).
The point of LT's work concept appears to be primarily social in nature: to connect persons having the same work. For that to...well, to work, the number of connections is important: too few tends to be uninteresting, too many and it's overwhelming (consider what one Harry Potter book can do to a small library's Zeitgeist).
So it seems to me that the number of copies floating around LT ought to have some bearing on whether to combine (N.B. I say some bearing). If there are just a few, the difference between complete and abridged copies might matter less than the value of the larger social web allowed by combining them. In time the number of complete and abridged copies may become great enough that it would be socially worthwhile to separate them.
There are, of course, other considerations, like what proportion 30K words represent, or what can possibly be done when 70% of copies in LT are not just 1st editions but 1st printings of 1st editions (as is likely the case with the most recent Harry Potter books).
4TheTwoDs
Hmm, what's the consensus on a book which also exists (existed) in a drastically cut form (though not known as cut at the time of its publication) and a later revised and expanded edition - Stephen King's The Stand? With The Stand having many more owners, we might be able to get a better feel for how people think of such books - same work or different?
5myshelves
I don't really have an opinion here. One is twice as thick as the other, but it has been so long since I read either of them. . . . .
I'll just leave them as they are for now, and rack up another "work multiple."
Whoever adds the next copy of one of them may have more definite ideas.
I'll just leave them as they are for now, and rack up another "work multiple."
Whoever adds the next copy of one of them may have more definite ideas.
6jjwilson61
We need a way to specify that one book is an abridged version of another. That can go on the list with the part-of/contains relationship and the based-on relationship (for all the many different versions of Sleeping Beauty or the King Arthur legends out there).
8MikeBriggs
There is also the point that the two works were released under two different titles (as noted in the first message).
I have only read one of the two books and do not know what those 30,000 words were (or if I read the full version of the cut version). I assume 30,000 words might be significant. Unless lots and lots of adjectives were cut.
---
From the original website: (I'd just put the link, but cannot figure out how to link to more than just the home-page):
"Stonehenge: Where Atlantis Died is an expanded version of Stonehenge. Or, to be more accurate, it is the original version of Stonehenge...
In his review of the book for The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (January 1974), Harlan Ellison writes:
"I'm privy to 'inner circle' information which, because this is the season of Watergate I'll pass on to you.
"Harry and Leon Stover sold this book first in England, at 110,000 words, and had trouble re-selling it here in America, so the British said, 'Let us cut it a little,' to make it more saleable, and Harry reluctantly said okay, and they circumcised the book down to 80,000 words and sold the original plates to Scribner's." "
....
"Harry Harrison and Leon Stover wrote the novel in the early 1970s, and it was first published in 1972 in England by Peter Davies Ltd. But the version published then was heavily cut to bring it down to what the publisher considered to be a manageable size. It was published under the title Stonehenge.
When it decided to republish the book ten years later, the authors decided to reinstate the cut material, and had to recreate the complete manuscript based on their original notes from the 1970s.
Stonehenge: Where Atlantis Died was first published in 1983 in the United States by Tor. This later version significantly improves on the earlier."
----
Note: "had to recreate the complete manuscript based on their original notes" sounds like there were three books. The original British version, the USA version and then the expanded "recreated" USA version.
I have only read one of the two books and do not know what those 30,000 words were (or if I read the full version of the cut version). I assume 30,000 words might be significant. Unless lots and lots of adjectives were cut.
---
From the original website: (I'd just put the link, but cannot figure out how to link to more than just the home-page):
"Stonehenge: Where Atlantis Died is an expanded version of Stonehenge. Or, to be more accurate, it is the original version of Stonehenge...
In his review of the book for The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (January 1974), Harlan Ellison writes:
"I'm privy to 'inner circle' information which, because this is the season of Watergate I'll pass on to you.
"Harry and Leon Stover sold this book first in England, at 110,000 words, and had trouble re-selling it here in America, so the British said, 'Let us cut it a little,' to make it more saleable, and Harry reluctantly said okay, and they circumcised the book down to 80,000 words and sold the original plates to Scribner's." "
....
"Harry Harrison and Leon Stover wrote the novel in the early 1970s, and it was first published in 1972 in England by Peter Davies Ltd. But the version published then was heavily cut to bring it down to what the publisher considered to be a manageable size. It was published under the title Stonehenge.
When it decided to republish the book ten years later, the authors decided to reinstate the cut material, and had to recreate the complete manuscript based on their original notes from the 1970s.
Stonehenge: Where Atlantis Died was first published in 1983 in the United States by Tor. This later version significantly improves on the earlier."
----
Note: "had to recreate the complete manuscript based on their original notes" sounds like there were three books. The original British version, the USA version and then the expanded "recreated" USA version.
9myshelves
Mike,
I read that --- it's where I got the 30,000 number. And I was confused about the "recreate from the manuscript" part. Must have been some reason that they couldn't use the original UK version? Copyright? The two I have do seem to be different. And as I said, one is twice as thick as the other --- looks like more than 30k words added, but maybe type size and style could account for it. Puzzling.
I read that --- it's where I got the 30,000 number. And I was confused about the "recreate from the manuscript" part. Must have been some reason that they couldn't use the original UK version? Copyright? The two I have do seem to be different. And as I said, one is twice as thick as the other --- looks like more than 30k words added, but maybe type size and style could account for it. Puzzling.
10MikeBriggs
Interesting how the sale was noted: "sold the original plates to Scribner's".
1) The British publishers might somehow have acquired the copyright and didn't want to allow the original book to be republished (only thing I could think of that would involve copyright, as it was the two original authors who wanted to reissue the original larger book)
2) "Sold the original plates to Scribner's" - sounds odd. Plates? Not manuscript? Getting the idea that the original was destroyed somehow, no copies were kept by the original British publisher or by the authors, and somehow or another no copies of the original work was found. So book needed to be reconstructed. Would be interesting if could find the original British verision, the USA original version and the 1983 expanded USA version.
On the other hand: It could mean that they had reformated the book to American English, couldn't sell it, cut it down, sold the cut down version. They might still have had the original full verison when they were able to sell an expanded version in 1983, but the original full version would have been in British English, and so they used their notes of the original pre-cut American English version to recreate a full-length American English version.
And yes, there is a difference :). I love books by Peter Lovesey, but when I acquired one of his original British English books, I stumbled over translating the British spellings and word choices into American English.
There are several Australians that read, but haven't tried to see if I could read Australian English un-modified. (could continue with the other English language non-USA/British/Australian authors, but that is a different topic).
Then again, I sometimes stumble over American books from different regions of the USA.
1) The British publishers might somehow have acquired the copyright and didn't want to allow the original book to be republished (only thing I could think of that would involve copyright, as it was the two original authors who wanted to reissue the original larger book)
2) "Sold the original plates to Scribner's" - sounds odd. Plates? Not manuscript? Getting the idea that the original was destroyed somehow, no copies were kept by the original British publisher or by the authors, and somehow or another no copies of the original work was found. So book needed to be reconstructed. Would be interesting if could find the original British verision, the USA original version and the 1983 expanded USA version.
On the other hand: It could mean that they had reformated the book to American English, couldn't sell it, cut it down, sold the cut down version. They might still have had the original full verison when they were able to sell an expanded version in 1983, but the original full version would have been in British English, and so they used their notes of the original pre-cut American English version to recreate a full-length American English version.
And yes, there is a difference :). I love books by Peter Lovesey, but when I acquired one of his original British English books, I stumbled over translating the British spellings and word choices into American English.
There are several Australians that read, but haven't tried to see if I could read Australian English un-modified. (could continue with the other English language non-USA/British/Australian authors, but that is a different topic).
Then again, I sometimes stumble over American books from different regions of the USA.
11xtien
In a bibliophilic and scientific community, you'd separate the works because they are different editions. In a social community, you'd combine them because what matters is "who read what", more than what edition. Since I consider LT to be more of a social community, I'd combine the books.
12MikeBriggs
re> 11: Ah, but that is somewhat the point. The two different books are not actually the same and it would be interesting from a community standpoint to see "who read what" - i.e., who read one or the other or both of the books (the cut one and the expanded one).
On the other hand: just as translations are combined with the original work (with some exceptions), I would combine a book in American English and British English. I only mention this as I might have added a layer of confusion when I mentioned American English and British English differences. Point here is that I would combine the full-length British version and the full-length American version of the book. But is the shorter American version the same work?
It has been a while since I last looked, but abridged audio books are kept separate, right? I can't recall now.
Again, though, I haven't read both, so I do not know if the shorter American version reads like an abridgment of the later full American version (or the earlier full British version).
On the other hand: just as translations are combined with the original work (with some exceptions), I would combine a book in American English and British English. I only mention this as I might have added a layer of confusion when I mentioned American English and British English differences. Point here is that I would combine the full-length British version and the full-length American version of the book. But is the shorter American version the same work?
It has been a while since I last looked, but abridged audio books are kept separate, right? I can't recall now.
Again, though, I haven't read both, so I do not know if the shorter American version reads like an abridgment of the later full American version (or the earlier full British version).
13SilentInAWay
This is one of those borderline cases that can't really be decided based on precedent. The general trend in combining consensus seems to be to combine when something is added to a book (a new chapter to a textbook or a new afterward by the author) and separate when something is taken away (abridgements). This general practice, however, should not be taken as a rule of thumb, in my opinion. Borderline cases should each be considered based on their own merits.
So, Someone familiar with both books needs to make a judgment call, recognizing that any decision made about these books is likely to be forever provisional (two weeks from now, someone might come along and reverse the whole thing).
12> It has been a while since I last looked, but abridged audio books are kept separate, right? I can't recall now.
Yes, they are (or, at least, should be). Although the general consensus, to the best of my memory, is that only unabridged audio books should be combined with "regular" books, I find that, in practice, very few audio books are combined at all with the cloth and paper originals.
So, Someone familiar with both books needs to make a judgment call, recognizing that any decision made about these books is likely to be forever provisional (two weeks from now, someone might come along and reverse the whole thing).
12> It has been a while since I last looked, but abridged audio books are kept separate, right? I can't recall now.
Yes, they are (or, at least, should be). Although the general consensus, to the best of my memory, is that only unabridged audio books should be combined with "regular" books, I find that, in practice, very few audio books are combined at all with the cloth and paper originals.
14collsers
I could be mistaken, but I feel like the general consensus is that unabridged audio books (that is, readings of the text) are combined, and dramatizations (like the BBC's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy -- pardon the touchstone just being to the scripts, but you get the idea). Many readers consider hearing the text of a book the same as seeing it, and for many blind or vision impaired readers, it really is the only way to read some texts that are not available in braille (never mind people who do not know how to read braille, like my grandfather, who does all his reading now through listening!)
15xtien
12: The two different books are not actually the same and it would be interesting from a community standpoint to see "who read what" - i.e., who read one or the other or both of the books (the cut one and the expanded one).
Do you want to see who read the abridged version, and who read the full version? Or do you want to see who read any of the version? Let's just wait for a new release of LT where we can have both: I see who read any version, you see who read version X in language Y published in year Z.
:-)
Do you want to see who read the abridged version, and who read the full version? Or do you want to see who read any of the version? Let's just wait for a new release of LT where we can have both: I see who read any version, you see who read version X in language Y published in year Z.
:-)
16MikeBriggs
re: 15: Yes. I would want ask the person who read both the full and shorter versions several questions. Two for example: if the shorter version was significantly different from the longer, and which one, the fuller story, or the shorter story, was the "better" story (the "fuller" story might just have 30,000 more adjectives; or a really really long monologue about puppies; or 30,000 words of great significance).
