Alice in Wonderland popup book

Under works by Lewis Caroll there is Alice in (pop-up) Wonderland , but there are also popup and pop-up merged into the main work Alice's adventures in Wonderland.
I suppose it is possible that some or all of these pop-up versions contain the whole text, so that we can regard the pop-ups as a sort of illustration: then it's right to have them combined. Does anyone have more information about pop-up Alices?

The pop-up Alices should not be combined with the main work. They generally include only a small part of the text. In addition, they are primarily valued for their paper engineering.

It should also be said that there are several Alice pop-ups and they shouldn't be combined with each other, any more than you'd combine Renoir and your kid's refrigerator drawings.

I keep separating them, but other people keep re-combining them. I wish they'd stop!

#2 are there really several subtantially different pop-ups? Does having a different pop-up Chesire Cat impose a seperate work? Not owning any I'd say they were ripe for being combined together (although I agree seperate from the main work).

>2 lilithcat:,3

If, however, I had a copy of Dante's Inferno illustrated by my daughter, it would nevertheless get combined with the copies illustrated by Blake or Doré (as well as with the non-illustrated versions of the book), following Tim's note on combining editions.

The reason that the pop-up versions of the book should be separate from the bunch is, in my opinion, more a question of reading motive than reading experience. One reads a pop-up book for the pop-ups, not for the text.

Different pop-ups should be lumped (as we do different translations) in that they all serve the same social purpose (unless there is a convincing claim that one or more of the pop-ups target a completely different audience than the others--e.g., an adult Alice?).

In fact, I would go a step further and claim that many (non-popup) abridgements are socially equivalent and should therefore be lumped together (based on target audience and separate from the original, of course), if it weren't that I know that combiners of a bibliographical persuasion would go bonkers over the suggestion.

3> are there really several subtantially different pop-ups?

Yes, and they have different authors. I remembered that lilithcat has one, though I couldn't remember the author so look in her catalog. It's by Robert Sabuda, touchstones don't work for the title, guess why?

http://www.librarything.com/work-info/3511121

J. Otto Seibold is another pop-up book creator, most of the books from the amazons have Caroll as author. I combined these so that the MARC information is available for the work when and if LT develops the new author system

http://www.librarything.com/work-info/3593473

(unless there is a convincing claim that one or more of the pop-ups target a completely different audience than the others--e.g., an adult Alice?).

Definitely different target audiences. Pop-up collectors buy for the pop-ups, not the text, and will often focus on specfic paper engineer/pop-up artists. So that someone who has Robert Sabuda's pop-up Alice may be completely uninterested in other pop-up versions.

>6 lilithcat:

Interesting question, this. Combining typically priveleges text over appearance. But what approach to take when the appearance is the text?

My first reaction is that, because a social distinction is not made for members who collect editions because of the illustrator (rather than the text), then the same thinking should apply to pop-up books.

But is a pop-up artist really analogous to an illustrator? Perhaps not. Only some people who buy a particular version of a book do so because of the illustrator. Nearly all people who buy a pop-up book do so--to some extent--because of the artist (if not because they have sought out that particular artist, then because they like what that artist has done with that book). But is buying a pop-up book for the art sufficient grounds for separation (or, like buying foreign poetry for the translation, is this not a strong enough argument).

Rereading #6, lilithcat's words give me my answer: "will often focus" is, in my opinion, not a strong enough basis for separation. One could just as easily argue "will often not focus" as a basis for combining. Now, "nearly always focus" would be a good argument for combining, but in this case I don't think that assertion is true. Whereas we can certainly assume a "significant social difference" for pop-ups in general, I don't see how we can make the same claim for the set of members who own a particular pop-up book (as opposed to another).

But is a pop-up artist really analogous to an illustrator? Perhaps not

Definitely not. A pop-up artist is more like an author, completely transforming the nature and experience of the work.

But is buying a pop-up book for the art sufficient grounds for separation

The grounds for separation are not based entirely on the claim of art. Unless (and this is pretty rare) the pop-up contains the entire text, it should be treated just as we treat abridgements, and the consensus is that they should be separated from the complete text. For the most part, the text is either original to the pop-up or, as in the case of the various Alices, severely abridged.

I think that, rather than compare a pop-up to a book that has illustrations, such as a Doré Dante, the apter comparison is to graphic novels, which often abridge text and have a presentation that is so different from the "normal" volume as to provide a significantly different reading experience (and, not incidentally, will likely draw on a very different audience).

lilithcat has 70 books tagged pop-up. To me, that gives her opinion on this considerable weight.

>8 lilithcat:

Your response reads as if I were suggesting that we combine the pop-ups with the "normal" texts. They should definitely be kept separate (as I argue in #4). The only question I am considering is whether all pop-up books should, by indiscriminate default, each be their own work, or whether they should be generally be combined pending persuasive arguments for specific separations (which, in my opinion, is more in line with Tim's "significant social difference" exceptions). Indiscriminate separation is paramount to assuming exceptions across the board.

#10: read #2

EDIT: Oops, sorry, SilentinAway, I misread your #10.

The question in selecting the author is who has the greatest responsibility for the creation of the work. Books of photographs are usually credited to the photographer not the person writing the captions for example. Shropshire : a portrait in colour is by Bill Meadows, not Shirley Tart.

OTOH if the contribution to a work is about equal then libraries tend to credit (focus on) the writer, and bookstores selling the book the photographer. Old Man on His Back : portrait of a Prairie landscape is a joint creation of author Sharon Butala and photographer Courtney Milne, either name could be used as the author, the problem is that currently in LT only one name can be primary author.

#11>

Umm...that's the message that I've been responding to all along (and I resent the implication that my message #4 is not responding to the messages that I call out--it is precisely the analogy presented in #2 that got me started on this).

Short answer: I agree completely with separating the pop-ups from the normal texts, but I have yet to see a convincing argument for why all pop-ups should be separated from each other (the fact that some but not all people choose to buy a particular pop-up book based on the specific artist is not, to me, a strong enough basis for segregating the people who own one version from those who own another).

Long answer: read #4,#7,#10

12>

Ah, now that's a different issue, but it has interesting resonance with this discussion I think. Books of photography are usually not (if ever) attributed to the author of another version of that book that has no photographs (as is the case here of a pop-up book attributed to Lewis Carroll).

But this does open the door to a situation in which I would agree with what I previously denounced as "indiscriminate separation" -- if the pop-up artist were to be credited as being the primary author of the book, I would certainly agree that the book should not be combined with those by other artists. The distinction (although a fine one, perhaps) is between a work based on that of Lewis Carroll and a pop-up version of Carroll's work (unfortunately, LT provides precious few ways to establish this distinction). So, if owners of this book feel strongly enough about the pop-up artist to list him/her as the author, there would be no question that it should not be combined with other books. For me, it is separation based on secondary authorship (translation, illustration, etc.) that should require proof of "significant social difference."*

*in lilithcat's defense, she never argued that all pop-ups should be separated from one another (only that all Alice pop-ups should be kept separate). But since today's unchallenged assertions become tomorrow's combining consensus...

If the pop-up artist were to be credited as being the primary author of the book, I would certainly agree that the book should not be combined with those by other artists

see msg 5 -- at least two artist/creators are listed as primary authors of an Alice in Wonderland pop up book entered into LT from library sources.

{edited to add, look at the MARC records at the bottom of the work pages}

#13
I'm sorry about my #11, I misread your #10. I feel like an idiot: my brain must have gone on the blink.

Isn't LT just the perfect study for a scholar looking to produce a thesis on the taxonomy of the book-making arts?

Lilithcat says in #8:

A pop-up artist is more like an author, completely transforming the nature and experience of the work.

And I'll take her word for this, since she's clearly much more familiar with the medium than I am.

But this is not considered sufficient grounds for separation in the case of translations; why should it be so here? (Or rather, since I'm a splitter at heart, why can't we make this same argument in the case of translations, rather than having the lumpers resort to "Tim said so" and ending the discussion by fiat?)

Because a greater purpose is served by being able to link works across languages. If we took your suggestion then even if two users had libraries that shared all of the same books but in different languages, they would never find each other. I don't see the same argument as applying to pop-up books.

Perhaps someday Tim will implement a way to say that one books is a translation of the other instead of just saying that they're the same work.

#17 lorax
In the case of translations, the aim is usually to preserve the nature and experience of the work for people who cannot, or only with difficulty, read the original language. For example, when I was a child I read a lot of Jules Verne in translation; in my childish naiveté, I didn't realise I was reading translations, so the translators had done a good job. There are, however, differing views on this, as Douglas Hofstadter discusses in Le Ton Beau de Marot.

If a translator's name is listed on the title page as the author, then yes, in that case, the translator could be used for the author entry. Can you provide an example?

In the case of the book Alice's adventures in Wonderland by Robert Sabuda, Robert Sabuda is so credited.

MARC code ( from bottom of LT book info page)
245 10 $a Alice's adventures in Wonderland / $c by Robert Sabuda.

Jane Caruth wrote an adaptation of the Alice in wonderland story, so she is credited as the author with Lewis Caroll listed as other author. This book too should be kept separate from the main Alice work don't you think?

@20:

Translator as author? How about Beowulf? We've got

245 10 $a Beowulf : $b a new verse translation / $c Seamus Heaney.

245 00 $a Beowulf: $b a verse translation, $c by Michael Alexander.

etc. Most of the records do have annotations in the $c
field saying "translated by" or some such, but not all.

I know that I'm in the minority, and I'm not going to go separating translations, but I don't appreciate having people talk down to me (like in 19) like I don't understand the concept of 'social distinctions'. I read Le Ton Beau de Marot too, and unlike jimroberts agree with the idea that translations MATTER, and that we shouldn't just say "la la la, French is English is Russian, and all these twenty English translations of The Iliad clearly don't differ in any more important way than cover art." Just because children may be too naive to realize when they're reading translations doesn't mean we as adults need to privilege that naivete over people who can appreciate the work of both the author and the translator (as in, say, The Cyberiad by Stanislaw Lem -- preserving wordplay as Kandel did is truly an achievement worthy of recognition).

Personally I have a very *different* experience in reading a good translation vs. a bad translation of the same work, and would enjoy discussing this, but books in translation are a small enough portion of my library that this isn't a huge issue, just an annoyance (and one that creates artificial duplicates).

It's always the case, almost trivially so, that distinctions matter to the people who make them. People who don't notice difference in translations will be inclined to lump them together. People who don't realize pop-up books are frequently purchased by adults *for the art* (which I didn't until this thread) will lump those together as well, though probably not with the parent work. I think the fundamental question is, when do these distinctions -- of critical importance to the people making them -- rise to the point of being preserved in LT as a whole? Personally I think "if someone thinks the distinction is important enough to split, split it"; I'd rather be connected with the 500 people who share my specific translation of Beowulf than the 5000 who have it in some form or another, but I can understand how someone with the German translation of, say, Foundation (but who speaks English) may want to connect with SF fans in general rather than just German-speaking SF fans.

Ultimately it may have to wait for a more sophisticated book/work relationship than the simple "contains" that now exists.

#21 lorax
I regret that my #19 came across as talking down to you, that was far from my intention. I do not think that you and I differ much in our attitude to translations; perhaps I would lump a little more readily than you, but remember, I started this thread because I was unhappy with what I thought was excessive lumping, and the trend of the discussion has greatly strengthened that view. My 'childish naiveté' was in no way a dig at you, merely an illustration of my experience of the importance of the social factor: indeed, to refer to my experience as childish naiveté is to play down its importance to more mature consideration.
I agree with you that different translations of Beowulf can have different purposes and different target audiences: in other words, there is a good case for separating. You also have a good point, that in the case of some of Lem's books, which rely heavily on word play and linguistic tricks, translators can take different approaches, giving a case for separation.
However, in the case of straightforward adventure, mystery, science fiction and the like, such as Foundation but not The Cyberiad, the importance lies in the ideas and hardly at all in the language (indeed, a translation of such a work can be something of an improvement on the original, from the point of view of literature), and I would hardly ever see a prima facie case for splitting. But, of course, I would be open to persuasion. I think this is the majority view among LT combiners and splitters.
We are almost certain to meet again in LT Talk. Whenever I write something that could be construed as a personal slight, please suspect the deficiencies of my expression rather than my intentions.

Lumping vs. splitting is not always easy. If there is a large number of titles under an author, I want to lump to get better organization. Such is Michelin Travel publications whch has 569 titles. Someone has split all the Red Guides for each year, which adds 50 tiltes for France alone. It's really a serial and these aren't handled well by LT at this point.