This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1jjwilson61
I'm having an argument with someone who doesn't think so. I think it should be because it has the same characters in the same settings from story to story. Although it is a bit odd that the books in the series are actually anthologies and I don't know that they were originally published in that way. Maybe that just means that it should be an unordered series then.
The other person claims that the author didn't intend it to be a series, but that doesn't make sense to me.
The other person claims that the author didn't intend it to be a series, but that doesn't make sense to me.
2stephmo
While Sir Arthur Conan Doyle most certainly tried to rid himself of Sherlock Holmes (killing him in "The Final Problem" only to bring him back in the Hound of the Baskervilles later as a "prequel-ish" case and then officially again in a short story due to protests), this is a series.
Heck, they started as a series of short stories. I think there are only a handful of full-novels and the rest are collections of short stories, but these follow the adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Series, series, series. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle may have wanted to have been known for more, but he knew Sherlock was his bread and butter (I also hope someone is putting in the Professor Challenger series as well).
The very fact that people have found enough consistence within the stories to play "Baker Street Irregulars" in real life should be more than enough to call it a series. Once you cos-play, that more than tips it over to the "series" arena.
Not to mention, the development of Sherlock Holmes pretty much invented the crime-solving series genre.
ETA - A good number of Science Fiction series also include short stories. There's a reason that the 2001 series of Arthur C. Clarke includes The Sentinel. Even Stephen King's Dark Tower series includes Everything's Eventual since a prequel story is included. At least the Sherlock Short story collections are all Mr. Holmes. Even closer, Encyclopedia Brown is a series and each book is basically a series of short stories. As is Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle...
okay, done with precedent.
Heck, they started as a series of short stories. I think there are only a handful of full-novels and the rest are collections of short stories, but these follow the adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Series, series, series. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle may have wanted to have been known for more, but he knew Sherlock was his bread and butter (I also hope someone is putting in the Professor Challenger series as well).
The very fact that people have found enough consistence within the stories to play "Baker Street Irregulars" in real life should be more than enough to call it a series. Once you cos-play, that more than tips it over to the "series" arena.
Not to mention, the development of Sherlock Holmes pretty much invented the crime-solving series genre.
ETA - A good number of Science Fiction series also include short stories. There's a reason that the 2001 series of Arthur C. Clarke includes The Sentinel. Even Stephen King's Dark Tower series includes Everything's Eventual since a prequel story is included. At least the Sherlock Short story collections are all Mr. Holmes. Even closer, Encyclopedia Brown is a series and each book is basically a series of short stories. As is Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle...
okay, done with precedent.
3reading_fox
I'd say yes, but it's going to be a major pain to enter them all correctly, I've done a bit of combining work on Doyle's page and you've got:
4 novels as standalones
Most if not all the short stories individually
Omnibus collections of short stories
Omnibus of all the short stories
Ombibus of all the novels
Omnibus of some novels and some shorts
Omnibus of all of them
....
How do you order that lot as a series?
4 novels as standalones
Most if not all the short stories individually
Omnibus collections of short stories
Omnibus of all the short stories
Ombibus of all the novels
Omnibus of some novels and some shorts
Omnibus of all of them
....
How do you order that lot as a series?
4jjwilson61
It's already been done, unless someone undid it. The standalone novels are listed as a numbered series and then the rest are entered as omnibuses. I suppose the separate short stories could be listed in their own series, but I don't have any of those in my library.
5jjwilson61
Here is JNagarya's latest response. I think it is ok to post it here since anyone can see it on my profile anyway. I'll send him a new comment inviting him to this thread to discuss it.
Again, it is a matter of edition. My edition of Baskervilles is published by Dell, as a "Dell Laurel"; none of my other Doyle, even if they were perceived as part of a "series" with Baskervilles (they are not) are published by Dell.
An easier instance: There apparently exists a "Complete Works of George Orwell" series. However, my edition of 1984 is published by The New American Library, as a "Signet" book. There is no "Signet" Orwell series called "Complete Works of George Orwell," therefore it is not part of, or properly identified as being part of, a "Complete Works of George Orwell" series (and yet I've had to tolerate that improper categorization in MY catalog because someone does get the fact that not ever book in pront by Orwell is part of that precisous "series").
My edition of Orwells Down and Out in Paris and London is a very early paper edition published not as a "Signet" but rather by Ace or Avon. And my Animal Farm is either a first edition or book club edition hardcover, published neither by The New American Library, nor by Ace, nor by Avon.
The same goes for my various Frank Herbert Dune books: none were identified at the time published -- and bought -- as volumes in an ongoing "series"; that was only a result of later hindsight, and perhaps specific statements by Herbert after he came to recognize that they were something like a "series. (Were there a "Complete Works of Frank Herbert" "series," would my Berkley Medallion edition of The Santaroga Barrier belong to it -- even if the weries had the same publisher? No, because when publshed my editon was not intended as such; it's in the publication details.)
Perhaps the best example is my Twain -- none of those instances being different than this: I have every volume in "The Oxford Mark Twain" series (if even that is a correct designation, as none of the individual volumes is part of a "series" with any other, even though four have the same characters), each of which is expressly identified, as example, at the top of the dustjacket face as "The Oxford Mark Twain". At the same time I have other editions of various of those volumes by publishers other than Oxford, therefore they are not part of that "series".
In addition, and more closely: I have Twain volumes identified as part of the "series" "The Writings of Mark Twain". However, one of those is a relatviely standard-sized hardcover, while all the others are small-format "limp leather" bound. Same "series" identification, and even same publisher, but different editions, therefore not actually of the same "series".
Take Asimov's "Robot" stories: they are not part of the "Foundation" series -- yet someone has identified them as such in "Commmunity Knowledge" tagging (which inaccuracy infuritates because it affects MY catalog, and yet I get beat up on for eliminating that error, which has several times been reentered by whoever hangs onto and insists upon that error; now I don't touch it -- I simply want out of that "feature," as that appears to be the only means to avoid having MY catalog peppered with others' inaccuracies and errors). The "Robot" stories are, rather, short stories, written over a period of time, then gathered together, as an "afterthought," into a single volume. That goes for both volumes of his "Robot" stories: not a series in any sense.
Nor does the fact that a number of short stories, or novels, has the same characters make them ipso facto series; see as examples The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer Abroad, and Tom Sawyer, Detective/i>. In order for them to be a "series," they would have to be expressly identified by the author (and the author could be in error as regards standard) as being such, or one would have to pick up where the other left off (or make express connection between the current and the prior).
Even then there are exceptions: though Huck Finn was intended by Twain to be a "sequel" to Tom Sawyer, and it makes express reference to Tom Sawyer -- both to the character and the book -- Huck Finn as a book ended up being of so qualitatively different (most immeditate difference: Tom Sawyer was intended as a "boys' book" -- and is clearly that; Huck Finn is by no means a mere "boys' book") that one cannot even begin to perceive them as parts of a "series". Those, as do Abroad and Detective, have (some of) the same characters, but are actually independent, "stand-alone" novels and novellas.
posted by JNagarya at 10:03 am (EST) on Apr 7, 2008 | reply | archive | delete
Again, it is a matter of edition. My edition of Baskervilles is published by Dell, as a "Dell Laurel"; none of my other Doyle, even if they were perceived as part of a "series" with Baskervilles (they are not) are published by Dell.
An easier instance: There apparently exists a "Complete Works of George Orwell" series. However, my edition of 1984 is published by The New American Library, as a "Signet" book. There is no "Signet" Orwell series called "Complete Works of George Orwell," therefore it is not part of, or properly identified as being part of, a "Complete Works of George Orwell" series (and yet I've had to tolerate that improper categorization in MY catalog because someone does get the fact that not ever book in pront by Orwell is part of that precisous "series").
My edition of Orwells Down and Out in Paris and London is a very early paper edition published not as a "Signet" but rather by Ace or Avon. And my Animal Farm is either a first edition or book club edition hardcover, published neither by The New American Library, nor by Ace, nor by Avon.
The same goes for my various Frank Herbert Dune books: none were identified at the time published -- and bought -- as volumes in an ongoing "series"; that was only a result of later hindsight, and perhaps specific statements by Herbert after he came to recognize that they were something like a "series. (Were there a "Complete Works of Frank Herbert" "series," would my Berkley Medallion edition of The Santaroga Barrier belong to it -- even if the weries had the same publisher? No, because when publshed my editon was not intended as such; it's in the publication details.)
Perhaps the best example is my Twain -- none of those instances being different than this: I have every volume in "The Oxford Mark Twain" series (if even that is a correct designation, as none of the individual volumes is part of a "series" with any other, even though four have the same characters), each of which is expressly identified, as example, at the top of the dustjacket face as "The Oxford Mark Twain". At the same time I have other editions of various of those volumes by publishers other than Oxford, therefore they are not part of that "series".
In addition, and more closely: I have Twain volumes identified as part of the "series" "The Writings of Mark Twain". However, one of those is a relatviely standard-sized hardcover, while all the others are small-format "limp leather" bound. Same "series" identification, and even same publisher, but different editions, therefore not actually of the same "series".
Take Asimov's "Robot" stories: they are not part of the "Foundation" series -- yet someone has identified them as such in "Commmunity Knowledge" tagging (which inaccuracy infuritates because it affects MY catalog, and yet I get beat up on for eliminating that error, which has several times been reentered by whoever hangs onto and insists upon that error; now I don't touch it -- I simply want out of that "feature," as that appears to be the only means to avoid having MY catalog peppered with others' inaccuracies and errors). The "Robot" stories are, rather, short stories, written over a period of time, then gathered together, as an "afterthought," into a single volume. That goes for both volumes of his "Robot" stories: not a series in any sense.
Nor does the fact that a number of short stories, or novels, has the same characters make them ipso facto series; see as examples The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer Abroad, and Tom Sawyer, Detective/i>. In order for them to be a "series," they would have to be expressly identified by the author (and the author could be in error as regards standard) as being such, or one would have to pick up where the other left off (or make express connection between the current and the prior).
Even then there are exceptions: though Huck Finn was intended by Twain to be a "sequel" to Tom Sawyer, and it makes express reference to Tom Sawyer -- both to the character and the book -- Huck Finn as a book ended up being of so qualitatively different (most immeditate difference: Tom Sawyer was intended as a "boys' book" -- and is clearly that; Huck Finn is by no means a mere "boys' book") that one cannot even begin to perceive them as parts of a "series". Those, as do Abroad and Detective, have (some of) the same characters, but are actually independent, "stand-alone" novels and novellas.
posted by JNagarya at 10:03 am (EST) on Apr 7, 2008 | reply | archive | delete
7andyl
#6
No he isn't completely right about the Asimov books.
The Robot series and the Foundation series sort of merged into a super-series by the work Asimov did in the 80s.
Therefore there should be a plain Foundation trilogy, a greater Foundation series (which includes things like Prelude to Foundation, and the second Foundation trilogy - which wasn't written by Asimov), a Robots series, a greater Robots series (including the Caliban trilogy), and a Foundation and Robots series. It is a fairly complex one to map out and a number of the books are in a number of series.
No he isn't completely right about the Asimov books.
The Robot series and the Foundation series sort of merged into a super-series by the work Asimov did in the 80s.
Therefore there should be a plain Foundation trilogy, a greater Foundation series (which includes things like Prelude to Foundation, and the second Foundation trilogy - which wasn't written by Asimov), a Robots series, a greater Robots series (including the Caliban trilogy), and a Foundation and Robots series. It is a fairly complex one to map out and a number of the books are in a number of series.
8Caramellunacy
Wait, I don't understand at all why the Tom Sawyer short novels shouldn't be in a series with Tom Sawyer, and even less why Huckleberry Finn shouldn't be in a series with Tom Sawyer...
Because of a perceived qualitative difference?
Because of a perceived qualitative difference?
9stephmo
JNagarya needs to turn his CK off. Period.
As for Asimov, he's not right. The Robot books take place in the same universe as the foundation books - just at a different time. So there is continuity in the works.
Foundation should be a stand-alone series of the three books, but an all-encompassing series including the Robot, Foundation and Empire books is more than permissible.
No one needs to see the word "series" on a book for it to be a series. JNagarya is taking all of this far too literally and is causing more distress than I've seen anyone cause in CK - this has officially surpassed "New York City" as my major CK annoyance. Generally, I don't allow one user to annoy me (after all, it's fixable), but this is ridiculous. The man even says he wants to turn CK off about 10 messages after Chris tells him how to do it!
Ugh, the Dune comment is just over the top. I would think that the word "DUNE" on EVERY FLIPPING BOOK would indicate that this was a series! Frank Herbert wasn't just going, "dang, I am tapped out on title ideas, I'll just call this random book 'Dune' as well and be done with it, even though 'Dune: Messiah' is really about how to grow and cultivate tomatoes from seed."
As for Asimov, he's not right. The Robot books take place in the same universe as the foundation books - just at a different time. So there is continuity in the works.
Foundation should be a stand-alone series of the three books, but an all-encompassing series including the Robot, Foundation and Empire books is more than permissible.
No one needs to see the word "series" on a book for it to be a series. JNagarya is taking all of this far too literally and is causing more distress than I've seen anyone cause in CK - this has officially surpassed "New York City" as my major CK annoyance. Generally, I don't allow one user to annoy me (after all, it's fixable), but this is ridiculous. The man even says he wants to turn CK off about 10 messages after Chris tells him how to do it!
Ugh, the Dune comment is just over the top. I would think that the word "DUNE" on EVERY FLIPPING BOOK would indicate that this was a series! Frank Herbert wasn't just going, "dang, I am tapped out on title ideas, I'll just call this random book 'Dune' as well and be done with it, even though 'Dune: Messiah' is really about how to grow and cultivate tomatoes from seed."
10stephmo
> 8 The series wasn't Tom Sawyer/Huckleberry Finn. The series was a PUBLISHER series that he added.
11jjwilson61
Although he's right about the Complete Works of George Orwell. If that's a series it should be deleted. If you really want to see all of George's works you can do an author search on his name.
13Ragnell
Even the Omnibus series for Sherlock Holmes tend to divide the groupings into the novels and five collections of short stories: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, The Return of Sherlock Holmes, His Last Bow, and The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes.
Those were the first collected editions of the short stories, published when Doyle was still alive. I believe only Adventures and Memoirs were collections of Strand Magazine stories, while the last three were all published as short story books. I'm only certain, though, that Casebook was no previously published stories.
Wikipedia's article on the canon is pretty good.
Those were the first collected editions of the short stories, published when Doyle was still alive. I believe only Adventures and Memoirs were collections of Strand Magazine stories, while the last three were all published as short story books. I'm only certain, though, that Casebook was no previously published stories.
Wikipedia's article on the canon is pretty good.
14lampbane
>>2 stephmo:
I was just thinking about the Dark Tower books... does anyone think that creating a "superseries" for Dark Tower and all the related books might be a good idea?
By related books I mean The Stand, Rose Madder, The Eyes of the Dragon, Salems Lot and so forth. I'm looking at the page for the main series now and wondering how to put the graphic novels like The Gunslinger Born in there cleanly.
I was just thinking about the Dark Tower books... does anyone think that creating a "superseries" for Dark Tower and all the related books might be a good idea?
By related books I mean The Stand, Rose Madder, The Eyes of the Dragon, Salems Lot and so forth. I'm looking at the page for the main series now and wondering how to put the graphic novels like The Gunslinger Born in there cleanly.
15stephmo
For the Dark Tower, I'd leave the other books alone.
I did spend my time listing the Crimson King whenever he appeared in all of the other books (as are Roland and the Man in Black and all of his iterations).
For the Dark Tower, I'd leave only those books that are really part of the story in place. Everything's Eventual is borderline with the Sister's story, but it's a prequel. I believe that the Gunslinger trade is in (another series exists for the individual comics) already.
The others are mentions - and it gets more ambiguous - does Gerald's Game make it because Rose Madder is attatched to it as well? Do mentions of Stephen King as a real character in other books and short stories make it becasue he appears as a character eventually?
I did spend my time listing the Crimson King whenever he appeared in all of the other books (as are Roland and the Man in Black and all of his iterations).
For the Dark Tower, I'd leave only those books that are really part of the story in place. Everything's Eventual is borderline with the Sister's story, but it's a prequel. I believe that the Gunslinger trade is in (another series exists for the individual comics) already.
The others are mentions - and it gets more ambiguous - does Gerald's Game make it because Rose Madder is attatched to it as well? Do mentions of Stephen King as a real character in other books and short stories make it becasue he appears as a character eventually?
16lampbane
>>15 stephmo:
There's a definitive list printed at the start of the Dark Tower books, so which books get included isn't ambiguous at all.
There's a definitive list printed at the start of the Dark Tower books, so which books get included isn't ambiguous at all.
