Is this a series?

Greets:

Seriously asking here:

http://www.librarything.com/series/Prima+Official+Game+Guide

Yes, I'm aware that I'm second on that list for building it. Been meaning to ask as I read the "What isn;t a series?" blurb in the right column and I would think it wouldn;t work in this ask.

I ask in all seriousness because I;ve been thinking about doing up a TSR series with all of their gaming works numbered. We already have most of the games in their own unconnected series. Tempted to do one master list. (Especially since I;ve gotten lost on adding in what I do have.)

Thanks,
-drmike

If the publisher is the only one printing those books, it can be a series. I definitely think the TSR books should be a series.

The problem is 1 publisher decides to call books a series (Great English Authors, etc) and other editions exist that are not in that series.

Yes, the Prima guides are a series, and I'm surprised the TSR books aren't already.

The reason why I ask is if you read the blurb along the right, a collection of a publisher's books don;t make a series if they're not related. The Sims really isn;t related to Final Fantasy. :)

I;m looking at the "also advoid" section at the end.

thanks,

>5 theapparatus:
The For Dummies books aren't related to one another, yet they're still considered a series.

The For Dummies books are even more loosely related and their the canonical example for publisher's series.

Jinx.

Jinkies! :)

Thanks

The unrelated part is more - were these books intended as (written as/for) a series? I'm always annoyed at the 'Harlequin Intrigue' or whatever series - but yes, it is one. But if Harlequin decided to republish, say, Georgette Heyers as "Harlequin Classic Historical" - that wouldn't be a series, because Heyers didn't _write_ those books for Harlequin. Penguin Classics aren't a series, either - Dickens and Austen and whoever didn't write their books for Penguin or as a series.

So these are a series, TSR are a series, Dummies and Idiots are series, Chilton is a series. Penguin Classic Literature (or whatever its real name is) isn't, Norton Critical Editions isn't.

How about Tor Doubles? I removed one title from the series today but wasn't certain about the others.

I can see Tor Doubles as a series as they're numbered and presented as a series. With TSR, the numbers are in house production numbers, not in any order. (And considering some of the module series have later releases with lower production numbers, it;s all a mess.)

Tor Doubles are a difficult case.

The novellas typically weren't written specifically for Tor, they were just packaged up and published in this form by Tor. It is not an intentional series in the same way as the Dummies guides are.

For example if you look at the first one Clarke's A Meeting with Medusa was originally published in 1971, and KSR's Green Mars was in Interzone.

I think it is like the Gollancz SF Masterworks - something with a strong brand identity, something numbered and presented as a series, but something that does not meet IMO the standards of what a series is in LT land.

On the other hand, how likely is it that someone will have the same pairing published outside of the series? To me that is the real problem with things like Masterworks.

I don't really think TSR is a series. TSR was a publisher; not all books by a publisher are part of a series. The AD&D 1st Edition books, sure. All the (A)D&D books of any edition, maybe, though I can't see any reason to exclude the WotC D&D books from that series. But the Amazing Engine (http://www.librarything.com/series/Amazing+Engine) is no more connected to the DMG then Call of Cthulhu is.

I think the Tor Doubles are a valid series. Each is essentially a small anthology, and other anthology series are acceptable.

You know, maybe what we need is some sort of box we can check to say "series of works" or "publisher's series". The LT software can use the former for recommendations, but will not use the latter for recommendations. Then the average person won’t have to worry about whether or not something is a series, and those of us who do know won’t have to spend time deleting publishers’ series from CK.

I don't believe that series are used in recommendations. The issue is that they clutter up your series page and make it hard to see your "real" series.

And that books that are not part of the publishers' series are in the same works with books that are - so if one person puts Great Expectations into the 'series' Penguin Classics, everyone who has Great Expectations has that series although their book is not part of that series.

The reason that TSR is fine as a series is that none of those books have ever been published by anyone else or in any other form. Similarly, Tor Doubles are fine as a series, as long as they are marked so that they don't get combined with either of the individual books. As MarthaJeanne said, the works in that series are the two stories together; the books that contain both are unique to Tor (or Ace, or whoever) Doubles. So while the individual work The Ballad of Beta-2 is not in the Ace Doubles series, and Alpha Yes, Terra No! is also not in the Ace Doubles series, the book The Ballad of Beta-2/Alpha Yes, Terra No! is.

That just means that it doesn't run afoul of the rule about publisher series only having works by that publisher, but there still has to be some commonality to make it a series, beyond that they were all produced by the same publisher.

#20: Right. I'm not sure why the Amazing Engine System Guide, Warlord of Baluur (Marvel Super Heroes), Token of Dragonsblood (fantasy set in its own, non-D&D world), the Dungeon Master's Guide, oh, and Amazing Stories, Volume 63, Number 1, May 1988 all belong in the same series.

I suggested a site improvement that might be useful for keeping the the series page clutter free and might even lessen the arguments about any series that may be borderline.

Anyone interested can read this thread: http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=94762

16> I think the Tor Doubles are a valid series. Each is essentially a small anthology, and other anthology series are acceptable.

Wouldn't each be an omnibus book, not an anthology? I think anthology series (such as Dozois' Year's Best SF) make sense in much the same way as encyclopedias being an anthology make sense. I'm not sure I really see that with omnibus editions of otherwise independently released books.

ETA: Hmm, on further thought, I suppose an omnibus IS a specialized form of an anthology, and it's typically with works by the same author. Still, it just feels more like an "two-for-the-price-of-one!" bundling gimmick than an anthology does.

20: Because people often want to collect (or have collected) them all.

If For Dummies stands, there's no reason why series like Tor Doubles, Ace Doubles, and TSR couldn't stand too.

#24: For Dummies is a series; it's clearly labeled on the front "For Dummies" and they're packaged in a common style. TSR published a lot of unrelated crap, include Amazing Stories and off-brand fantasy; that does not a series make.

17>

Recommendations have nothing to do with it.

Seeing my copy of, say, Pride and Prejudice listed in eighty zillion Great Books series is the issue here (on the book page and series page), not recommendations.

Are the same For Dummies works ever published as non-For Dummies works? That would seem to be the crux of the matter here. Most books in omnibus editions are published separately. Most works in anthologies are not published separately (though they are published in other anthologies).

If they were, they would either:
a. still be recognizeable as a For Dummies book, even if it didn't say so on the cover.
b. be so rewritten that it would be doubtful whether they should be combined.

I think the "publisher monopoly" rule is rather bad. What should be important is wheter the books were intended to form a series from the start -- and the For Dummies clearly are.

28> I think the "publisher monopoly" was basically the only one that worked because it's where putting them in a series causes problems. If they're not a monopoly, then you'd have a book X that said it was part of publisher series Y, even though your copy isn't part of that publisher series.

I also think it might be moot. How many publisher series are there that are allowed on LT that weren't intended to form a series from the start?

I don't see the problem. If book X is written for publisher series A, it's written for publisher series A, even if it is later released as part of publisher series B. I think having the description mention "monopoly" puts the focus at the wrong spot.

A For Dummies book would be identifieable as such even if it was published by someone else, and should thus belong to the series regardless. On the other hand, we could currently have some kind of imprint series where the publisher has randomly thrown together authors without them being aware of it when they were writning the book.

30> Even if X was written for series A, if it's later released as !A, there's a problem in LT. That's because a person adds their !A copy to their catalog, and it claims the series it belongs to is A, even though this user's copy makes no reference to A and is, indeed, from a totally different publisher.

I have a cookbook like that. My copy of Blue corn and chocolate in not published by Knopf, but by a British publisher. But I was told not to take it out of the series. (I did just put in a canonical title to get rid of the series name there, though.)

32> Told by whom?

It was a discussion in the series group in the early days of the feature.

34> Ah. A question to the group - what would the answer to that be now? Perhaps this would be better asked in Combiners!. Personally, I would think the answer would be to remove it from the series. A more questionable answer would be to remove the series entirely (depends on how many of the other books have the same issue).

>31 brightcopy:
There certainly are works of fiction which fit into series where there is no way of telling that from the cover or any introduction (som of Jules Verne's works come to mind). I think author intention is far more important than later publishing history.

36> Read the following in a totally non-sarcastic voice: LT is centered around people's catalogs, not author's intentions. I realize how that could easily come off as something different, but I mean it seriously. That's why I think it's more serious to claim someones book is in a series that it's actually not in.

Which presumes we're talking about claiming books are in series they aren't. I think we assume too quick sometimes that a later publication removes a book from a series.

38> A later publication of a book, especially by a different publisher, should definitely remove a book from a publisher's series. At least, in my opinion. #32 was a prime example.

I completely agree with #39.

Although I accept there is interest in owning all the 'knopf cookery books' or whatever, if the book I own isn't published by Knopf, than the knopf series shouldn't appear in my series listings.

I don't know where such information should appear though - maybe this is a case for a non-work related lists feature.

>37 brightcopy:
Except that this is Common Knowledge, and everything in there does not have to apply to every single copy -- the canonical title, for example, might be different from mine without being wrong. Or names might be different in different translations.

If a book was intended as part of a series, that intention remains. Otherwise, we would have to delete series such as the Mysterious Island trilogy, which I think would be absurd. Or, to take a modern example: The Myths. This is a series commisioned by a publisher, by well-known authors. It's quite possible some of the books will be published separately. Still, I think it is interesting info to present to owners that the books were conceived as part of a series.

what I'm trying to say is that being part of a series should be considered as something different from having that series name printed on the cover.

41> Yeah, I see where you're coming from on that. I think, in general, the CK does follow the pattern of applying to the work. Canonical Title is still true, even if it's not printed on your book. That's why it's not just called "Title." Much like original publication date doesn't mean it's the publication date of your book, hence the "original."

I think that's why publisher series is such a special case. By definition it is publisher specific. I think you have to weigh the value of presenting that information versus presenting information that doesn't apply to their copy.

Really, the key is the much-requested Lists feature. If we had that, it might help a lot. Or, it might hurt, who knows. We'll probably just shift to arguments over whether something is a "series" or a "list". :D

I here I thought this was going to be an easy question. :)

I'm going to go ahead and do it. The main reason because I got lost entered all of that stuff in and have no idea where I am in that collection; because we already have the Dummies, the Idiots, and the Prima; and TSR numbered what they published for the most part so why not.

Gotta admit that I see it more as a list and such a list on the net does exist although over the years it;s been discovered to be less than complete although the creator is not longer updating it.

I did a lot of work on the Tor Doubles series. Most of those omnibus/anthologies are indeed exclusive to the series, although there are one or two exceptions. But I'm also of the opinion stated in #41: that the series CK still applies to the work, even if it doesn't apply to a specific book.

11> I assume you removed Tor Double #6? There's an obvious hole in the series page, now.

44> When you say "most of those omnibus/anthologies are indeed exclusive to the series", you just mean it's exclusive that they're bundled into the omnibus. The works themselves are not exclusive.

I think it's just a fundamental disagreement on whether some omnibuses should be treated different than others. Other omnibuses are treated as collections of the works they contain. People are advocating that doubles be treated differently. I just don't see that as being anything beyond publication data. Similarly, if Gollancz stated releasing SF Masterworks omibuses, I wouldn't expect them to be treated as another "special case" book that's not just a collection of the works.

ETA: Ugh - and now I notice that the Tor Doubles have screwed up author names (list only one author of the two, thus claiming authorship of both works by one author). Now I go from wishing they weren't in series to wishing they didn't exist as doubles at all. ;)

There are three works potentially involved in every Tor double:
* One book
* The other book
* The Tor Double omnibus which contains the two books

When saltzmanz said "most of those omnibus/anthologies are indeed exclusive to the series" he was referring to the omnibus work, not either constituent of it. I don't think anyone arguing for the Tor Doubles series thinks that they should be treated differently, or that they're a special case. Just that, because they are a series of works (which happen to be omnibuses) that are exclusive (for the most part) to the publisher, they qualify as a series the same way as for Dummies does.

The contained works, if cataloged separately, would of course not be part of the series.

If Gollancz started releasing SF Masterworks omnibuses that each contained a collection of works that were not collected into any other omnibus work, then they would qualify as a series.

The fact that Tor Doubles are omnibus editions of two other works is irrelevant to deciding whether the doubles themselves are a series.

Nicely said, rorrison. Thanks.

rorrison is exactly right.

The fact that none of the short stories in Dozois' Year's Best Science Fiction series are exclusive to the anthologies they're in, or to the series, doesn't make it any less of a series; the series pertains to the anthologies, not to their constituents, and the anthologies are unique to the series. Just because Tor Doubles are a minimal case of anthologies with only two elements each doesn't mean the situation is any different.

I'm afraid I'm we're going to have to just agree to disagree on this one (well, none of you have to do anything, but I'm going to). It's not like I'm going to go around modifying the series or anything. :D

I agree with all the ones like 16, 46, 48 - Tor Doubles are a proper series for the reasons stated. Just as Year's Best SF are a proper series.

The "written for the series" is something of a red herring. For example, the short works contained within Best of series were not written for the series, though the Best of books themselves were written to be part of the Best of series. The container was to be part of a series, most of the contents were not originally written specifically for the Best Of series (the exception would include articles that some Best of series contain that examine the year, a year in review kind of thing).

Greets again:

I started: http://www.librarything.com/series/TSR

I've been filling out the game titles as well that others have started but never finished. Hope this is ok.

thanks again,
-drmike

I thought you said in #5 that the books have to be related to be in a series. I include #21 by reference; those books aren't related.

Further examples:

"Writers for the Seventies" (http://www.librarything.com/series/Writers+for+the+70s) is a series I'd like to know more about; and

In some circumstances, I could see wanting information on a "5 Steps to a 5" series (http://www.librarything.com/work/4141338/61577992); but

Respectfully, I don't understand how "Privé-domein" (http://www.librarything.com/series/Priv%C3%A9-domein) constitutes a proper series, except that it connects George Orwell (especially, Shooting and Elephant!) with Goethe, Cees Nooteboom and Isaac Bashevis Singer (More Stories from My Father's Court). But my own library does that much. (At least the Privé-domein series may introduce me to other writers I'm unfamiliar with, particularly Europeans it seems, and before the also win the Nobel Prize for literature ... .)

#53
Those look like classic examples of the kind of publishers' series that should be removed, which are the subject of a long-standing discussion on the Series group, http://www.librarything.com/topic/81347.

Now you've pointed them out, I'm sure they'll get wiped out fairly quickly.

And the answer to how they get into LT is that members add them by using the Common Knowledge Series field on the edit book page.

#53

I can understand how someone might want that series: Privé-domein.

My workaround to having series that I can search and are meaningful to me is to put in into the comments field. While I would like my series page to reflect my interests, with CK it's not possible. (I am still waiting for someone to try to make a Modern Library series - I can find them easily in my catalog by searching the publisher. If I were truly interested, I could add the number in the comments field as I have done for other series titles.)

Thanks for your replies. I'm interested to know more about how we decide what should or shouldn't be a series.

My further research on "Writers for the Seventies" has (to date) disclosed five titles, all of which Ive added to the LT series. As best I can tell, each was published solely as part of this series, and -- personally -- I'm glad to know of them all, and would be very interested to have the titles that we don't already. No, this isn't a series in the same way that "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings" are series; but I certainly hope it's not deleted now that I've drawn your attention to it.

Similarly, I can see real value in having a "5 Steps to a 5" series, inasmuch as an AP student using one series title on a given subject may find other titles helpful for other subjects. Again, I think the value of connecting the "5 Steps to a 5" titles as a series lies in their each being (a) written for similar purposes, (b) following a generally coordinated plan, (c) for a given audience, and (d) published in a comprehensive program with related titles. Is this four-point test a fair basis for identifying and connecting titles as a series?

Along these lines, I also see rationale for connecting the 855 titles of "Heartsong Presents" (http://www.librarything.com/series/Heartsong+Presents) in a series, although I'm neither a particular fan of that series nor part of the publisher's target market; but the logic begins to break down at this point, since at least one "Heartsongs Presents" title (http://www.librarything.com/work/3137290) carries a separate, stronger association with other titles in a non-"Heartsongs" series by the same author, to wit: "The River Between Them" (http://www.librarything.com/series/The%20River%20Between%20Them%20Series). And by the time we get to "Modern Library" (as noted by fdholt in #56 above) or "Privé-domein," I just don't see sufficient connection to warrant separate series identificiation based solely on publisher's edition. I noted my reservations about "Privé-domein" in my post #53 above (I'd be very interested to know more about the benefit of this "series"), and -- although I'm personally interested in "Modern Library" as a series -- I don't understand the point of connecting Aristotle, Anatole France, Sigmund Freud, Henrik Ibsen (OK; maybe Freud & Ibsen ... ), Jerzy Kosinski, ( ... and maybe Kosinski!), Pierre Loti, Aleksandr Pushkin, Richard Rodgers, Bernard Shaw, and Virgil in a "series." Frankly, their inclusion in our library (and in those of other LT members) is connection enough, and (to me) part of the point of LibraryThing.

I'm very interested to have others' further thoughts, comments and responses on these points, or guideance as to what I'm missing. Q: Is it appropriate to contact LT members who have connected works to "questioned" series, asking them to tune into our discussion? I look forward to hearing from any and all.

ETA: #54: EveleenM, thanks especially for the series discussion reference; I've starred it to look at further, later. #56: fdholt: I heartily second your approach to Modern Library titles; it sounds like the same technique I use, and it works very well for me!

Silly question. How come there isn't a series for 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die? I would think that would be of interest.

edit: Actually I see it as a Book Award list. Never mind:

http://www.librarything.com/bookaward/1001+Books+You+Must+Read+Before+You+Die

58> As an award it makes sense, as a list it would be great - but it's definitely not a series. There's no linkage between 2001:A Space Odyssey and Huckleberry Finn except this grouping.

That's really the defining element of a series - do _all_ editions of this work relate to one another? If the author wrote it in the same setting/universe with the same or related characters, then obviously yes. If it was written for a publisher - not just published by, but written for (the For Dummies books, Harlequin romances), then yes. But if it was written and published separately, then a publisher put out a set of books - no! Great Expectations and Jane Eyre are not related, even if they both had an edition published as a Penguin Classic. It gets a little more fuzzy if the first edition was published as part of a publisher series, then it later came out separately (some of the Harlequin books come out as monthly books, ie Harlequin Presents, then get republished by Harlequin or by the author in individual editions). Still, I'd count that as a series if it was originally written as one of a publisher series.

Modern Library, 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die - no. They'd be great as lists, when that feature shows up, and the person who made 1001 an award was very clever - but they definitely shouldn't be series. Writers for the 70s _is_ a series, the books were written specifically for that series. They may contain writings of Tolkien and Hesse, but they're by authors who were writing for the series.

Now please pick holes in my 'defining element'. Are there any things that are really series that don't have a written-as or written-for link? Are there any that do but aren't really series?

ETA fix series name

What about: "Pasaulinės fatastikos aukso fondas" ( http://www.librarything.com/series/Pasaulin%C4%97s+fatastikos+aukso+fondas%3B )? And what are we doing about Series that shouldn't be? Thanks for your responses.

We should be removing series that shouldn't be (after discussion to double check of course).

And that one definitely shouldn't be. Should we check with the creator of the series? S/he also has books tagged with that phrase - no idea what it means aside from 'fatastikos' fantasy (all the books are SF&F). Asking what the series represents might be good - but as I don't speak the language that the majority of the books are in, not gonna be me.

#62

It looks obviously to be some kind of publisher series or maybe just a loose collection of SF&F - I can't tell. I wouldn't even bother asking.

Considering a total of 12 people have weighed in on that series, maybe we're not seeing something that they are.

#64

Except I doubt very much that they have weighed in on that series. It may well be edits to another series line (for one of the related series) where they have left the offending line alone.

Would they show up in that count though? My understanding and from what I've seen, you only show up if you do something with that specific series. Editing a related series doesn't qualify as an edit for that specific series.

To use an example, I point out this series:

http://www.librarything.com/bookaward/Dungeon+magazine%27s+%22The+30+Greatest+D%...

Many of those works, I've added to other series but yet I don't have a count of any edits in that specific series.

>62 jjmcgaffey: Google translates Serijos "Pasaulinės fantastikos Aukso fondas" as Series of 'World Gold Fund-fiction".

It seems to be a series of SF books of the Lithuanian publishing house Eridanas.

My experience is that CK history is pretty useless for telling who did what to a CK field.

68> My experience is that CK history is pretty useless for telling who did what to a CK field.

Sadly, I agree. And (probably like you) I'm used to making sense from code diffs and revision logs. It's really unfortunate, because a lot of time was obviously put into getting it where it is.

Not series (in the LT sense)?

http://www.librarything.com/series/01

http://www.librarything.com/series/02

Thanks for your thoughts.

Frankly, those don't look like series in any sense of the word.

70>

That's very strange.

All of those I checked in /series/02 are, in fact, #2 in a series, which would suggest that someone doesn't understand the field and is entering the series number.

ETA: The offending series are entered on librarything.es, by kika66. I'm working on 02 at the moment. Look for "conocimiento comun."

Just checked the spanish site for the Alienist. The series field shows "Laszlo Kreizler" in the first line and "01" in the second line.

Done with 02, on to 03.

I've done 01, as well as a couple of other random ones in the form "SERIES, 02".

FYI: Suggestion about trying to catch this data early - http://www.librarything.com/topic/103073

On the numerical series issue:

They appear to go up to 41, though obviously there are fewer and fewer books per "series" as the numbers increase.

I'm putting this text in the "Series Description" as I clear out a series:

If your book is here, it's in the wrong place. To indicate that a book is #2 in a series, enter the number in parentheses on the SAME LINE as the series name -- "Series Name (2)", rather than using commas or entering the number on a separate line.

Everyone's adding the number information to the series name, right? So if it has "Poirot" and "03", you're editing Poirot to be "Poirot (03)"?

#1, 2, and 3 are now done.

Can somebody who speaks spanish please leave a note on Kika06's profile about the correct syntax for series? I see that he/she is continuing so that there are again entries in at least the 01 and 02 series.

I'd do it myself except I can't manage spanish. I will send one in english.

Not a Series? Maybe a Publisher Series?

http://www.librarything.com/series/Boekenweekgeschenk

Thanks for your thoughts.

Boekenweekgeschenk means "Book week gift" in Dutch. They're a yearly publication to celebrate, well, books. They're all novellas written specifically for this yearly publication. At least as far as I know. I never really got into the whole thing because I was never very interested in Dutch literature to begin with.

So it's a series in the same way that 'For Dummies' mentioned earlier is. It also rather begs the question of how non-English series titles should be handled.

Since some of the recent ones have English translations, it is likely that they don't really count as LT series. publishers series may be a rather loose use of 'publisher', but is probably the best place for them.

How does having a translation disqualify something from being part of a series, MarthaJeanne?

Because all the non-Dutch editions are not part of Boekenweekgeschenk. Therefore that is not a valid LT series.

>>Also avoid publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question. So, the Dummies guides are a series of works. But the Loeb Classical Library is a series of editions, not of works.

You can read that in the side bar on any series page. This is more like Loeb Classical Library.

But Loeb Classical doesn't solely include original works created specifically for it. All Boekenweekgeschenk books were created for Boekenweekgeschenk and Boekenweekgeschenk only includes books created for Boekenweekgeschenk.

Other pubs may take the series, but they're still Boekenweekgeschenk books. And I don't think any of them fall into any other series.

I get where you're coming from, MarthaJeanne, but I have to disagree with you on its status as "Not a Series". The trouble with this particular case is that both our points are based on something that is true.

The Dutch language books are part of a specific series. To my knowledge, they're never published outside this series. (Except in translation, so I learned today.)

The English translations aren't part of a specific series. They're just books the translator and/or publisher liked and wanted to share with more people than those who speak Dutch.

Whether the books are part of a series proper depends on which of the two facts is considered most important. Basically, we're rehashing what jjmcgaffey mentioned about the Harlequin Presents series in #59, except with the added difficulty that these particular books aren't written specifically in English.

Another difficulty added to the mix is that the CK has likely been edited on the Dutch LT site. To Dutch people the books are part of a series in the same way that the Dummies books. I know that CK is slanted towards English use, but even so. If series like the Dummies guides must retain their title in translation, it should be mentioned as a criterium/example in the bit you've quoted from CK along with the information already there.

And I'd be vehemently opposed to that. Personally, I'd rather see CK redesigned in such a way that it can handle cases like this more elegantly than the either/or methodthat seems to be our only option at the moment.

I'd leave them how they are. If not because they are a series by (Dutch language version of) LT standards, then because they'll be considered a series by the vast majority of LTers who come into contact with them.

The Dutch language books are part of a specific series. To my knowledge, they're never published outside this series. (Except in translation, so I learned today.)

If someone can look at their books in their library and it says that their edition belongs to a series that it really doesn't then that work shouldn't be in that series. People have argued that original intent is all that matters but that view has not prevailed. This is the situation that publishers series were added for.

This is the situation that publishers series were added for.

Read the rest of my post again, please. I think this is an issue that's a lot more complicated that "Is this a proper series or is this a publisher series?"

This is a situation that CK is currently unequipped to handle because the answer to the question of whether this book is a series or not depends entirely on what language you're editing in.

To Dutch perception "Boekenweekgeschenk" is every bit as much a series as, say, "For Dummies" and nothing at all like "Loeb Classical". It meets every and all criteria that CK help mentions regarding whether it's a series.

To you and MarthaJeanne and probably other non-Dutch people, it does not because whoever was in charge or publishing the translations decided that it wasn't worth preserving the series title for their purposes. But I digress.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are two possible and equally valid perceptions to the series status of "Boekenweekgeschenk" as a series and that CK as a whole isn't able to handle a situation like this one.

There is only one definition for a series that "Boekenweekgeschenk" doesn't meet and that's that foreign language editions don't indicate that the books are part of a series and this definition is not mentioned anywhere in the official LT documentation on series. Hence why I said that if this definition is so crucial to the definition of what constitutes a series, it should be added.

Right now, by LT standards and certainly on that subsite of LT where the books are likely to be most prevalent and catalogued, the books are a series.

CK can't handle books that are legitimate series in one language but not in another, and that the real issue at hand in a case like this. I recall from a discussion on canonical names that making CK multilingual in such a matter is, at best, insanely difficult. Hence the suggestion that this linguistic requirement is added to the official definition of what constitutes a series so we don't get caught in "Is not. Is too" discussion like this is already becoming.

ETA: Edited because I'm an idiot and made it sound like I assumed only jjwilson61 and MarthaJeanne would think it was an issue. Obviously that is a stupid and untrue thing to say. I apologise for the inclarity, tone and implication, and hope it's sufficiently edited to be clear that I think this is a valid and general stance to have on the situation.

Rushdie's Fury was not written for this and then translated.

Another problem is that it is not just entered on the Dutch site. The series shows up on the .com site. If it were just on the Dutch site you probably wouldn't have any problems with it.

I agree with MarthaJeanne that as a practical matter if the series were only seen on the Dutch site then this wouldn't be an issue. However, from a language-independent view it isn't a series due to editions that fall outside the series. There's no exception for when the edition is a translation.

Rushdie's Fury was not written for this and then translated.

As I understand it, it was written for this. It just also happens to be translated because Rushdie doesn't write/know Dutch and the series is a series of Dutch book. Even if it's not, though, it's the exception and not the rule.

ETA: I did some digging on Dutch sites - sadly only a few are newspaper articles - and those confirm that Rushdie was commissioned to write the book. Caused a small uproar apparently because he's not Dutch, doesn't write in Dutch and is a international bestselling author. I know this may confound the issue and doesn't really relate to the issue at hand, but I felt it worth looking into and reporting back on all the same. ^-^ It's such an interesting thing, after all.

Another problem is that it is not just entered on the Dutch site. The series shows up on the .com site. If it were on the Dutch site you probably wouldn't have any problems with it.

YES! That's EXACTLY what I'm saying is what's the underlying problem here. When it comes to foreign language series (that are only series in that language( this is the problem that needs to be addressed!

I actually wholeheartedly agree with you that the series information doesn't belong with the translated editions of the books. They're not published as part of the series. They're not translated as part of a series. They're emphatically NOT a series or a part of this particular series. The trouble is that the Dutch books are genuinely part of a Dutch series. As I mentioned, it's like that discussion about canonical names where a German member kept editing the canonical name (presumably on the German domain) and others kept on editing the canonical name back to what it should be in English.

CK can't currently handle regional differences like in this situation (and if I remember rightly is unlikely to do so due to coding issues). Hence why I'm arguing that the definitions for what is and isn't a series need to include the information that series titles should be preserved across languages before it can be considered a series for the purposes of CK data.

That's not an ideal solution by any means, but it would end a lot of discussion on whether or not series like the Boekenweekgeschenk books should be considered a series or not. The only available answer would then be "No, it isn't a series for the purposes of LT/CK because it doesn't meet our criteria for a series".

This may be an issue that will only be resolved when the forthcoming editions layer materializes.

>91 sparrowbunny:: I did some digging on Dutch sites - sadly only a few are newspaper articles - and those confirm that Rushdie was commissioned to write the book. Caused a small uproar apparently because he's not Dutch, doesn't write in Dutch and is a international bestselling author.

Thank you, Shanra; that's an interesting bit of information that I'd not heard before, and it actually makes me feel better about "Boekenweekgeschenk" as a series. I'd be interested to know where you found this account confirmed. But, even so, I'm still inclined toward moving this CK from "Series" to "Publishers Series." At a minimum, doing so should help to clarify that Fury is loosely related to the other "Boekenweekgeschenk" titles, and not a sequel, prequel, etc. of another Rushdie work. I'd also welcome other thoughts and suggestions. Thank you.

How does moving it from "Series" to "Publisher Series" make it clear that Fury isn't a sequel/prequel/whatever to another Rushdie work? Presumably the Boekenweekgeschenk series wouldn't include others of his.

#92 This may be an issue that will only be resolved when the forthcoming editions layer materializes.

Actually, having looked at CK now, one potential way to fix the problem might be to make sure that CK knowledge only leaves the language its entered in when it's manually moved there. That way we could remove the non-Dutch series information entirely without it affecting its status as a Dutch series. (I know that may seem like it goes against the grain. Maybe it does. That probably deserves its own discussion thread.)

#93 I'd be interested to know where you found this account confirmed.

For one the NRC. There are more that say something similar, but they're all muddled up with second-hand sellers of the book. I'm afraid I don't have time to try and find more examples for you.

#94 Presumably the Boekenweekgeschenk series wouldn't include others of his.

It doesn't, but I think what jasbro is concerned about is that people will see "Boekenweekgeschenk 2001" (which, as far as I'm concerned is a problem with this series) and think this is the title of a series that Rushdie wrote. Non-Dutch people will only realise it's not a series by Rushdie until they go onto the series page.

Am I the only person who speaks Dutch/is from the Netherlands in this discussion by the by? I'm curious.

ETA: Added in message numbers so it's clearer who I'm quoting. (Sorry. I usually try to avoid discussions and am not particularly good at them. *ruffles hair*)

>94 keristars:: Only that a "Publisher's Series" doesn't seem to entail as close a connection between the various works, as its selected by a publisher to accommodate particular purposes apart from the assembled works themselves (e.g., marketing a collection of great literature in easily recognizable and/or low-cost editions). On the other hand, we seem to use "Series" to relate works that are quite deliberately connected to each other in their original conception and creation. Two examples: "Modern Library" as a Publishers Series ( http://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Modern%2520Library ) and "Gone with the Wind" as a Series ( http://www.librarything.com/series/Gone+With+the+Wind+Novels ; wholly apart from judgment on the Mitchell Estate's decision to contract for sequels).

Actually, I'm intrigued by Shanra's research and explanations of how Rushdie's Fury is connected with the Boekenweekgeschenk series (Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!), and I'm (personally) much more comfortable than before with Boekenweekgeschenk as a Series. Still, given our use of that CK field and relationships between other titles of Rushdie's (e.g., Haroun and the Sea of Stories, and Luka and the Fire of Life), identifying Fury as part of this Series still seems a bit misleading. I think a Publishers Series is simply the better choice for such designation, but I'll leave it for others to decide. Thanks for all your input and support!

>91 sparrowbunny:
I could be wrong, but I thought that series was site specific. The other language series only turning up under "Related series". I think someone either added the series on the .com site or copied it over.
>96 jasbro:
I think part of the problem is that there are really two different types of publisher series on LT. One is the "monopoly" or "Dummies", which is allowed to be a 'real' series, and the other is not.
The hard part is deciding if a given series is one or the other. One theory is that a publisher series which was commissioned as a series remains a 'real' series even if one book was later published outside the series. The other theory says that if a book is republished separately, then it, at least must be removed.
Adding non-English series just makes things even more fun. I think the normal convention here is that a series name should only exist on the corresponding language site, here meaning the Dutch one.

#97 by @Scorbet> It is site specific, except for the English site. When Series is filled out on the English site but blank on a non-English, the English Series info will "bleed over" onto the non-English site. I think this is a design compromise to allow the smaller non-English sites to benefit from all the Series work that is filled in on the English site.

#96 You're very welcome. ^-^ Glad you found it useful!

#98: Then couldn't we resolve the entire issue by removing the series from the English site and leaving it alone on the Dutch already? It sounds like that's possible from what Scorbet said. (I assumed it wasn't, but would be thrilled to stand corrected on this.)

Maybe if "publisher series" were renamed into something more general, though, that'd also solve the issue. Though that would involve moving a lot of series data around...

#99 by @Shanra> Then couldn't we resolve the entire issue by removing the series from the English site and leaving it alone on the Dutch already?

I think there's been some consensus towards that on this thread, but I could be mistaken. I'm not sure I saw anyone adamantly against it, though. It seems like it might be the best way to manage within the existing LT limitations.

>99 sparrowbunny:, 100: Eh, I don't know 'bout that removal business ... .

Once I understood the origin of the Boekenweekgeschenk reference on Fury, having Dutch info available on the English site enriches my knowledge of the work, which I (for one) appreciate.

In any event, I would still advocate moving the Boekenweekgeschenk reference from "Series" to "Publishers Series"; in the end, I think Rushdie's publishing his work for a wider audience than subscribers to the original (publisher) series may have actually changed the essential character of Boekenweekgeschenk from a "Dummies"-style, proprietary Series to a Publishers Series including works of wider circulation.

I guess I go back to my four-point test in #57 above, and I don't see much difference between that standard and jjmcgaffey's proposal in #59 (except that his is a simpler, more elegant statement).

#101 by @jasbro> What I really wish is there was some sort of CK for tracking "commission" (meaning the book was commissioned for a certain purpose) for works. The Boekenweekgeschenk isn't really a series (little "s"); it's more of a group of books that have something in common. Unfortunately, this often means a Series (big "S") in LT. It's like if we didn't have the Awards CK, how we'd wind up with a Nobel Prize for Literature Winner LT Series (of course, I know some people still try to do that anyway). But really, that's having the jam a square peg in a round hole. I think that's why these discussions go the way they do. There's no good solution so we try to fit them into the slots we have available. I just wonder if this one and ones like it aren't pointing out the need for a new slot.

# 99, 102, etc. / @Shanra, @brightcopy, et al.: Is Boekenweekgeschenk not a publisher? Maybe I've misunderstood, and it's just gonna be problematic for a while (or longer). Curious. Maybe even "curiouser and curiouser ... ."

No, it isn't. It's a series of books specifically commissioned for an annual event by a publisher.

(Which, granted, doesn't necessarily stop it from being considered a publisher series on LT, but it's not a publisher in its own right. Hence why I'm clamouring that the series doesn't belong in that slot.)

104> Publisher Series was created as a place to put series that don't meet the criteria for Series. So don't get hung up on what the term Publisher Series means it only has a negative definition of not "the LT definition of Series."

> 104, 105: I tend to concur with 105; sounds like a publisher's series to me. But I'm still glad to know about its connection to Rushdie's Fury. (Please don't take the Publishers Series away!)

>106 jasbro:

But as a Dutch series whether Publisher Series or not it really belongs only on the Dutch page. If you think the information regarding the origin of the book is interesting, then I would add it to the work description.

Concerning the Dutch "Boekenweekgeschenk" series: many of them are also republished (outside of that "series") in Dutch as well.

#109 by @BarkingMatt> Right, but you know there is a divide amongst people who value the information that something was originally part of a publisher series, even if its later published outside it. The "once a publisher series work, always a publisher series work" philosophy. I wonder if a CK field for "Commission" might work better for these and possibly some other works. Of course, it may be so infrequently used as to not be worth it.

> 110: Yeah. That's one of the reasons why I never deleted this info - even though I never fully agreed.

But this whole "series" is a bit of a mess. I know for sure, for example, that De andere wereld by Marten Toonder wasn't commissioned for it. This work appeared - serialized - in newspapers well before if became a "Boekenweekgeschenk".

p.s.: So most of these books were commissioned as " Boekenweekgeschenk", but not all of them. And most were never republished, but some were. What to do??? I gladly admit I don't have the answer.

>109 Nicole_VanK:, 110, 111, @BarkingMatt & @brightcopy: We have a Publisher's Series CK field, which seems like it could be real handy here. I thought the only real question about Boekenweekgeschenk was whether it's a "Series" series or a "Publisher's Series" series. What am I missing?

112> True, I got off on a little bit of a tangent. My point more addressed whether or not it is a Series series.

(Edited this message and replaced my original text that was a result of cerebral flatulence.)

So, Q: Does Boekenweekgeschenk get moved to a Publisher's Series, or left alone as a Series?

> 112-114: Just explaining. I would support making it a publishers series.

Hi, all:

I'll confess to being a bit dense and slow in processing these weighty issues, but I also want to share an epiphany of sorts before it gets away, to wit:

Availability of any work in AN EDITION OTHER THAN part of a Series may indicate whether it's a constituent part of an interconnected LT-type "Series" (e.g., the many pieces of The Lord of the Rings, in all their variant formats and editions) or an LT-type "Publishers Series," assembling distinct works in a common presentation or marketing effort (e.g., "Ancient Christian Writers," http://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Ancient+Christian+Writers ).

Applying such reasoning to Boekenweekgeschenk, Rushdie's separate publication of Fury -- apart from its first, commissioned Boekenweekgeschenk appearance -- suggests that it's not tied to other volumes in a Series, but rather is one of many distinct works that LT members (i.e., we) identify collectively as a Publisher's Series.

Is this so obvious that I should just be quiet? Am I missing something important (like, maybe, lunch)? Do we switch Boekenweekgeschenk to a Publishers Series? "Inquiring minds want to know ... ."

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback.

>116 jasbro:

That's the theory, however, in practice there are a couple of issues that complicate things. There is a view as I and @brightcopy mentioned before that works being *commissioned* for a series gives them an inherent connection to that series, even if they are republished in other editions.

There are also series that are a mixture of new works and reprints. One idea is that the whole series is no longer a Series in this case, whereas others feel that only the reprints should be moved to Publisher's Series.

In the case of Boekenwerkgeschenk, I would also support moving it to Publisher's Series, particularly given that @Barkingmatt mentioned in 111 that not just Fury, but other works had been republished in Dutch.

>116 jasbro:
I don't feel like recapitulating the whole discussion on series vs. publishers series. If you are interested you can look at this thread. For my views, search for eromsted.

On Boekenwerkgeschenk, I have the following question, mostly for BarkingMatt because he might know the answer:

If someone in the Netherlands says, "This book was the Boekenwerkgeschenk for 1978" could the book be any copy of Overkomst dringend gewenst or would that statement only make sense for copies actually given out during Boekenweek in 1978?

If Boekenwerkgeschenk can apply to any copy than the concept is valid for the work and the list of all such works should be a Series. If Boekenwerkgeschenk can only apply to the particular copies given out during Boekenweek than there are many copies that are not in the series and Publishers Series is a better fit, even though Boekenwerkgeschenk is a rather different thing than say, Modern Library Classics.