Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

https://www.goodreads.com/series/9420...

As many of you know, Carroll is famous for writing Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass

The problem we have is two-fold. Part 1 I would appreciate a Staff decision on, Part 2 is just legwork...

Previous topics of relevance:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Part 1:
Which versions of Alice and Looking Glass should be combined?

Some Librarians are separating out editions illustrated by specific illustrators. For example, these are notes left on editions (Librarian names removed):
"Separating editions specifically of Lisbeth Zwerger's illustrated work; those editions are exclusively translated versions from one to the other; it makes little sense for them to be mixed with the other 2k+ editions (by other illustrators or adaptors), making it harder to locate individual works."
"PLEASE DO NOT combine this batch with the rest of the Alice's Adventure in Wonderland lot! Separating editions specifically of Helen Oxenbury's illustrated work; those editions are exclusively translated versions from one to the other; it makes little sense for them to be mixed with the other 2k+ editions (by other illustrators or adaptors), making it harder to locate individual works."

QUESTION: My feeling is that if an illustrated edition is sufficiently different to not be combined with the main 'block', then it is an adaptation and therefore needs to have Lewis Carroll not placed as primary author.

Part 2:
Combining all the stray non-English editions! Then separating out to recombine all the ones combined in error (e.g. An edition of Alice Through the Looking Glass combined with the collected Alice + Looking Glass editions). Then completing the combines. There will be many time-outs here I suspect, and this may take a Super or Staff given the sheer quantity of adds they have collectively.

There should be combines as:
Alice
Looking Glass
Alice's Adventures Under Ground - this is the original version of Alice, but is sufficiently different (See this article about the manuscript from the BL)
Alice + Looking Glass

Comics are adaptations and should be listed under the adaptor. Not sure what to do if that isn't known...

CAUTION:
Read notes before combining editions because some contain more than the title would infer, e.g. the Norton Critical Edition of Alice in Wonderland also contains Hunting of the Snark.
Don't combine Adaptations or alternate formats like colouring books.

Part 2b: Author names for non-English editions

Lewis Carroll as primary author in non-adapted editions
Lewis Carroll in other language/script for non-English editions, e.g. На тым баку Люстра, і што там напаткала Алесю
Illustrator (if exists) - I've not been adding secondary author entries for illustrators in non-English editions, but that may be a mistake.
Translator (if exists) in appropriate script.

Part 2c: Adaptations

Adaptations need to have the authors as:

Adaptor (first)
Lewis Carroll (second)
then Illustrator and any non-English versions of names (if these exist)

Emy wrote: "My feeling is that if an illustrated edition is sufficiently different to not be combined with the main 'block', then it is an adaptation and therefore needs to have Lewis Carroll not placed as primary author."

Agreed. However, that would only be true if there is a lot more differentiating it than merely a different illustrator.

Since I have a small collection of Alice editions, I'm naturally interested in this thread.

So far I have steered clear from adding my editions to my shelves c.q. to GR because of the mess I found.

F.e. The Annotated Alice: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, And, Through the Looking-Glass, More Annotated Alice: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass and The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition are currently all three listed separately, when I think they should be combined with the other Alice + Looking Glass editions, or at the very least with each other. Or are introductory essays sufficient reason to keep them apart from the rest and should enlarged editions not be combined with the earlier ones?

Can abridged editions be added to the full editions (looking at Les Misérables, the answer is apparently yes)? See f.e. this edition (not on GR yet, at least not found with the ISBN): https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Book...

Are editions retold by someone considered adaptations? This one: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... is retold (and abridged) by David Blair and f.e. misses the Long Tale. Should it stay combined with the other editions?

Etc. etc.

Annotated editions get combined with other editions, as do ones with introductory essays. Abridgements too, but not adaptations.

"Retold" can be ambiguous, but most often means adaptation.

I previously separated out the illustrators Helen Oxenbury and Lisbeth Zwerger, Robert Ingpen, and Rébecca Dautremer. Actually, I combined them because they had been separated. Another librarian convinced me they were adaptations, so we worked very hard to change the primary author so that they could not be recombined. (This may be the same librarian who has left the do not combine notes, I'd have to look.)

I will not share the entire PM exchange, but this is the thrust from the other librarian:

They are picture books with illustrations dominating the books, and I have actually tried moving up the adaptors before, but most of the time other people just recognized the title and bump up Lewis Carroll all over again.

rivka wrote: "Annotated editions get combined with other editions, as do ones with introductory essays. Abridgements too, but not adaptations.

"Retold" can be ambiguous, but most often means adaptation."

Thanks, rivka :)

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I will not share the entire PM exchange, but this is the thrust from the other librarian:

They are picture books with illustrations dominating the books, and I have actually tried moving up the ad..."

One of the reasons for making a thread was that I felt if we have a definitive decision, then we can link to it in the Librarian note and anyone who disagrees should bring it here before commenting again. I definitely think that if they are adaptations then we need to change the authors back and put a clearer note - the current one reads as opinion not policy decision and so other librarians may feel more confident in disagreeing and thus recombining etc.

Emy wrote: "One of the reasons for making a thread was that I felt if we have a definitive decision, then we can link to it in the Librarian note and anyone who disagrees should bring it here before commenting again. "

And I think that is a good process. I wanted to add what had happened before to help with any official decision.

Good call :)

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "They are picture books with illustrations dominating the books"

Unfortunately, that begs the question. If they contain all or most of Carroll's original text, that's not an adaptation, regardless of how many illustrations are also included.

rivka wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "They are picture books with illustrations dominating the books"

Unfortunately, that begs the question. If they contain all or most of Carroll's original text, that's not..."

Agreed. I hesitated with changing them. But I have not seen a single edition, so I felt it best to rely on the person who was familiar with them. As I said, originally I combined them all because I thought separating out just because of illustrations wasn't complying with policy. I just wanted to pass on the conversation so that you would be charged with making the decision, not me. ;-)

Hi there folks! I'm like really awful when it comes to writing stuff (as in what I wrote in the librarian note that was brought up in the the initial thread), I realized the tone of it is somewhat condescending if not outright offending, so if it bothered anyone, please accept my belated apology on the matter.

I'm not exactly sure how to go about the situation, but I'd like you guys to read this thread:

www.goodreads.com/topic/show/17443700
(titled: "Picture book adaptations of classic stories")
The discussion only takes 2 posts, so it's a fairly quick read.

I think my brain took great liberty to interpret what was acceptable based on this thread. I see the part where a specific award for one edition showing up for all editions being a problem, and that was the angle I'm going with.

Lisbeth Zwerger's version of Alice in Wonderland won "Zilveren Penseel" in 2000; only hers and not others should get to display it.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilvere...

Zilveren Pensee award page on GR:
www.goodreads.com/award/show/2830
(on that note, the entry for 2006 shouldn't be the default edition of The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales, but specifically Charlotte Dematons's "Grimm", for this edition was the one that actually won the award.)

Back to Alice's Adventures In Wonderland,
Anthony Browne's version also received individual recognitions:

Today there are usually eight books on the Greenaway Medal shortlist. According to CCSU, some runners-up through 2002 up were Commended (from 1959) or Highly Commended (from 1974). There were 99 commendations of both kinds in 44 years; 31 high commendations in 29 years, including Browne and two others for 1988, Browne alone for 2000.

https://web.archive.org/web/201409161...

(runner-up for "Kate Greenaway Medal" 1988 awarded 1989)

http://www.bookawards.bizland.com/kur...

(winner of "Kurt Maschler Awards" 1988)

Kate Greenaway Medal award page on GR:
www.goodreads.com/award/show/690

Kurt Maschler Awards award page on GR:
www.goodreads.com/award/show/6195


Salvador Dalí's version as well for the 2015 "Gelett Burgess Children's Book Award" ("Commemorative/Anniversary Edition" category)
www.gelettburgesscenter.com/2015_awar...

Gelett Burgess Children's Book Award award page on GR:
www.goodreads.com/award/show/13584

There are probably more, but those are the ones I found.

Those awards should be only showing for those specific editions, please consider it? Thanks!

If your objection is that awards display across all editions, you might be interested in this comment in this thread. Basically, there are awards that are given for editions, but GR policy is that it is displayed for all editions.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Sorry.... I'm not exactly getting it. Dx

Take Helen Oxenbury's editions that are as of now still separated (I supposed it could be recombined any moment) for an example; the awards are displayed for all editions in her batch, and I have no problem with it, cuz her work won them fair and square; her specific version of Alice in Wonderland was the recipient. However, were her batch to be recombined with the rest of the Alice in Wonderland, hence letting other random editions displaying the awards exclusively should only be shown on hers, that's where I would have a problem.

Lisbeth Zwerger, Anthony Browne, Salvador Dalí, and any other illustrators, their edition did not win "Kate Greenaway Medal (1988)" nor "Kurt Maschler Award (1999)"; those alone belong to Helen Oxenbury's versions. It is not the author that won the award, but her work that did, and it wasn't limited to a single edition (aka page), but can be apply to all of her batch.

Vise versa, same goes for Lisbeth Zwerger with "Zilveren Pensee (2000)" so forth.

And when a translation wins and award, that award displays for all editions even though the other editions may not even have been translated. Same goes for audio awards which display on paperback books. GR policy is that these awards display across all editions of a work.

I don't know about the editions of Alice in Wonderland that haven't been combined. Perhaps they are true adaptations. I did look at the Zwerger work today, and it isn't an adaptation and should remain combined with the main work.

Policy around awards when the Award applies to one edition ie illustrator is to list it in the description of that edition only it should not be listed in the wArds section

Paula wrote: "Policy around awards when the Award applies to one edition ie illustrator is to list it in the description of that edition only it should not be listed in the wArds section"

But there are a dozen editions of the Zwerger work, for example, not just a single edition. I linked to Rivka's comment about translations and audio editions because it has been determined by staff that those *are* to be listed in the awards section. Why not illustrations?

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I linked to Rivka's comment about translations and audio editions because it has been determined by staff that those *are* to be listed in the awards section. Why not illustrations?"

But how then do you make clear which illustrator has won which award (if they have won an award at all)? I agree different illustrated editions should not be separated, but it does get confusing if awards for illustrators are just added in the awards field without any further specification.

lethe wrote: "But how then do you make clear which illustrator has won which award (if they have won an award at all)?"

I guess the same way you make it clear which edition(s) won a translator award. See:

https://www.goodreads.com/award/show/...

Which editions of any of these titles won the PEN Translation Prize? (And for some, other translation prizes, such as Kafka on the Shore.)

lethe wrote: "Since I have a small collection of Alice editions, I'm naturally interested in this thread.

So far I have steered clear from adding my editions to my shelves c.q. to GR because of the mess I found..."

I'm just facing an "Alice issue" myself, so I'm glad I found this thread with librarians I've come to like for their work.

Well, I was about to add one of my Alice editions, this is a boxed set by The Folio Society. Then I found out the mess lethe mentioned... I guess this must be similar to say, Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, etc.

So, I have some points I 'd appreciate your opinion on. See next post here.

So, I have this boxed set by The Folio Society.

It comprises two separate books, Wonderland and Looking Glass. The books do not bear an ISBN, perhaps because they're 1962 editions being reprinted from time to time. I have a recent reprint. The publisher's site also does not give an ISBN. Nor does Worldcat.

1. I found four entries for this edition in GR

1.1. Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland #1-2)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
This one has ISBNs, but they don't belong to this edition.

1.2. ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND [&] THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS. (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland #1-2)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Has ISBN but description comes obviously from an online used book shop.

1.3. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland #1-2)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

1.4. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland AND Through the Looking Glass [Slipcase: 2 Books] (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland #1-2)
This says "hardcover, two volume set", but has an ASIN!
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...

They are all attributed to The Folio Society, but have "The Annotated Alice. The definitive Edition" as original title, which seems to be result of wrong combining, because this edition is not annotated.

So, this is just the mess with this edition.

I think I should do the following:

1. Carefully check the few ISBN numbers quoted in more sources. If really not existant,
2. Separate these from other works.
3. Combine them together.
4. Ask for merging by a superlibrarian.
5. Complete the correct info for this edition.
6. Recombine properly.

But I do not want to enter such a mine field without some advice from other experienced librarians.

One additional question:

Should this edition be a boxed set after all?

Or TWO separate books just wrapped in a slip case? By the way, all the books from The Folio Society come in a slip case, including single books. So, It seems that TWO books is a better approach. It is not Alice + looking Glass in a single book.
With boxed sets (that usually have a specific ISBN), I add to GR each book with its own ISBN, then I add the boxed set with its own ISBN, so the picture is complete for any researcher.

I'd appreciate your opinions.

Marcos wrote: "So, I have this boxed set by The Folio Society.

It comprises two separate books, Wonderland and Looking Glass. The books do not bear an ISBN, perhaps because they're 1962 editions being reprinted ..."

I have this same edition, in fact I have two of them, each slightly different :)

The Folio Society, being a private press (or book club, depending on your view), does not use ISBNs for their books. I do sometimes see an ISBN listed on second-hand book sites and consequently here on Goodreads, but I am at a loss to understand where they come from. It is not like the single-use ASINs on Amazon for second-hand ISBN-less print copies (see your 1.4 link). (Maybe I should email the Folio Society one of these days, ask if they can shed some light on it.)

According to my Folio 50 bibliography, Wonderland was first published in 1961 and Looking Glass in 1962. Both were bound in quarter pink cloth and pale blue-green paper boards and printed by Mackay. If they are listed on GR, they must be under the separate editions.

In 1990 they were reissued as a box set, printed and bound by the Bath Press in quarter (bright) red cloth with pale blue paper boards, in a pale blue slip case. This box set has been reprinted several times. I also have a 15th printing from 2000, bound in quarter dark red or burgundy with pale blue paper boards, in a dark red/burgundy slip case. It looks like your link 1.4, with pub date 2001, has that same red colour, and I also think link 1.3 does. Link 1.1 and 1.2 look the brighter red colour to me.

So, where does that leave us. Since the reissue was as a box set only, they may not be split up. They should be (stay) under the combined Wonderland/Looking Glass editions. The original title has to be corrected to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland / Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Sadly, we are not allowed to do anything with the ISBNs on 1.1 and 1.2, so we have to leave both of them be.

1.3 and 1.4 can probably be merged if we agree the red of 1.3 is darker than the red of 1.1. I would opt to keep the image of 1.3, as it provides more info. We can also decide to leave both of them (separating being quite a hassle, and the merge function not working at the moment), but in that case the ASIN must be deleted from 1.4 because it has no meaning outside Amazon.

Personally, I would mark 1.1 as one of my editions and make a personal and/or librarian note that the edition does not contain an ISBN, and mark 1.3 as my other edition and update it to 15th printing, 2000.

What do you think? :)

lethe wrote: "and mark 1.3 as my other edition and update it to 15th printing, 2000."

It is my understanding that we don't have/create editions for additional printings.

Marcos wrote: ""The Annotated Alice. The definitive Edition" as original title, which seems to be result of wrong combining, because this edition is not annotated."

(I knew I had forgotten something :) )

Annotated editions should be combined with non-annotated editions (see comment #4 upthread), but the original title is of course wrong.

Boxed sets of books that have not been published separately (these reissues haven't, because they are not the same as the original Folio editions - red vs pink cloth) may not be added separately, regardless of whether they have an ISBN.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "lethe wrote: "and mark 1.3 as my other edition and update it to 15th printing, 2000."

It is my understanding that we don't have/create editions for additional printings."

If they are otherwise the same. As I explained in comment #23, the 15th printing was bound in differently coloured cloth, and with a differently coloured slip case. Since Folio Society editions do not have ISBNs (so no ACEs), adding the printing and the year of the printing will help with telling them apart and prevent them from being merged.

Not identifying printings as new editions makes perfect sense when the only difference is the actual printing number, but this is different.

Given it actually is the only identifying information, which isn't usually the case, it seems reasonable to me to make an exception and put that in the edition field and/or a librarian note, just to make them identifiable and hopefully prevent them being badly combined.

I might even be temped to put it in the actual book description too, where it's less likely to be removed by a random librarian, to make it easier to figure out again if it ever becomes necessary.

lethe wrote: "the 15th printing was bound in differently coloured cloth, and with a differently coloured slip case. "

Certainly if they are alternate cover editions, they should be scanned and clearly identified. And, are we talking about not merging as opposed to not combining?

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "And, are we talking about not merging as opposed to not combining?

Indeed, we are supposed to be talking about merging, even if I said combining in my last post :)

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Certainly if they are alternate cover editions, they should be scanned and clearly identified. And, are we talking about not merging as opposed to not combining?"

They are not alternative cover editions because there is no ISBN. Many pre-ISBN editions are only different by their covers and years of publication. No need to call them ACEs ever.

Yes, not merging. Of course they should be combined.

lethe wrote: "They are not alternative cover editions because there is no ISBN. Many pre-ISBN editions are only different by their covers and years of publication. No need to call them ACEs ever."

If they aren't alternate cover editions, then they are just an additional printing. But you say they have different covers, therefore, they are alternate cover editions, not additional printings. I don't see how you can argue they are different editions if you don't identify how they are different.

Sorry, I am too tired for this. ACEs are for ISBNs being re-used, not for different covers from different years. Of course I will make a note (as Krazykiwi suggests), just not an ACE note.

lethe wrote: "Sorry, I am too tired for this. ACEs are for ISBNs being re-used, not for different covers from different years. Of course I will make a note (as Krazykiwi suggests), just not an ACE note."

Ok, I'm sorry you're tired. I don't see how an ACE is anything but an ACE, whether or not the editions have ISBNs.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I don't see how an ACE is anything but an ACE, whether or not the editions have ISBNs."

https://www.goodreads.com/help/show/8...

The policy is covering the most common situation. It might be worth discussing an amendment to the wording if it's confusing. :/

Alternate Cover editions USUALLY are ones with reused ISBNs, but when the original item didn't have an ISBN, they still count as ACEs because that is precisely what they are! This covers books privately printed without ISBNs, books published in countries which don't always use ISBNs, and books published prior to the institution of the ISBN.

Well, first of all, many thanks for these extraordinary contributions. There's a lot to think of. I'm busy now, but I'll be back here and answer you all.

I also liked this project and I'll later try to help Emy with the Portuguese editions.

Just FYI, it appears some were re-combined without the primary author on all editions changed back to Lewis Caroll.
I just moved "Robert Ingpen " from the primary author position on some already combined editions, his role was Adaptor/Illustrator, but as far as I see it should be just illustrator.
The illustrator mentioned in one of the Librarian Notes: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (and probably few others) also appears to be primary on some other editions.

Thanks Ayshe!