Another issue that perhaps needs addressing is animals as authors, which
also currently do not get name headings and cannot be given entries. We
are all familiar with the books by Millie the dog and Socks (Sox?) the
cat, but commercials, fictional films and television programs, and
documentaries have starred or featured named animals, and one can find
artwork created by specific named animals, etc. Movie credits usually
name important animal performers. Don't users expect to find these
entities in catalogs under name/author searches rather than as subject
headings?
Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
AACR2 makes a distinction between pseudonyms (which may as literary
identities be used as prime entry AACR2 22.B2), and fictitious
characters which may not be so used. It seems to me that if one does
not know the name of the human author, the name of the fictitious
character is as much a pseudonym as any other, and is needed to bring
together the works of a single bibliographic identity, whether that
identity is presented as a mouse or not.
I hope those drafting the next portion of RDA will take this into
consideration.
Joel Hahn has given his permission to forward the following to the
list, which I think makes an important distinction:
The Archy & Mehitabel books are clearly labeled as "by Don Marquis."
There is no question as to who the real-world author is, as it's
clearly stated on the item itself. Therefore, the main entry is under
Marquis.
In AACR2, there is an example of an autobiography of Alice Toklas,
Gertrude Stein's secretary, which is known to have been *actually* written
by Gertrude Stein about herself. Therefore, the main entry is under
Stein.
In AACR2, there is an example of a book "written" by Winnie-the-Pooh,
which is known to have *actually* been written by A.A. Milne, and is not a
case of Milne intending to create a pseudonym with a separate
bibliographic identity. Therefore, the main entry is under Milne.
The Geronimo Stilton books (of which I have one in front of me, as it
just arrived today), say "Text by Geronimo Stilton, Original title:
{original title in Italian}, Cover by Giuseppe Ferrario, Illustrations
by Larry Keys, Ratterto Rattonchi, and Chiara Sacchi," etc. The
copyright statement is "Copyright (C) 2005 by Edizioni Piemme S.p.A.,
Via del Carmine 5, 15033 Casale Monferrato (AL), Italia; English
translation (C) 2005 by Edizioni Piemme S.p.A." The books are all told
from the first person point of view.
Unlike the case of Archy & Mehibatel, where the real author is stated
on the work itself, or the Winnie-the-Pooh case, where the true author
is well known, the publisher itself has intentionally obfuscated the
name(s) of the real author(s); they label Geronimo Stilton as the
author. Since this obviously cannot be ... , and there is no known
author that can be used instead, the rules call for main entry under
title, which is why LC has cataloged them that way. (If Archy &
Mehibatel was instead labeled by the publisher as "by Archy, a
cockroach", and no one knew or could readily determine that it was
really by Don Marquis, then it would be the same situation as Geronimo
Stilton.)
However, because that treatment prevents collocation on the shelf of a
popular fiction series, and prevents catalog access by one of the more
"obvious" access points from the point of view of the target audience
of this particular series, and thus may significantly inhibit public
service, that is not considered a desirable situation by many
libraries, even if it does strictly follow the rules. Because the
rules also allow for pseudonyms such as Mark Twain, or the recently
discussed Jean Plaidy) to be used as main entries, even if the
author's real name is known (again, in order to enable useful customer
service), if the pseudonym constitutes a "separate bibliographic
identity" from the author's own, there is some precedent for using
names of people who do not and have never existed, it is perhaps not
all that much of a stretch to treat Stilton as a shared pseudonym of
the publisher's otherwise anonymous stable of writers, much like
Franklin W. Dixon or Carolyn Keene are, with the exception that the
shared pseudonym "happens" to have the same name as the main character
of the stories. We have not done that here, but I can understand why
that solution would be attractive.
(One might also make a case in favor of main entry under "Edizioni Piemme
S.p.A.," but since this does not fall into any of the categories that
allow for corporate main entry, that would require it's own local
exception to the rules, and if you're going to make an exception anyway,
creating the main entry under "Geronimo Stilton" will make MUCH more sense
to the general public--and yes, WITHOUT causing almost all of them to
become frozen in place with confusion due to undergoing a major literary
crisis over the metatextual ramifications of fictional characters writing
their own stories in a manner similar to the way M.C. Escher's hands are
seen drawing themselves--than creating a main entry under the publisher
would.)
Joel Hahn
Lead Cataloger
Niles Public Library District
Niles, Ill.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
