Fictitious characters as authors
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]
Re: Fictitious characters as authors
Good afternoon all,
Thank you for your email. We have been discussing this issue at our
ALA/PLA Cataloging Needs of Public Libraries discussion group since the
topic first appeared on the OCLC cataloging list several months ago. We
also found out that OLAC had presented this very issue a few years ago (
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/newsletters/sept04.html#capc
), but I believe they are not going to pursue it. I am the PLA Liaison to
CC:DA and I am definitely going to bring this up just as soon as RDA pt. 2
is available for comment. Please, also, feel free to comment on this list
when pt. 2 does become available.
[And now, for a not-too shameless plug]: any of you public library
catalogers who are going to Annual in New Orleans and want to be involved
in the Cataloging Needs of Public Library discussion group, please attend.
We usually meet on Sun. morning, and Mon. afternoon, and welcome discussion!
Enjoy the weekend.
Robert.
--
Robert C.W. Hall, Jr.
Technical Services Associate Librarian
Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742
978-318-3342 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordnet.org/library/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:46:41 -0800
Subject: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
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
Re: Fictitious characters as authors
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
Fictitious characters as authors
Dear RDA-list readers, Previous discussion has taken place on OCLC-Cat. For the benefit of anyone interested, I'm reposting my e-mails to that list, from the archives http://listserv.oclc.org/archives/oclc-cat.html. (If other contributors to the discussion want to bring their writings to your attention, they can do so without my intervention!) - Ian Ian Fairclough Marion (Ohio) Public Library tel. 740-387-0994 x233 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:54:34 -0400 Jane Myers writes But why should they [i.e. the people out working with the public] have to keep track of which authors are fictitious and which are not? This is reminiscent of the ancient criterion capable of authorship for determining entry status. Regardless of whether or nay mice are capable of authorship, surely a fictitious mouse is not. But what is being suggested here? Main entry under fictitious character? Or a reference, tagged 400 as a personal name, in an authority record? The fact that the fictitious character is a mouse is a distraction from the essence of the question. Most fictitious characters are subjects and understood to be such. They are accessed via a subject search. Here, the fictitious character is presumably being searched as an author, so the search fails. Must it fail? What if Sherlock Holmes were to have someone ghost write his autobiography? Perhaps it's been done - or if not Holmes, a pseudo-autobiography of some other worthy though fictitious person (anyone who knows an example, please post to the list). Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:45:00 -0400 Responding to the person who said: Geronimo Stilton is not just a fictitious character; it is also a pseudonym. I disagree. In my humble opinion, people who think a person can be fictitious as well as pseudonymous are confused. As lawyers would say, Produce the body. The existence of a body, dead or alive, is the test to determine whether a person is real or fictitious. A pseudonym does not represent a fictitious character, but a real one, having a body. A fictitious person has no body -- and the resemblance of any real person, living or deceased, is entirely coincidental. Perhaps, rather than focusing on access, we should consider the educational role of our profession with respect to fictitious persons (or mice). If someone, be it a circulation clerk or a customer, does not know who Geronimo Stilton is, librarians (broadly speaking) should educate that person. If someone searches for the author Geronimo Stilton and doesn't find any books written by said mouse, that person receives an educational benefit. Geronimo Stilton didn't author any books. The fact that an author search for Geronimo Stilton fails is in itself educational. That's a good thing. An author search should retrieve works written by those capable of authorship, not by those who aren't. Show me a mouse that has authored a book, and I'll write you an authority record for it. (Don't worry, I don't contribute to NACO.) Perhaps there really was an actual mouse with that name, presumably by now dead (in which case, should one add dates of birth and death to the heading for a dead mouse? Just kidding, folks!). __ Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:03:21 -0400 In a private communication a correspondent has noted that a name can be a pseudonym as well as in use for a fictitious person (or mouse). A human whose real name is unknown but who has adopted the pseudonym Geronimo Stilton has, if I understand correctly, used the same name for the character of the fictitious mouse. This person has also authored a cookbook. This being the case, the heading Stilton, Geronimo, as established in n 2005053414, is a valid name heading. It's unfortunate that the record, which Kenichi Tsuda has kindly posted for use to review, has no mention of either the pseudonymous status nor the relationship to the fictitious mouse. A separate heading is appropriate as a subject heading. And such a heading is to be found! sh2005002661 HEADING: Stilton, Geronimo (Fictitious character) 000 00686cz 2200229n 450 001 6521379 005 20050518235852.0 008 050422 | anannbabn |a ana 035 __ |a (DLC)6521379 035 __ |a (DLC)sh2005002661 035 __ |a (DLC)329130 906 __ |t 0520 |u te04 |v 0 010 __ |a sh2005002661 040 __ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC 150 __ |a Stilton, Geronimo (Fictitious character) 450 __ |a Geronimo Stilton (Fictitious character) 670 __ |a Work cat.: The curse of the cheese pyramid, 2004. 670 __ |a Paws off, cheddarface!, 2004. 670 __ |a A fabumouse vacation for Geronimo, c2004. 952 __ |a 0 bib. record(s) to be changed 952 __ |a SCM H 1610 953 __ |a ym09 I sincerely hope that these authority records have NOT been deleted. Though modification, by addition of notes clarifying the relationship, if not of cross-references, would help stave off some of the confusion. I stand by what I previously wrote about a name being a pseudonym if a (human) body is represented and fictitious if
