Jane Austen's novel was the basis for the motion picture Pride and Prejudice, but it is not the work Austen conceptualized. This would be like someone thinking that a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it is the work of DaVinci.
Andrea -------------------------------------- Andrea Leigh Moving Image Processing Unit Head Library of Congress Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation 19053 Mt. Pony Rd. Culpeper, VA 22701 ph: 202-707-0852 email: a...@loc.gov -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of D. Brooking Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:40 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR John, that is a beautiful, eloquent explanation, one that works for me. Thank you. ************ Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389 Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax Suzzallo Library dbroo...@u.washington.edu University of Washington Box 352900 Seattle WA 98195-2900 On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Myers, John F. wrote: > Kathleen Lamantia wrote: > > Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's > conception (work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would > answer your 2nd question, "is the creator the same?" with yes. As to > valid alternatives, that seems to me to be "cataloger's judgment," so we > are left with a situation in which book and movie will or will not be > the same work depending on perception - and that's no way to run a > railroad. > > -------------------------------------- > > My first exposure to FRBR was at an ALA Preconference in 2004, where a > slide introducing the Group 1 entities and their relationships included > an arrow from Work back to Work, indicating that the Work concept could > be extended iteratively to function at higher levels, i.e. in the manner > of the "superwork" or "family of works" mentioned in other > correspondence for this thread. I have not seen that illustration > since. > > All explanations of FRBR since then have clearly articulated that a > motion picture adaptation of a novel is a distinct and separate, if > related, work. This has been confirmed by subsequent re-examination of > FRBR itself, namely the work attribute Form of the Work. To be blunt, > this is NOT a matter of "cataloger's judgment." > > Personally, despite an initial tendency to view novel and movie as > belonging under the same work (or at least "superwork"), and a lingering > sympathy for that perspective, I have educated myself to respect FRBR's > distinction between them as separate works (much as I learned to respect > AACR2's take on editors and corporate bodies concerning authorship). > This personal journey has been bolstered, as others have observed, by > the treatment of such pairings within AACR2 which, insofar as it can be > viewed as FRBR compliant, gives them entirely different main entry > headings with the implication they historically have been considered to > be in distinct work families. > > > John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian > Schaffer Library, Union College > 807 Union St. > Schenectady NY 12308 > > 518-388-6623 > mye...@union.edu > >
