Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: > So, I wonder: What is the function of the first sentence in 6.2.2.10? Should > it be seen as the basic rule or rather as an exception for rare cases?
I do think that the expectation behind RDA 6.2.2.10 is that most compilations published in modern times will be entered under the title appearing on the resource. The guidelines in .1-.3 are for those instances in which there is no collective title (like the Barnes and Noble editions of classic works that have only the author's name and the titles of the individual works included), or perhaps has only the creator's name in a "title position" on the resource, or just the creator's name and a generic title like "Novels", "Stories", etc. The increasingly common practice of applying the conventional collective title even to things that have their own title is, in my opinion, just bizarre. Not only that, it is quite inconsistent; for instance, it is applied *much* more often to poetry collections than it is to short story collections. Why don't we see books of Stephen King's short stories cataloged with a 240 "Short stories. Selections"? Why isn't the book of Shirley Jackson stories "Just an ordinary day" cataloged with a 240 "Short stories. Selections"? What I would very much like to see is some kind of logical reasoning behind the idea that because something is a collection, not a single work, we must assume that library users don't know the collection by the title that the author and publisher gave to it--the title that is printed right there on the title page, the cover, the spine, etc., and that appears in publisher catalogs, advertisements, book reviews, bestseller lists, etc. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library [email protected] (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
