Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

"Writings from an Unbound Europe" series:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/81180...

It's a publisher's set/edition from loosely connected themes. Apart from that, "fictional universes", characters, settings and even writers are unrelated.

If this is series, then every "science-fiction happening on planet Mars" could be series as well, since it's tied by a common theme, IMHO. What do y'all think?

What makes it a series isn't "loosely connected themes." It's the fact that a publisher/university press decided to make it a series and publish those particular works. If some university press decided to publish science fiction happening on Mars as a series, then that would be a series. But merely the existence of a group of sci-fi books set on Mars does not of itself create a series.

The only issue for Goodreads is, is this a Goodreads series, meaning were these books only published as part of this series. If they were also published independently of this series, then according to GR rules it is not a series.

I'll add that someone went to a great deal of effort to create this series, so it should not be deleted on a whim, if at all.

Here's the official home of the series, which has now been discontinued.

http://www.nupress.northwestern.edu/T...

it seems like they would fall more under the imprint, than a series

It is not an imprint. An example of an imprint would be Dorling Kindersley, which is part of Penguin Books. An imprint is a subdivision of a larger publisher - an actual business unit. Wikipedia: "One single publishing company may have multiple imprints; the different imprints are used by the publisher to market works to different demographic consumer segments. In some cases, the diversity results from the takeover of smaller publishers (or parts of their business) by a larger company."

This is not a series, though -- the books were not written to be a part of this series but were instead gathered up in new editions by the publisher after the fact. (Note Death and the Dervish, first published in 1966 in Yugoslavia.) A set of new editions is not a series by GR definitions.

It would be polite to send a message to the creator of the series asking them to move it to a listopia list before deleting it, though.

Lobstergirl wrote: "If some university press decided to publish science fiction happening on Mars as a series, then that would be a series."

Only if they commissioned new books to be a part of this series. Just republishing existing books is not enough; the books have to be created (written or, in the case of anthologies, collected and edited) for the initial purpose of being part of the series in question. When that is the case, it doesn't matter how loose the theme is which otherwise connected them.

Well, like I said, there's the publishing world's definition of a series, and Goodreads' definition. A publisher can absolutely gather together any group of books and call it a series, even if some of them have been published elsewhere, as long as they have copyright permission.

We need to be cautious about this "only books created for the initial purpose of being part of the series in question" business. One of the most famous science fiction series EVER is the Lensman series and the first book in that series, Triplanetary, was NEVER written to be part of that series. The first publication of the story did not even mention Lenses or Arisia/Eddore (the supreme goodies and baddies). It was later rewritten as a prequel to the series after the 'proper' series was finished.

I would be more in favour of moving a series to listopia if there was a clever little utility to do the work. Asking someone to move 59 books from a series to a list seems to be unfair or even sarcastic.


PTB: let us have a "convert series to list" utility.

I inherently dislike listopia lists and wish there was a better way to create series that don't fit into Goodreads' stricter definition of a series. If they're going to dismiss publisher's series as imprints why aren't they offering a field for those right next to the publisher or book awards?

Banjomike wrote: "We need to be cautious about this "only books created for the initial purpose of being part of the series in question" business. One of the most famous science fiction series EVER is the Lensman series and the first book in that series, Triplanetary, was NEVER written to be part of that series. The first publication of the story did not even mention Lenses or Arisia/Eddore (the supreme goodies and baddies). It was later rewritten as a prequel to the series after the 'proper' series was finished."

That's a good point, Banjomike! I guess "retrofitted into a series by the author" also needs to count.

Cait wrote: "That's a good point, Banjomike! I guess "retrofitted into a series by the author" also needs to count. "

I like the sound of that. And then there is the inevitable Narnia aspect; "retrofitted into a series by the publisher".

Banjomike wrote: "I like the sound of that. And then there is the inevitable Narnia aspect; "retrofitted into a series by the publisher."

I think the Narnia series was written as a series from the beginning. The publisher just rearranged the order of the books several years after Lewis' death.

Tntexas wrote: "I think the Narnia series was written as a series from the beginning. The publisher just rearranged the order of the books several years after Lewis' death. "

Yes, but the publisher tried to replace the original sequence with their own.

We go generally "let" publishers renumber as they please -- this happens a lot in translations, actually -- but not create series out of whole cloth.

Moris wrote: ""Writings from an Unbound Europe" series:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/81180...

It's a publisher's set/edition from loosely connected themes. Apart from that, "fic..."

To go back to the original series question (and ignoring the never-ending C.S. Lewis debate as that one will never be satisfactorily resolved...): As a book collector and user of Goodreads to track what I have read and/or collected on my shelves, I would say leave this one alone. This type of usage of "series" is very useful for a person trying to read through a particular collection. For example, Modern Library has over 500 books in the series, and it is extremely difficult to determine what is included in the collection (the books themselves are not numbered without the dust jacket--you have to find a bibliography to track them). Removing this "series" designation from the Modern Library would cause difficulties for those who track the books by using the Goodreads system. I believe the same would hold true for the "Writings from Unbound Europe" series as it appears they do have an order within the collection. In addition, is it hurting anything to leave it alone?

I find it difficult to track anything using Listopia and in this case I don't think it's applicable to the series created by the publisher vs. a "best of" list or similar.

Emily wrote: "In addition, is it hurting anything to leave it alone?"

Unfortunately it is. The series designation shows up on all editions of a book, and therefore you'd see the publisher's collection showing up on editions which are not part of that collection and causing a great deal of confusion.

It would be really nice to have a way to list off editions in a series-like format, but the series as we have it implemented here can't be that way. :(

Sigh...I agree with Cait.

Would it be correct, since not an imprint either, to note in edition field the "writings from ...." series wannabe name publisher gave these editions?

(I know that doesn't create a list)

Debbie R. wrote: "Would it be correct, since not an imprint either, to note in edition field the "writings from ...." series wannabe name publisher gave these editions?"

Yes, that would be a good place for that information.

Cait wrote: "Debbie R. wrote: "Would it be correct, since not an imprint either, to note in edition field the "writings from ...." series wannabe name publisher gave these editions?"

To put it there is almost as good as hiding it in a private note (or in your broom closet). The edition field is visible from practically nowhere.

Why can the information about such a series (which is not a series according to GR) be given in the title of the edition which IS part of a series (which is not a series according to GR)?

The (global) work will still not be part of the series (which is correct), the pertinent edition which IS part of the series may carry that info visibly (which is correct again) without polluting the overall work...

The edition field IS viewable on each book's page, as well as on the editions page. However, you need to have either one set to showing all info, which is a simple toggle setting.

rivka wrote: "The edition field IS viewable on each book's page, as well as on the editions page. However, you need to have either one set to showing all info, which is a simple toggle setting."

Sorry rivka, but in my tiny nutshell of a world any field which does neither export nor can be made visible in a shelf view is practically dead. As a librarian, I will dutifully fill them in, of course, whenever required or known (Language is a niece example - extremely useful and perfectly hidden!) but it feels like using write-only memory.

Edition (like Language) cannot be exported and Edition (like Language) is not in the pick list of attributes for a customized shelf view.

Especially for a series (which is not a series according to GR), I expect that info to be accessible in a LIST of books (aka shelf), and not the individual one, two clicks and windows away.

It's always viewable on book page and when viewing all editions (or mousing over thumbnails) whether or not I've toggled to expand details? (Unless I'm encountering a weirdly useful bug.) It shows for me on same line as format (hardcover, paperback, ebook, etc.) toggling between less detail and more detail views.

For example, on this paperback http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41... , it shows "Paperback, U.K. Orbit New Ed, 472 pages" all on a line immediately to right of the new green want-to-read shelving button , below book blurb, above isbn. Do you see something different on that book's page?

("Paperback, U.K. Orbit New Ed, 472 pages" showing "Paperback" in format field, "U.K. Orbit New Ed" in edition field)

Debbie R. wrote: "It's always viewable on book page and when viewing all editions (or mousing over thumbnails) whether or not I've toggled to expand details? (Unless I'm encountering a weirdly useful bug.) It show..."

That is not the issue - I do not dispute the visibility on the INDIVIDUAL book. But I do not see it where I think it needs to be seen - on the shelf, in the LIST.

What's in "my books" shelf display and what fields get exported—not exactly librarian issue and instead something to suggest in feedback (personally I think if it's a field should be able to sort on, choose to display in your shelves and export it— with the exception of huge comment types of fields like the book's description or reviews; if you need to see that much info you need to go to book page). Actually, should be able to search on more fields, too (particularly languages).

I think "edition" a logical place for it. Optionally could also note in book description/blurb although I realize that field won't show in the "my books" shelf displays or export.

You are right thta this is a technical issue, too. But we have to use what is offered.

Take a look at: http://www.goodreads.com/search?utf8=...

I did not enter any of these (but I sympathize and would discourage any changes). This is what I expect to see when USING GR... All there, at a glance - no series in the sense of GR, and still held together.