Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

I refer specifically to the Loeb editions of ancient Greek and Roman texts. On any number of occasions the editors of this series put two or more separate works into one modern book. This is done purely for reasons of size. So, there are two entirely different ancient "books"/monographs, squeezed between the covers of one modern book.

My question is, how should these be listed for title and author?

As an example of my question, this Loeb book. It contains a history of Rome by Paterculus, and a modest account of his own accomplishments by the emperor Augustus. The two entirely separate, though the two gentlemen knew each other.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55...

The cover is misleading. It lists the author of the history, without naming the history, and the title of the "great things of the divine emperor", without listing the name of the emperor.

For the title you can use 'Title 1/Title 2' and the authors should be each added, as it should be with any other book with multiple authors.

I don't want to see dim, but can you give me an example of this, please? A correctly presented book in this situation?

I don't want to see dim, but can you give me an example of this, please? A correctly presented book in this situation?

I can't find a quick example, but this method is used for the flip books published in the 60's-70's of pulp science fiction. These were when two short books by different authors were published in the same paperback, the book had two front covers, and you flipped the book over to read the second book. (I hope this makes sense. = )
Anyways, like Renske said above, list both titles in the title field, but separate them with a slash, and then list each author in a separate author field.

Here's one, but with only one author:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/70...

In your case Ian, you would add both authors.

If you search for "Ace Double" you will see many examples.

Thanks. Never liked "Ace Doubles". Got the idea. I remember the flippers.

Thought, it does seem wrong somehow to put a mere praetor, as is the case with this book, before an emperor.