Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Take a look at: http://www.goodreads.com/series/54787...

Obviously, "Mists of Avalon" (1000+ pages) was split into four parts.

a) Is that sufficient a reason for having a series?
b) The complete work will be listed as head part (because seemingly subparts have been happily combined into the full volume)

I hope for an answer on a) and somebody with a lot of time on hand for b) :-)

Furthermore: http://www.goodreads.com/work/edition...

c) Some titles refer to the Avalon series, some to the chronological one - all or nothing, or what is the rule?

I think the confusion is caused by the following:

Mists of Avalon (the book) was released as a book in one volume. It looks like the ones below it in your first link were only done for the audiobook.

Mists of Avalon is also Avalon #1 because there is an Avalon series. This is the Avalon series:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/51187...

Chris wrote: "I think the confusion is caused by the following:

Mists of Avalon (the book) was released as a book in one volume. It looks like the ones below it in your first link were only done for the audiob..."

No, the confusion comes from the first part of the audio(?) book being combined somewhere with the full volume and would be required to be seperated out...

But that does not answer my question: Is the creation of this "series" justified or not?

No, its not appropriate, there are already two other series

All the audio books are correctly combined - they appear to be book 1, book 2 etc editions just in audio.

the reason book 1 is displaying differently to 2, 3, 4 is that the audio books are the default edition for 2,3, 4 while for book 1 it is a paperback version that is most popular

There are cases where we would link parts 1 and 2 of one book together via a series if the created a whole edition i.e. Anna Karenina vol 1 and 2 = whole book could be linked via a series

Well, I'll differ about the multiple series. There are lots of examples of series that will also have chronological order, published order, set in x universe, or author suggested reading order plus multiple series and subseries or crossover series names. Particularly in SF/Fantasy genre. Lots of threads in this group discussing. I'll edit this to plunk down some sample links after I look up the series and links but right off the bat I'm thinking of Anne McCaffrey Pern books, Narnia, Star Wars Universe, D&D books, Belgariad, Moon's Paks books, etc. Or the Noble Dead Saga 1, Saga 2, etc. series creating some headaches for authors like J. C. Hendee who wrote some alone and some with alphabetically placed co-author wife to where he cannot get the series on his author page.

One rule of thumb I was taking from last rounds of discussion was to look at book's frontspiece. If publisher or author has one or more series names with one or more suggested reading sequences, valid. Ditto if author or publisher shows on the book or series official website.

What would not be would be something some reader or fan just decided even if they put out on a personal blog, facebook or other fan/fanfiction site they setup.

I'm not personally sure about the Mists of Avalon series because it was one I started then stopped fairly quickly because the dark celtic stuff was taking a loop off into the stuff I did not care for. But I will check for a frontspiece after I go to Barnes and Noble today to see what latest frontspiece is saying if they have in stock.

I'm out on cell phone waiting for friends to join for lunch and did not even look at the link starting this thread (this book aside, I am a fan of the author so did not want to just see something yanked or deleted without further checking out just because there were already two other series). I expect if I look at Ms. Bradley's Darkover series of books there are multi-series there as well.

Avalon also has two series here on goodreads: chronological, and reading order. Both should be kept.

lafon حمزة wrote: "Avalon also has two series here on goodreads: chronological, and reading order. Both should be kept."

The incorrect series was being used to link four audio books together that corresponded to editions of the books. We do not create series to link formats

Paula wrote: "The incorrect series was being used to link four audio books together that corresponded to editions of the books. We do not create series to link formats"


Yes, and that should be gone. I wasn't talking about that one though. I was simply replying to Debbie's question regarding reading order, and published order.

Cool. Actually, I think my project next week may be to look into her books and series, starting from http://www.mzbworks.com/works.htm and digging out my own boxes of old hardcopies.

Nevermind. Series referenced was already deleted; I was just reacting to the "…already two other series" comment. The thought of 2, 3 or whatever number of series being used to decide validity was worrying me.

(Not going back to put in links)