Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I should know better by now than to ever go near the Mark Twain profile.

Merged in with all of the many, many other editions of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are three editions of Huck Finn and His Critics. According to the table of contents of one of those (available through the Internet Archive ) that book is half Huck Finn, along with "The raftsmen passage," and half critical essays by an assortment of other authors.

Now, for "normal" books, if you have Vol 1 and Vol 2, and an omnibus Vol 1+2, each of those is its own "work" by GR standards and policy. Similarly, Huck Finn is one work, Tom Sawyer is another work, and both together is a third separate work.

So, back to the question: shouldn't Huck Finn and His Critics, half of which was neither written, read, nor endorsed by Mark Twain, be a separate work with the lead editor as the primary author, rather the same way that an adaptation would have the adaptor as primary? (per Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ policy in Librarian Manual: "Adaptations [...] should remain separated from its parent work, with the adaptor listed as primary author.")

And if not, then what is the guiding principle that distinguishes this case from the examples I lead with? How much difference is needed to make a separate work? What can we, as GR Librarians, cite to (better) ensure policy compliance from less experienced Librarians who encounter our changes? I note that one Dutch librarian with 10 years experience left a note two years ago indicating that the merge with the original Huck Finn should stick, but without citing any specific policy—this is part of why I am loath to unilaterally overrule the action without further guidance From Above.

(FWIW, some libraries file this book under the editor Lettis, and others make Twain the lead author, so we're left with little guidance there, plus their databases don't have the same constraints and concerns as ours in this regard.)

I assume you mean "combine", rather than merge.

Books with critical essays about the work (in addition to the work itself), annotated books, etc. should be combined with the original work. That has been Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ policy for as long as I can recall.

rivka wrote: "Books with critical essays about the work, annotated books, etc. should be combined with the original work. That has been Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ policy for as long as I can recall.
"

Harold Bloom

Are there not exceptions?

Those do not include the original works. They are only the essays etc.

Edited my response above to make the distinction clearer.

Thanks, Rivka. I had the impression that Keith was referring to similar types of publications, that the essays involved could include excerpts without the complete work.

Thanks, rivka.

Just to be sure I'm clear on the general form of the rule:

A single complete work with any quantity of supplemental material that is not another complete, separately-published work in its own right should be combined (not merged, sorry) with the original work—even when it has a different title from the primary, original work—with the original author of the primary source as the primary author, and any editors or contributors listed in subsequent author fields.

Mostly yes. But "supplemental material" is a very broad term, and I'm not certain what you are including under it. Annotations, essays and other critical analyses -- sure. Another entire novel that happens never to have been published separately, no. (And with works that are out of copyright, people can and do release them with their own sequels attached.)

rivka wrote: "Another entire novel that happens never to have been published separately, no. (And with works that are out of copyright, people can and do release them with their own sequels attached.)"

Hrm, well, that's what i was trying to exclude under "that is not another complete, separately-published work in its own right."

But I'm guessing that when you say, "with their own sequels attached," you mean something like Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, plus Huck/Tom: A Sordid Love or that sort of fanfic or "derivative works" republication. So that would be a separate thing from Huck Finn, and from Tom Sawyer, and from all other real Twain editions, if I'm following you correctly now, yes?

So let me try that again:

A single complete work with any quantity of supplemental, nonfictional material about the primary work(s) or its author that is not another complete, separately-published work in its own right should be combined with the original work—even when it has a different title from the primary, original work—with the original author of the primary source as the primary author, and any editors or contributors listed in subsequent author fields.

That works.