ŷ������

Hi!

I posted in the Series threads requesting a couple titles be added to the "History Smashers" series. However, the Librarians who responded are concerned that "History Smashers" doesn't count as a Series because it doesn't "have characters and/or universes in common".

I would argue it does because the "shared universe" is that they are all historical events that the author explores in the same way. She dispels myths & misinformation that is common about those events, while sharing the true history of those events. It is the same narrative voice used in each. They all have "History Smashers" as the beginning of their titles & are considered a series by the publisher.

You can see the my post and responses here: /topic/show/...

I would like to get a staff ruling, if possible. Thanks you!

Bump :)

Sorry I missed this! We can list these books as in a series.

Thanks for getting back to me on this! I really appreciate it, as I know you're busy. I appreciate having an official ruling on it. Thanks again!

Thanks for your input. I'll add a note to the series so that other librarians don't delete it.

Hi Jaclyn! What makes it a series, is it the continuity of the author dispelling the myths in each book? (I'm not objecting; it just wouldn't have been permitted in years past, so I am seeking clarification.) Thank you!

That would be my thinking, and that the books are published as the History Smashers series. I'm trying to look at it from the perspective of a reader on ŷ������ - children (or big children!) might look to complete reading the entire series as a series.

Emily, have these previously not been considered a series due to the current rules on ŷ������ of 'what makes a series'? Outside of ŷ������, would you consider these a series or not? Wondering if we should update the series guidelines.

With the current guidelines and the discussions here, a lot of non-fiction is considered imprints and not series at the moment. And I think quite a few people find the rules less clear than for fiction series.
I think I have at some point replied in a discussion that the only non-fiction series I'm sure is valid is one subject chronologically divided in multiple books.

Renske wrote: "I think I have at some point replied in a discussion that the only non-fiction series I'm sure is valid is one subject chronologically divided in multiple books."

That's my understanding, too.

Dobby wrote: "Renske wrote: "I think I have at some point replied in a discussion that the only non-fiction series I'm sure is valid is one subject chronologically divided in multiple books."

That's my understa..."

I haven't looked into details of these but on the face of it this seems to be series policy change in what is considered series on ŷ������.

They are not chronological. The books do not seem tied together by books referencing the other books.

My understanding was publisher or author calling books a series did not determine if books were series on ŷ������.

L J wrote: "I haven't looked into details of these but on the face of it this seems to be series policy change in what is considered series on ŷ������.

They are not chronological. The books do not seem tied together by books referencing the other books.

My understanding was publisher or author calling books a series did not determine if books were series on ŷ������."

I agree with this. Perhaps worth noting that the series guidelines (To be a series, books should have characters and/or universes in common.) seem to have been written with fiction in mind and have often not been a great fit for books that might otherwise fit an intuitive definition of a series.

For example: Outside the GR criteria, I think these books have a better argument for a series page than, say, two novels with no overlap except that a character from Novel 1 is mentioned in Novel 2, which tells us that they exist in the same universe. But those would meet the existing GR criteria, while these history books—which are tied together by authorial intent and style rather than by what happens in the books or who the characters are—would not qualify based on the ways the rules are typically applied.

I'll further note that if I'm making any argument here, it's only that the series guidelines should be revisited to see whether they can be updated for clarity & consistency :)

Liralen wrote: "L J wrote: "I haven't looked into details of these but on the face of it this seems to be series policy change in what is considered series on ŷ������. ...

...note that if I'm making any argument here, it's only that the series guidelines should be revisited to see whether they can be updated for clarity & consistency :)"

Like you I'm not making an argument for any side just asking for clarification and update if series definition has changed.

It's my understanding that universe in reference to series does not refer to real life universe.

In fiction universe might mean all books take place in or characters work in or are associated with same fictional hospital in New York City. Books just being set in New York City would not be enough to create series universe. Science fiction and fantasy would tend toward larger universes.

In all non-fiction the universe is the real life universe so that alone would not create series. If all the books take place in same specific location, for instance Buckingham Palace, that could go toward calling it a series but I think it would need more than just that to be non-fiction series such as chefs of Buckingham Palace and chronological order.

To answer your question Jaclyn....yes, these and other titles have previously not been considered a series due to the current rules on ŷ������ of 'what makes a series'.

Outside of GR, they would be cataloged as a series:


With the decision about History Smashers, I think the guidelines related to non-fiction should be updated for clarity and consistency.

A recent request about a non-fiction series remains unanswered:
/topic/show/...

& maybe somewhere it needs to be recorded that the rules have changed as of a certain date.

Following up on this....will the guidelines be changed to clarify non-fiction series?

Here's another unanswered request:
/topic/show/...

Apologies for the slow movement here - I'm bouncing this off the team and will loop back with an update.

Thanks for your patience. We're considering allowing non-fiction series to be listed; I'm ironing out what those guidelines would look like.

A question for Librarians:

If the guideline is:

For non-fiction titles, series include books listed under an overarching title, with a common theme, for example History Smashers or Guinness World Records.

- Does the above sufficiently explain what should be a non-fiction series, or are there other areas that need to be clarified?

How specific would the common theme have to be?

Books like those examples where you likely can identify the series by seeing one page of the book, I agree those should be series.
But there are also some looser connected collections/imprints with broad topics like history or science, with each book by a different author and without a specific writing style that make it recognisable (Jokes or a specific structure). What is then the difference they would be allowed but some romance imprint wouldn't be a series?

Yes I deleted several different imprints of a literary critic's works many years ago. Nothing in common other than the subjects were all authors or playwrights. Would that be allowed now? Could I lose my librarian status if newer staff didn't realise they didn't use to be allowed?

Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "Could I lose my librarian status if newer staff didn't realise they didn't use to be allowed?"

Has that been much of an issue with other policy changes?

The proposed definition of nonfiction series suggests that, e.g., a set of poetry books that are unconnected by author (and whose only connecting theme is "poetry") could qualify as a series if the publisher has given them a broader label (e.g., "Penguin Contemporary Poetry"); is that accurate?

Currently seems a little broad to me, but I'm not sure what to suggest other than that it might be worth digging a bit more into imprint vs. series.

Nonfiction has also until now been allowed as a series, as long as there is a clear connection between the books. E.g. the history of Rome /series/2127...
But I agree, the suggested guideline sounds a bit too vague (not that I have any suggestion how to clarify it at the moment). Would e.g. this be allowed (it's currently a series, but I'm not sure it would actually qualify under the current ruling): "The American Warriors Series is a series of books that includes biographies and autobiographies of the lives, service, and accomplishments of American military leaders." Is the theme written like this enough even if the books themselves are wildly different?
/series/3186...

But I've never thought of poetry as nonfiction.

Camilla wrote: "But I've never thought of poetry as nonfiction."

That might have been a bad example. Substitute essays if you like—e.g., a set of essay collections published through one publisher but with different authors and focuses.

Liralen wrote: "That might have been a bad example. Substitute essays if you like—e.g., a set of essay collections published through one publisher ..."

Yes, that is a good example of what I would not consider a series.

Hmmm ... this feedback makes sense, thank you all.

It sounds like we'll need to narrow the definition, perhaps by including what a non-fiction series is not (e.g., a collection of books only linked by their imprint and/or genre is not a non-fiction series).

A few years ago I got reprimanded for creating a series for anthologies that were all edited by the same author. Most of the stories inside were part of ongoing series by the same authors. Other stories were connected to each other via the 8-book anthology series. Those stories were LITERALLY written as a series specifically for inclusion in the anthologies. Under the new definitions these books should be allowed now correct?

Hi Tawnya. Were the anthologies all non-fiction (as that's what we're discussing here)? It's hard to say without more information about the books you're referring to.

It seemed like the thread had included fiction as well. Sorry if that wasn't the case. As to the specific question, the books were science-fiction. It isn't a genre that I read. The books themselves were numbered, and both the publisher and Amazon listed them as series.

Probably best to start a new thread for this question and include a link to the books or original thread. 😊