While I agree with its sentiment, the first paragraph is not something
that I wrote. The problem I find with your interpretation is that you
have read your assumptions into the text.
First, you continually refer to publications, but AACR2 makes no mention
of publications in this section of the rules and does not privilege them.
It refers to "resources" and "works," neither of which require
publication. I do not know the reason for this, perhaps the authors meant
to allow the inclusion of manuscripts and unpublished visual and musical
Secondly, the section on theses does not say, "count these only if you
need to; theses are of secondary importance." That might have been the
intention, but the words simply say, "make sure that you include the
thesis as one of the sources for the name when you are calculating the
most the most frequently used form, or in default of one, the fullest
form." Obviously, lots of people do not like the rule; but I think it is
clear. Hence, Deborah's objection to it. Exceptional does not equal
subordinate or less important.
We could argue most of the other points back and forth, but I do not
think they are as significant.
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
[log in to unmask]