Adam,
I see how the idea of coding identities could be coherent. As Richard pointed out, identities can be something like fictitious characters. However, I would think one difference might be that a fictitious character doesn't change with more information, because the character is whatever the writer wants her to be. I suppose it's possible Rowling could continue to "channel her inner bloke" through Galbraith indefinitely. Perhaps Eliot quit channeling it fairly early in her career, or never channeled it at all. Maybe she wrote under the male name simply because she wouldn't be taken seriously as a writer if she revealed her femaleness in the 19th century. But there were serious woman writers in the 19th century, so I'm guessing Eliot did pose as a male to some extent. In other words, she wanted to write the sorts of things women were not expected to write at that time, as Rowling did with her Galbraith identity.
The question is: how hard will it be to come up with consistent rules on this sort of thing, and how much of the coding will depend on individual cataloger judgment?
Ted Gemberling
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 11:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] authorities for alternate identities
This is coded for the gender of the IDENTITY, not the gender of the real person.
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Moore, Richard wrote:
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 07:22:55 +0100
> From: "Moore, Richard" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: authorities for alternate identities
>
> It's an interesting question that's relevant also to authorities for fictitious characters, etc., where we've wondered about recording at the element level the purported biographical details of the person. We thought a hard and fast rule probably wasn't appropriate, but there might be occasions when it would be useful to collocate, for example, works purportedly by ficititious Belgian detectives; bearing in mind also that all these authorities will, in the fullness of time, live in LC/NAF also when needed for subject use.
>
> And of course there is the grey area where fictitious characters and pseudonyms start to overlap.
>
> Regards
> Richard
>
>
> _________________________
> Richard Moore
> Authority Control Team Manager
> The British Library
>
> Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
> Sent: 05 August 2013 00:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] authorities for alternate identities
>
> Robert Galbraith is a male name. Catalogers in the Anglo-American tradition would recognize that. Why is it necessary to code for the gender at all?
>
> We have known for a long time that George Eliot was a woman. But presumably--I could be wrong since I'm not a literature person--the "publicity information released" about her indicated a male gender at some point. So when does it become appropriate to change the designation to the person's real gender? Now that Galbraith has 'unmasked' herself to her editor David Shelley, does it become appropriate to make the coding female?
>
> I think a requirement to code 375 when the name isn't ambiguous creates unnecessary problems. I think it should be cataloger judgment how many 3XX fields are used in personal name authority records.
> Just my two cents.
>
> Ted Gemberling
> UAB Lister Hill Library
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 7:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] authorities for alternate identities
>
> All of the publicity information released about Robert Galbraith
> indicate that this identity is a male. I believe the coding in the
> NAR is correct. For example, see http://www.robert-galbraith.com/
>
> "Why did you choose to write it as a man? Did it influence your writing in anyway?" I certainly wanted to take my writing persona as far away as possible from me, so a male pseudonym seemed a good idea. I am proud to say, though, that when I ʽunmaskedʼ myself to my editor David Shelley who had read and enjoyed 'The Cuckooʼs Calling' without realizing I wrote it, one of the first things he said was ʽI never would have thought a woman wrote that.ʼ Apparently I had successfully channeled my inner bloke!
>
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:31:00 +0000
>> From: Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: authorities for alternate identities
>>
>> Calling Robert Galbraith (pseudonym for J.K. Rowling) male doesn't seem correct. I notice George Eliot, 1819-1880 is listed as female, so a person's real identify seems to take precedence over the way a person presents herself in a pseudonym.
>>
>> I think it's questionable that you can even infer gender from a person's name in many cases. For example, I revised an authority for a Jean Wilson recently. As an American, you would expect that to be a woman, but he is a male, based on photographs I found.
>>
>> The 375 is another field I don't think we should fill in routinely unless we find it's useful.
>>
>> Ted Gemberling
>> UAB Lister Hill Library
>>
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
>> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 1:06 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [PCCLIST] authorities for alternate identities
>>
>> Comparing the RDA authorities for Lewis Carroll, J.K. Rowling, and Mark Twain and their alternate identities, I see three models of practice.
>>
>> The 3XX fields describing Lewis Carroll and Charles Lutwidge Dodgson describe them identically--e.g., both are identified in 372s as working in Writing, Mathematics, Teaching, and Photography.
>>
>> The 3XX fields describing J.K. Rowling and Robert Galbraith describe distinct identities--e.g., Rowling is identified as working in Fantasy fiction and Young adult fiction, and as female, while Galbraith is identified as working in Detective and mystery stories, and as male.
>>
>> The RDA authorities for Mark Twain and his alternate identities might represent a third model. Only the Twain authority has 046 and 3XX fields, while the Clemens, Conte, and Snodgrass authorities have none.
>>
>> Are these all correct, and if so, what criteria should we use when deciding which differences between two identities for the same person should be expressed and when attributes should be expressed identically or left unexpressed?
>>
>> Or is Carroll a special case? So much of the Dodgson corpus has been reissued under or in conjunction with the Carroll name that one could make a case for making Dodgson a 400 under Carroll. A similar case could be made for merging Clemens into Twain.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
>> Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota
>> 160 Wilson Library
>> 309 19th Avenue South
>> Minneapolis, MN 55455
>> Ph: 612-625-2328
>> Fx: 612-625-3428
>>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> **********************************************************************
> **** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
>
> The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts :
> http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
>
> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
> http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
>
> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
>
> **********************************************************************
> ***
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
>
> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
>
> **********************************************************************
> ***
> Think before you print
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
