Print

Print


If there is a name change (Bruce Jenner becomes Caitlin Jenner; Hillary Rodham becomes Hillary Rodham Clinton; a divorced person readopts his/her previous name) then there is only one identity and one authority record.  So all works are entered under the authorized access point for the person regardless of what name appears on manifestations.  

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900




On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:59 PM -0700, "Stephen Hearn" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

There are cases where a pseudonym is used essentially as a brand for a set of works, and other cases where the a pseudonym is adopted after a certain point in a career. 

J.I.M. Stewart, and academic writer, used "Michael Innes" to brand his mystery novels.  Even if the Innes books were reissued as by Stewart, the Innes name would still have value as an identifier for those works as a coherent body of work.

In contrast, Frederick Manfred initially started writing under his real name Feike Feikema, and then adopted the pesudonym Manfred for all his works thereafter.  This is less like a branding and more like a name change (or possibly a brand change).  Republications of the early works originally published under Feikema have appeared under Manfred--or rather, all but one have reappeared.  So far as I can determine, "Boy Almighty" has not been republished since its first appearance under the Feikema name.

The question is, should main entry practice for "Boy Almighty" follow the practice for authors with pseudonyms or the practice for authors with name changes? It fits both categories.

Stephen

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:43 PM, McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Gene,

 

The case being discussed is one in which a person has _multiple_ bibliographic identities, each of which has a Name Authority Record (thus multiple AAPs).  Works in one category are published under one name (and one AAP) while works in another are published under a different name (and AAP).  The question was, what happens if a work previously published under one established name is later republished under the other established name?

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

[log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 2:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 6.27.1.7

 

Just a question here.  Does that instruction only apply to the work in hand?

I thought AAPs for persons were based on the predominant usage for that person's works, not merely for that work "embodied in the resources."  (Who writes like that???)

 

In this case, I would use the AAP, already established and make sure there is a 500 in the authority record, just in case the patron searches under the unauthorized form of the the name,  Or maybe a a 400.

 

Gene Fieg

 

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Bob,

6.27.1.7 doesn't state that "works with responsibility split between one author's true name and pen name should be entered under the true name". It says that the authorized access point is constructed by combining the authorized access point for *the identity most frequently used on resources embodying the work* and the preferred title. In case you can't figure that out, then we are instructed to begin with the authorized access point appearing in *the most recent resource embodying the work.* In neither case is that necessarily the "true" name.

So the question is, which identity is most frequently used on resources embodying "A city girl"? From what you say below, it looks like that identity is "John Law."

I don't think RDA 6.27.1.7 justifies what LC-PSD apparently did with Michael Crichton. As far as I can see neither RDA nor any policy statements say what to do with statements such as "Michael Crichton writing as John Lange", but 6.27.1.7, again, says that the authorized access point is based on the identity used most frequently. Just because current publications suddenly start explaining who John Lange is doesn't justify changing the access points for the works, much less deleting the identity entirely. I'd be interested in hearing from LC-PSD itself either explaining why they took this seeminly extraordinary action, or saying they will restore the file.

My opinion about phrases such as "Michael Crichton writing as John Lange" or " John Law (Margaret Harkness)": These phrases do identify the real identity of a pseudonym and seem mainly used when an author has risen to a point where recognition of the real identity will sell more copies than the pseudonym. But in both cases the phrasing indicates that the work still represents itself as being written by the pseudonym identity, not the "real" identity and the information about the real name is being given as information only. The principle of representation continues to apply: the works should continue to be identified using the identity they represent themselves by, in these cases, the pseudonym.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 6.27.1.7

Good afternoon Folks:

I have a case here that involves a pseudonym and may invoke the full implied force of RDA 6.27.1.7 but I should check before requesting cancellations.

n  79123172  Law, John, $d 1854-1923
nb2007013259 Harkness, Margaret, $d 1854-1923

Magaret Harkness wrote under her own name and under the pen name John Law.  It seems that ealier editions of thew work in hand, A city girl, simply had John Law as the responsible party, though the in-hand publication has John Law (Margaret Harkness), which seems to meet the inconstancy criteria of 6.27.1.7.  It's difficult to say for certain, but one gets the impression that most everything she wrote as John law is now given the statement of responsibility John Law (Margaret Harkness).

The Crichton qualification:  the classic example of an author with multiple pen names is Michael Crichton, whose authority record has a very interesting 667: "Michael Crichton wrote 8 novels and 2 short stories under the name John Lange; these have been reissued with the statement "Michael Crichton writing as John Lange"; per RDA 6.27.1.7 the  authorized access point for these works is Michael Crichton. The alternate identity authority record for John Lange has been deleted--LC-PSD, August 14, 2014."

As is, 6.27.1.7 states unequivocally that any works with responsibility split between one author's true name and pen name should be entered under the true name: not Law, John, [dates]. $t City girl ..., rather  Harkness, Margaret, [dates]. $t City girl ... .The Crichton qualification takes this to its logical conclusion, but isn't stated explicitly in RDA so far as I can tell.

My question to you all: a record for Harkness and Law, or one record where Law is a cross reference to Harkness?

Thanks

Bob


--
Bob Talbott

Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger

UC Berkeley

250 Moffitt

Berkeley, CA 94720

יול נא מי באי מאי בלאק טעלעסקאפ

 




--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242