Even though the use of "Smithee, Alan" on a resource comes about for different reasons than the typical joint or shared pseudonym, it seems to me that it is still functionally the same thing from a bibliographic standpoint.  To treat it any other way would open up a horrendous can of worms.  "Alan Smithee" was a specific name used by the Directors Guild of America, so the intent was to attribute responsibility to that specific persona rather than the actual director.  And whenever the name was used in cases other than DGA disputes, the intent would surely be the same thing.  That is, they are attributing responsibility to a particular nonexistent entity.  If they didn't want it to be "that" Alan Smithee (whatever that would mean), they'd choose a different name.

Record n  96005794 looks fine to me.  I don't see anything making it resemble an undifferentiated name record; it looks like a proper joint pseudonym record (apart from the misuse of an apostrophe to make a plural in the 663).  It seems rather incomplete, but otherwise correct in how it's formulated.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University<>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Pseudonym used by many authors

Speaking of pseudonyms that more than one person use, I’d be interested in what Richard and others have to say about the case of “Smithee, Alan” (n  96005794). It’s been set up as though it were a joint pseudonym but it isn’t really a joint pseudonym in my opinion. In cases like Carolyn Keene and (I gather) Melanie Stewart, joint pseudonyms are used by authors either to create a work together or to create different related works (as the Nancy Drew books).

I don’t think Alan Smithee is the same thing. It’s a customary pseudonym used by film directors to disown a project they’ve worked on, but that’s all the creators and works have in common. Further it’s not used only by film directors, nor is it the only pseudonym film directors use for this purpose.

So I don’t think it’s the same as a joint pseudonym. n  96005794 looks more like an undifferentiated name record to me, being used for a pseudonym (though it’s not labeled as undifferentiated). Comments?


Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602