 |
 |
That’s an interesting decision on the two Human Torches. It must have been influenced by the fact that Timely Comics was the predecessor to Marvel Comics, meaning that the Torch who battled the Sub-Mariner endlessly in the Golden Age is part of the same “universe,” more or less, as Johnny Storm of the Fantastic Four. And, I suppose, by the fact that, when at work, both look like a red outline of a genitalia-free male with flames all over him.
I notice that Captain Marvel, the Fawcett character who was Billy Batson until he said “Shazam!,” has his own name authority record, while the various entities called “Captain Marvel” in comics published by the Marvel group have a separate record. The Billy Batson Captain looks completely different from the Marvel Captains, of course. I don’t know whether they all look alike or not, having never really gotten into Marvel and having been off comics for quite a while in general. One is female, so that would presumably make for a visual difference (this is comics, after all)
The two Torches seem to have been lumped into one authority record based on a kind of commercial interchangeability. Jim Hammond and Johnny Storm were owned by more or less the same entity and sold comics for that entity by flying around while on fire, and surely a person born in 1931 might have picked up a Fantastic Four comic book in 1965 and mistaken Johnny Storm for the good old Golden Age Torch.
But they are not the same character, and the names are not aliases for the same person (or android in the first Torch’s case). The decision seems to me a little fudged.
Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
GOV] On Behalf Of Netanel Ganin
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 12:19 PM
Stephen,
You raise important questions (and ones with which I've struggled and wrestled)
I think LC's policy in terms of subject access is pretty clear though
Three citations (because we all love citing policy, don't we):
1.
H 1610 Fictitious Characters Section 5. Assignment of headings (emphasis mine)
For individual plays or poems assign a subject heading only if the character has been borrowed by the author from another author or source and used in the creation of a new work. For subject cataloging purposes, the borrowed character’s identity is considered the same as that of the character created by the original author. Do not create a separate name heading for the borrowed character. Instead, assign the same heading that would have been assigned to the original work.
2.
H 1790 Literature: Fiction Special provisions. Section 4. Character(s) (emphasis mine)
Note: Fictitious characters may be borrowed by an author from another author, or from another source, and used in the creation of a new work. Assign the same heading to works by the original creator of the character and to works in which the character has been borrowed.
3.
I also think that the May PSD Editorial notes rejection of the following proposal is relevant
Human Torch (Fictitious characters)
"The Human Torch is a fictitious character that has various human identities over time. The Human Torch himself may have changed his looks over time, but it was still the same character. It is therefore not a group of fictitious characters according to LCSH, but a single one, which should be established in the name authority file as a pseudonym used by several persons. The proposal was not approved."
Thus--I gather by extension from subjects to names that LC's intent is to lump all iterations of a fictional character (e.g. Holmes as envisioned by Doyle, Moffat and whoever created Elementary) into a single authority record. Thus I see justification for the 400s/670s you bring up.
As to a 500 between a fictional character and the person on whom they are based. I find no statements on that practice one way or the other. That's my (admittedly long) 3 cents.
best,
Netanel Ganin
------------------------------
------------------------------ Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
My pronouns are he/him/his
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Is there a relationship between Christopher Milne the person and Christopher Robin the character? If so, would you express it or not, and how?
There's no expressed relationship between "Alice (Fictitious character from Carroll)" and "Hargreaves, Alice Pleasance Liddell, 1852-1934" in their authorities. On the other hand, there is a 400 for "Fairchild, Alice, Lady (Fictitious character)", the version of Alice which Alan Moore presents in Lost girls, in the authority for "Alice (Fictitious character from Carroll)". The Moore version of Dorothy Gale has a 400 on the "Gale, Dorothy (Fictitious character)" authority; and the authority for "Darling, Wendy (Fictitious character)" appears to go further down this rabbit hole.
Stephen
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Netanel Ganin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I concur with my esteemed colleague Ann, and am emboldened by same from Pete and Benjamin.
Thanks for your thoughts, all.
Netanel Ganin
------------------------------
------------------------------ Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
My pronouns are he/him/his
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think Ann is correct, inasmuch as the name “Christopher Robin” is derived from “Christopher Robin Milne” it should be: 100 0\ $a Christopher Robin $c (Fictional character).
And since this has escaped people’s attention, add a “see” ref.: 400 1\ $a Robin, Christopher $c (Fictional character).
--Ben
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
GOV] On Behalf Of Ann Kardos
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Christopher Robin
All,
I agree that Christipher Robin should likely be made distinct. My understanding is with the previous responder that RDA allows us to unambiguously describe entities that may not have been described previously. But here's my question... Is Robin his last name? I always thought his name was being used like first and middle, as if my mother were calling me Ann Marie vs. Ann.
Anyway, Christopher Robin stars in several books, several movies, and with Disney, who knows what else he may feature in. Shouldn't he be given a name of his own?
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Julian Everett Allgood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Pete and Netanel :
Hi -- I may be completely off-base on this and if so, I will rely on our colleagues to quickly set me straight (smile!).
But to my understanding of the AACR2 and RDA Cataloging Standards, this question of whether or not a given Entity (in this case, the fictitious character Christopher Robin) is "eligible" for a NACO Name Authority Record is really critical.
With AACR2 and its emphasis on describing Items, NACO Catalogers relied largely upon "bibliographic warrant" in order to establish names, titles, subjects, geographic areas, etc. That is, there needed to be a bibliographic resource libraries would be interested in acquiring for their collections in order for a NACO or SACO Cataloger to create a Name or Subject Authority Record for an Entity.
One of the things that RDA has done very well (in my opinion) is to discard the "Bibliographic Warrant" prerequisite for NACO & SACO Identifiers. In doing so, RDA has expanded the universe of Entities eligible to be described unambiguously within controlled language vocabularies. And this is critical as libraries and the Information Community moves forward.
Whereas AACR2 was almost exclusively concerned with Item descriptions, the primary focus of RDA (again, IMHO) is upon Entities and the Relationships between and among those Entities. If any conceivable Entity (and its Relationships) is now eligible for description within our Bibliographic and Authority files, then we as Librarians and players within the Information Landscape must be able to Identify each of those Entities uniquely and unambiguously, right?
Getting back to our "Christopher Robin" example, Users and Information Consumers need to be able to quickly and easily distinguish between:
Robin, Christopher, $d 1908-
Robin, Christopher, $d 1953-
Robin, Christopher, $c (Fictitious character)
... as well as Christopher Robin -- the author of the 2004 work, Flung, and all of the Christopher Robins who have lived but may not yet be established within the world's assorted Authority Files. And of course, all of those Christopher Robins not yet born.
As you can probably by this point tell, I believe that the RDA approach to NACO Entity Descriptions is wise. And that yes indeed, Christopher Robin, the fictitious character is eligible for a Name Entity Identifier.
my two cents,
Everett Allgood
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Netanel Ganin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks for the thoughts Pete, I was mostly concerned that there was some pressing 'Official' reason that subject had been used (though having checked LC's own catalog [which I should've done before] I see that though the heading is on at least one DLC record, it isn't in LC's catalog)
best,
Netanel Ganin
------------------------------
------------------------------ Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
My pronouns are he/him/his
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I agree that Christopher Robin is not Christopher Milne.
My only question is: do we really need a fictitious character heading for Christopher Robin? We don’t make one for every fictitious character. The dubious assertion that certain books were fiction about the real-life Christopher Milne seems to have been thought by at least one cataloger to have been of interest for cataloging purposes, but I’m not sure there’s a call for a heading for Christopher Robin the fictitious character, unless he has been a character in some non-Pooh-related books, or a subject of nonfiction books. Which may well be.
Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
GOV] On Behalf Of Netanel Ganin
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Christopher Robin
Greetings PCC,
While cataloging a Winnie-the-Pooh Hebrew translation, I ran into an oddity. I wanted to run it by some wisdom lest I run afoul of an established practice.
I note that there are a few records in OCLC for Winnie-the-Pooh related resources which have a subject heading of
600 1 0 Milne, Christopher 1920-1996. Juvenile fiction
(Indeed, the OCLC record I was working from had the same heading)
It seems to this cataloger that Christopher Robin, though based on the actual son of A.A. Milne, is a distinct person in his own right and his appearances in fiction are not simply fictionalized appearances of Christopher Milne.
Compare with
Alice (Fictitious character from Carroll) and
Hargreaves, Alice Pleasance Liddell, 1852-1934
Here the distinction has been drawn between a fictional character which shares a name with, and is based on, an actual person.
----
So what say you O Best Beloved, am I justified in creating:
Robin, Christopher (Fictitious character)? (actual AAP may vary)
best,
Netanel Ganin
------------------------------
------------------------------ Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
My pronouns are he/him/his
--*************************
Everett Allgood
Authorities Librarian & Principal Serials Cataloger
New York University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
212 998 2488
--Ann Kardos
Metadata & Resource Sharing Coordinator
Brandeis University
Library & Technology Services
Follow us!
--
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
