If two people are writing a letter or letters together, it can be considered a collaborative work. I have never had this situation in cataloging, but my mom and dad used to send me letters like that so I would never say never.  When two people are writing back and forth to each other and the book contains many of those letters, it is considered a compilation of two compilations of the works of one creator.  Assuming that the book contains letters written by Camus AND letters written by Casarès, you would probably want to have analytical added entries for both like this:

700 12 $a CasareÌs, Maria. $t Correspondence. $k Selections.
700 12 $a Camus, Albert, $d 1913-1960. $t Correspondence  $k Selections.

There would be no 100, but you might need a 130.  You might also need other additions in those 700s like $l English.  I did not look at the bibliographic record so I don’t know what else might be needed.

I have seen books that contain letters written only by Person A to Person B and not vice versa.  In that case it is appropriate for Person A to be considered the creator of the work because Person A is the writer of all the letters.  Then you would probably have a 100 for Person A and a 240 with a conventional collective title.  Person B might be in a 700.  It is difficult to tell from the titles what the situation is.  Just because there are two people’s names in the title doesn’t mean that two people have written the letters.  Your example is more clear because they are given in the statement of responsibility.


Kate James
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Finnerty, Ryan
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 5:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Correspondence of Camus and Casarès

Hello PCC List,

Gallimard recently published the correspondence between Albert Camus and Maria Casarès. The book contains letters written by each of them.

Correspondance : 1944-1959 / Albert Camus, Maria Casarès
OCLC# 1010979515

The OCLC record is coded as RDA and it has Camus in the 100 field. In order for Camus to properly be in the 100 field, this would need to be considered a collaborative work (RDA

I’m more of the view that this is a compilation by two different authors since (in my view anyway) each letter can stand on its own as a separate work. If this is the case, then this should be entered under title according to RDA

I looked in OCLC for other RDA records for correspondence and have seen them cataloged both ways with no one way predominating.

What do you all think? Should collections of correspondence between two different people be considered collaborative works or compilations?

Thanks for your advice!

Ryan J. Finnerty | Head, Database and Authorities Management & NACO Coordinator
UC San Diego Library | 9500 Gilman Drive | La Jolla, CA 92093 | MC 0175-K
T: 858.822.3138 | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>