I’m a believer in “real world facts” about *real* people.
I think there’s a fallacy here in believing that 1) we always know if an identity pseudonymous or not, and 2) that the information we gather about identities is always true.
Let me add a little to what I said. Of course catalogs should have information about the fictional work like what historical period it covers, whether it’s a romantic story, and so on. Patrons will want to know if something belongs to a particular genre and what kind of things it touches. But they don’t need to know the author was born in a certain year or lives in Ireland.
I also think that Stephen’s points are good. But I want to add one more point: part of the reason we shouldn’t add biographical details for pseudonyms, except
maybe in 670’s, is that catalogs have no need to contain the richness of fictional writers’ visions. If I want to know that Hannah O’Brien lives in Ireland, presumably it’s because I’m already interested in her books. They will tell me; the catalog doesn’t
need to do that. The catalog is not a work of fiction. When a writer decides to write under a pseudonym, she is sort of saying, “I have this other fictional vision I’d like to share with readers.” If they are interested, they will enter into that vision. The
NAF doesn’t need to tell them about it. Presumably if the author chose a pseudonym, she probably thought it would be a memorable name, not easily confused with others, so qualifiers don’t seem that generally necessary, though I can agree with Luiza that (Pseudonym)
might be useful in some cases.
I’m a believer in “real world facts” about *real* people. The 3XX fields are useful for distinguishing real people, but I don’t think they should be useful for pseudonymous identities for the most part.
Just my two cents.
UAB Lister Hill Library
I endorse Stephen Hearn’s point about potential pitfalls in completing ‘biographical’ details for a pseudonym.
But good luck preaching restraint. We have colleagues who simply cannot leave a MARC tag empty, no matter how much noise filling it in may generate in searches, or how dubious, slight, or ephemeral the ascribed characteristics may be.
Christopher H. Walker
Serials Cataloging Librarian
Penn State's representative to the CONSER Operations Committee
005 Paterno Library
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802-1812
[log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
on behalf of Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 12:17:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Describing pseudonyms/real identities
I agree that the pseudonym represents a separate entity, but not that the pseudonym is best described in terms identical to a real person. Pseudonyms, like fictitious characterss, look like persons but essentially are creations. The terms that would describe a work, like creation date and creation place and genre, and likewise relationships to a personal or corporate creator, are often of more practical use for a study of the pseudonymous author than the terms that would describe the pseudonym or fictitious character as a person.
Consider the question of gender. If a male writer adopts a female pseudonym and constructs a female identity description to go with it, would scholars working in women's studies happily accept the pseudonym's works a belonging to the canon of women's writings? I would guess not; yet regarding pseudonyms simply in the terms of the author's representation would tend to put them there.
We need something more nuanced than the attributes and relationships proper to a person to adequately describe pseudonymous identities. Pending the development of that, I favor using as few attributes when describing these identities in the records that establish them as possible.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:33 AM Luiza Wainer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but there is still some internal disagreement in my institution about describing pseudonyms, so I wanted to open up for discussion once more the issue on using biographical information for the "real" identity to describing a pseudonym in an authority record.
The pseudonym and the "real" identity are two separate identities that are linked to the same entity, each of them with their own set of identifying attributes. This image from Wikimedia Commons by Audun Jøsang [CC BY 3.0] exemplifies this perfectly.
Authors may or may not decide that their pseudonym has a completely different backstory (or set of attributes) than their own.
This is clear in the case of Jim Dodge and Gordon Langley Ives: Jim Dodge (the “real” identity) was born in 1945 in California; Gordon Langley Ives (the pseudonym) was born in 1936 in England. They are both identities of the same entity (Jim Dodge the person).
Some of my colleagues believe that we should carry over these attributes from the “real” identity to the description of the pseudonym (like death/birth dates, professions, associated locations, etc), since that is how we’ve historically done things (see: Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens).
I argue that these attributes of the real identity should not be used to describe the pseudonym, even if the pseudonym doesn’t have its own, separate backstory. If an attribute is needed to disambiguate the name of the pseudonym, $c (Pseudonym) can be used instead of the dates of the real identity. Since these are two separate identities, using attributes of one to describe the other is inaccurate at best and harmful at worst.
Curious to see what you all think.
Princeton University Library
[log in to unmask] | (609) 258-2789
From: Luiza Wainer
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 10:01 AM
To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
Subject: Describing pseudonyms/real identities
Dear collective wisdom,
I was wondering on best practices for creating authority records for pseudonyms beyond what is covered on the LC/PCC FAQs on individuals with more than one identity.
If an individual only uses a pseudonym, we're instructed in RDA 126.96.36.199 (exception), RDA 188.8.131.52 and the aforementioned FAQs to input the person's real name, if known, as a 400. This seems a bit unethical to me. If this person does not want their real name associated with their works (hence the use of pseudonym), why are we making this explicit? In many cases with pseudonyms, a person has their real identity outed without their consent, and I question our complicity in this by publicly sharing this information in the NAF (see, for instance, the outing of J.K. Rowling as the real identity behind Robert Galbraith )
I also question using biographical information for the real identity when describing a pseudonym. Author's might decide that their pseudonym has a different gender, nationality, birth date, etc. then themselves for a myriad of reasons (like the endless list of women writers that decide to use male pseudonyms because, as Charlotte Bronte puts it, "we had a vague impression that authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice" ). Records like no2018033569 (Cunha, Eduardo, ǂd 1975-), n 79045512 (Eliot, George, ǂd 1819-1880), n 78081235 (Sand, George, ǂd 1804-1876) - just to name a few off the top of my head - all carry biographical information of the real identity, which does not describe the pseudonym.
It seems to me that the same best practices suggested for recording information about gender  should be applied for pseudonyms: "Do not dig for given names or genders assigned at birth". Which is to say, describe the identity associated with the pseudonym, and do not dig for information regarding the real identity.
I'd love to hear your thoughts and practices on the matter.
Princeton University Library
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
170A Wilson Library (office)
160 Wilson Library (mail)
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455