Print

Print


My own preference would be to retain AAP entry under Westmacott for these
novels, given that they form a distinct body of works in the larger
Christie corpus, later publications featuring the Christie name more
prominently than Westmacott or even omitting Westmacott notwithstanding.
The less distinct the body of an author's works under a particular
pseudonym is, the less compelling that approach becomes; but it's
compelling in enough cases to justify making it the default treatment, at
least in my opinion. With pseudonyms, it's often the case that who the
pseudonym is matters less than which works are credited to the
pseudonym--it's a device for distinguishing a body of works, not simply an
alternate name for a person.

I'd be satisfied with leaving the 100/500 relationships on the Christie and
Westmacott authorities as sufficient to connect them. I'd also be okay with
adding Christie as a "related person of manifestation" from the Beta RDA
(when that's authorized) to those manifestations where Christie's name is
featured prominently. I'd limit the "real identity/alternate identity"
relationship to its use with the authorities for Christie and Westmacott
themselves, not to account for adding Christie's name to a Westmacott
novel's bib record.

For the alternate approach, see the LCNAF authorities under "Bachman,
Richard", pseudonym of Stephen King. A 667 note on no2003098597 cites RDA
6.27.1.7 as the instruction being followed in the shift in attribution from
Bachman to King for works that have been entered under Bachman but now
appear naming King. The RDA instruction bases the choice of entry name on
predominant usage or, if that can't be determined, on most recent usage on
manifestations. This approach shifts the task of maintaining a connection
between the Bachman identity and its subset of the novels by King to the
authorities, where Bachman can persist as the entry name for a name/title
400. The 667 also suggests adding an access point for Bachman on bib
records, which implies that Bachman will not become a 400 pointing to King,
since if that were to happen, the Bachman 700s would be changed to King and
become redundant. Happily this does indicate a departure from the older
practice of letting the better known name eventually absorb the less known
pseudonym as a 400.

I agree with Bob Maxwell that consistency is the main thing. It's the
inconsistent approaches in bib records that are my main concern. As long as
our practice enables collocated access to a body of pseudonymous works, as
both of these approaches do, either approach is viable. But I do worry that
making this kind of access dependent on authority records being part of the
search process may effectively sacrifice it, given the state of current
system search defaults. Meanwhile, I think I have the answers I was looking
for.

Thanks,

Stephen

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:10 AM Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> That’s a valid point. I’m not making any arguments for or against
> retaining the original authorized access point in these cases. My point is
> that whatever the authorized access point is, changed or the same, it needs
> to be reflected consistently in all the bibliographic records. This applies
> to any authorized access point, whether for works, persons, corporate
> bodies, etc.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Gemberling, Ted P
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:57 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: two pseudonym questions
>
>
>
> I think that’s an argument that the AAP must continue to be Westmacott,
> even if the title page says “Christie writing as Westmacott.” It would not
> make sense to make the original edition have main entry Christie in my
> opinion.
>
>
>
> Ted Gemberling
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Robert Maxwell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2020 10:46 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] two pseudonym questions
>
>
>
> In the model we are following an entity (such as a work, expression,
> person, etc.) can have one and only one instance and that instance has one
> and only one authorized access point.
>
>
>
> Under RDA we are to record “as a minimum the work manifested” (0.6.8).This
> is done in a MARC bibliographic record in our current environment by
> recording the authorized access point for the work either in 1XX + 240, 1XX
> + 245 subfield $a (when that subfield is exactly the same as the preferred
> title of the work), or 7XX field(s). The character strings in these fields
> need to match exactly the character strings in the corresponding authority
> record (if it exists).
>
>
>
> So yes, if the authorized access point for a work changes, the authorized
> access points recorded in existing bibliographic records (at least those
> emanating from PCC) do need to be changed because the old form is no longer
> accurate and no longer represents the “work manifested” relationship to the
> record. This is what we do if the authorized access point for a person
> changes for whatever reason (e.g., a death date is added, or the preferred
> name changes for some reason--we go back and change all the forms in old
> bibliographic records to match the new form); the same applies to
> authorized access points for works.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Gemberling, Ted P
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:16 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: two pseudonym questions
>
>
>
> But would you recommend going back to the original publications and
> changing the AAP to Agatha Christie? I think that would be confusing.
>
>
>
> Then you would have to tell people to put on a 700 for Westmacott. Not
> everyone would do it.
>
>
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
>
> Ted Gemberling
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Jessica Janecki
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2020 10:09 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] two pseudonym questions
>
>
>
> I believe that since these three works have been republished as attributed
> to Agatha Christie the AAP should be changed to Agatha Christie. I seem to
> remember that a decision was made with the Richard Bachman books began to
> be republished with Stephen King on the title page, but I am struggling to
> find any documentation.
>
>
>
> Jessica Janecki
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Stephen Hearn
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2020 11:00 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] two pseudonym questions
>
>
>
> Agatha Christie wrote six romance novels under the pseudonym Mary
> Westmacott per the Westmacott authority. Currently there are three titles
> established under Westmacott in the LCNAF. All three have been republished
> in recent years as "by Agatha Christie writing as Mary Westmacott." This
> raises several questions.
>
>
>
> 1. When this formulation is used, which is the correct choice for a work's
> authorized access point--the "by" name, or the "writing as" name? How
> should we interpret "Works by this author are entered under the name used
> in the item" in this case?
>
>
>
> 2. When all titles initially published under a pseudonym are republished
> under an author's better known identity, should the pseudonym change in
> LCNAF from a separate 100 to a 400 under the better known identity?
>
>
>
> 3a. If the 100 does become a 400, is it still appropriate to preserve 400
> name/title entries established under a name no longer established
> separately? For example:
>
> 100 1 $a Christie, Agatha, $d 1890-1976. $t Giant's bread
>
> 400 1 $w nne $a Westmacott, Mary, $d 1890-1976. $t Giant's bread
>
>
>
> 3b. If a title published under the pseudonym was never established,  is it
> still appropriate to have 400 name/title entries under a name no longer
> established separately? For example:
>
> 100 1 $a Christie, Agatha, $d 1890-1976. $t Daughter's burden
>
> 400 1 $a Westmacott, Mary, $d 1890-1976. $t Daughter's burden
>
>
>
> 4. In these cases, if a pseudonym like Westmacott is preserved as a
> separate 100 identity and does not become a 400 for Christie, can both
> names appear as access points in bib records, e.g., one as 100 and the
> other as 700?
>
>
>
> The catalog records entered under Westmacott in OCLC indicate a fair
> amount of uncertainty how to deal with these cases.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Stephen
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> Ph: 612-625-2328
>
> Fx: 612-625-3428
>
> ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242
>


-- 
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
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242