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