Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

403 views
Book Issues > SparkNotes guides vs. the actual work

Comments (showing 1-16 of 16) (16 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Heather (new)

Heather (autumnsymphony) | 3 comments I'm searching and adding to my shelves SparkNotes guides and finding a few guides that are combined directly with the literature they're about. For example, this has several guides/notes/etc about it that are combined. Since I'm rather new at this, I was wondering - should these be separated, then updated with the information specific to the guide? I'm not entirely sure if I can even do that as it's got 11 ratings - at what point does it require a superlibrarian to step in?

I'm just checking around to make sure I don't do anything to make more work for someone else later on. I'd rather lessen the general errors around here, not add to them! (=


JG (The Introverted Reader) | 462 comments They should definitely be separated. If you have better information to add, do so. It really helps if the primary author isn't the same as the author of the original work. They're less likely to be combined that way. It will help to add a librarian note saying that this edition is the SparkNotes edition and should not be combined with the "real" work. You can do all of this. We only need superlibrarians to delete books with more than five reviews, and that doesn't sound like something you're asking about.

If you need better instructions, just ask and we'll be happy to help! :-)


message 3: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 28572 comments Mod
No, notes alone should NOT be combined. I separated out the three I saw and tagged them with Librarian's Notes.


message 4: by Heather (new)

Heather (autumnsymphony) | 3 comments Thanks so much, both of you! As I'm continuing my adding, I'll take care any such errors I catch.


message 5: by Sherry (last edited Aug 20, 2009 03:12PM) (new)

Sherry (ssaccoliti) | 267 comments There is a really helpful link about Cliffs Notes that I think covers this topic pretty well:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
with the following summary:
" I have found the authors by the LoC. So to be clear:
slot 1: author of the cliff notes (or Sparks Notes etc ...)
slot 2: author: Cliffs Notes (or Sparks Notes etc ...)
slot 3: author of book being cliff noted "

See the Cliffs Notes edition of CITR - The Catcher in the Rye as an example.
Hope this helps.



message 6: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (redwolftamer) | 7 comments I realize this topic is several years old but it doesn't cover the No Fear Shakespeare editions. I understand separating regular Sparks Notes guides, but the No Fear editions do have the original text plus the modern day translation. I noticed some of Shakespeare's works have the No Fear editions combined and others don't and I'm just wondering what the standard practice is.


message 7: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl | 6110 comments Any edition which contains the complete text of the play (which I believe No Fear eds. do) should be combined with all other editions of the play.


message 8: by Sophie (new)

Sophie (notemily) | 459 comments I'm looking at the No Fear books right now and a LOT of them have SparkNotes as the primary author, even though they're combined with the original work. Combined books with different primary authors have become a personal pet peeve for me. Can we add to this thread that if you're going to combine a No Fear Shakespeare with the original work, William Shakespeare should be kept as the primary author?


message 9: by Sophie (new)

Sophie (notemily) | 459 comments Also, I'd argue that just because it contains the complete text of the play doesn't mean it's an edition of the play. Plenty of books contain the text of other books within them, but have additional material that makes them separate books in their own right. (Collections, two-for-one books, etc.)


message 10: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl | 6110 comments Sophie wrote: "Also, I'd argue that just because it contains the complete text of the play doesn't mean it's an edition of the play. Plenty of books contain the text of other books within them, but have additiona..."

Right but Hamlet (No Fear) is an edition completely devoted to one play, which is the logic behind combining it with all the other Hamlets (except the graphic novels etc). A collection or a two-for-one is a completely different thing.


message 11: by Sophie (new)

Sophie (notemily) | 459 comments I guess it's like an annotated version. Those are combined, right?


message 12: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (redwolftamer) | 7 comments I'd keep them as different editions of the original play, and whenever I do see Sparknotes as the primary author I switch it with Shakespeare. I haven't opened one in a while but I'm pretty sure Shakespeare's text is first followed by the translation.


message 13: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl | 6110 comments Sophie wrote: "I guess it's like an annotated version. Those are combined, right?"

Yes.


message 14: by Jay (new)

Jay | 8 comments I just want to clarify that sparknotes should be the first author and then the actual author of the book is second. I can see a few examples where the sparknotes book has been added with actual book

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...

so the book above do I put sparknotes as the first author then Mary Shelley as second. Then do I leave it with the novel or separate it.

and I can also see that many sparknote books don't have the actual author listed. Is ok to add the author to them?


message 15: by Krazykiwi (new)

Krazykiwi | 1462 comments Sparknotes don't contain the entire original text, so they should not be combined with the original. They probably should not have the subject novel author as an author. They are books about the original novels, and the novel author did not write them.

N.B. It's very important that all combined editions of a work have the same primary author as it breaks the ratings and statistics if they don't. Please don't reorder authors on books unless you are separating them (and then you may as well separate them first.)


message 16: by Sherry (new)

Sherry (ssaccoliti) | 267 comments Yes, See message 5 in this topic. If the actual author of the Cliffs Notes is known, then
first author: author of the cliff notes (or Sparks Notes etc ...)
second author: Cliffs Notes (or Sparks Notes etc ...)

If the author of the Cliffs Notes is unknown, then the first author is Cliffs Notes.

Seems unclear now if the last author should be the author of the original work or not...

Agree that these should NOT be combined with the original work.


back to top

unread topics | mark unread


Books mentioned in this topic

Cliffs Notes on Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye (other topics)