Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

156 views
Book Issues > What do these Librarian Notes mean?

Comments Showing 1-31 of 31 (31 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Krystal109 (new)

Krystal109 | 1086 comments http://www.goodreads.com/book/combine...

This author has a lot of librarian notes saying not to combine because it isn't "updated" like the others.

What does this mean? Are these "updates" enough to make the 80% needed difference to not be combined?


message 2: by Nenangs (new)

Nenangs | 469 comments maybe you should try to contact the librarian who made the notes.

but where did you get the reference of 80% difference to not be combined?
if it really is that high, lots of separated edition should be combined, even book 1 of 2 should be combined with the original works (50% difference only).


message 3: by Krystal109 (last edited Sep 13, 2012 11:37PM) (new)

Krystal109 | 1086 comments It was mentioned on another thread. I will see if I can find it.

Edit: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

And I trust Paula's word. I believe at some point rivka said it too on another threads. Basically it is to make sure the editions stay combined with unabridged, annotated, etc.

The reason books 1 of 2 stays separated is because it is a split volume, even if the difference may only be 50%. In other words, it has a numbering difference.

These books are still 1 is 1 and 2 is 2, so the only difference is the "updates".


message 4: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 43509 comments Mod
Krystal109 wrote: "Are these "updates" enough to make the 80% needed difference to not be combined?"

Well, 80% is more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule, but I suspect they should be combined, despite the Notes. I agree with Nenangs that contacting the librarian who left them is a good place to start, though.


message 5: by Krystal109 (new)

Krystal109 | 1086 comments Will do. Thanks guys. I will contact them and direct them here for reference and then find out what the difference is and how far these updates go.


message 6: by Nenangs (new)

Nenangs | 469 comments I agree about the "updates" being combined, only when the updates did not constitutes major changes (such as change of endings, change of major plot, change of main characters, etc.).

I will ask about the 80% difference in the linked thread you've given.


message 7: by Krystal109 (new)

Krystal109 | 1086 comments Well rivka already clarified it really and she is an employee... so her word is kind of final.

I never use it as a hard line, but I agree that small changes, even adding a chapter or two, is not enough to NOT combine the editions.


message 8: by Krystal109 (new)

Krystal109 | 1086 comments Hi, Krystal:

I am the one who asked that everyone not combine her older series of books with the newer revised ones. The reason is the content. Ms. Hatcher "redeemed" (her word), updated, or changed the content of the older series to aim them at the Christian market. I have no problem with that but when I read some of her older books I loved them for their entirety. I am guessing that she changed them to take out the sexual situations and add some Christian content. Again, no problem BUT if you mix up the older books with the newer ones with the Christian theme it will make you wonder what is going on.

Here is an old editorial on the author and changes. Http://www.likesbooks.com/editorial.htm. I confess that I did not read this before I made the changes yesterday. I simply did this because I have read several of the older books and saw that the newer ones weren't quite the same.

I hope I did this properly. Let me know if I should have handled it some other way.

Linda


Should they be left separated still?


message 9: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 43509 comments Mod
What I'm not seeing at that link is any real discussion about how much the books have been changed. "Weren't quite the same" sounds like they were pretty close to the originals, with only minor changes. If that is the case, then they should be combined.


message 10: by Krystal109 (last edited Sep 14, 2012 03:58PM) (new)

Krystal109 | 1086 comments I would say they should be. Editing out a few scenes to lend it more toward Christian audiences doesn't seem like enough to keep them separate.

I'll work on this now.


❂ Murder by Death  (murderbydeath) Krystal109 wrote: "I would say they should be. Editing out a few scenes to lend it more toward Christian audiences doesn't seem like enough to keep them separate.

I'll work on this now."


I agree, but if these are now being marketed as "clean" or "Christian" someone is gonna be in for a shock if they accidentally get the old version instead of the new. :D


message 12: by Krystal109 (new)

Krystal109 | 1086 comments LOL. That would be weird.


message 13: by Banjomike (new)

Banjomike | 5530 comments How about combining them AND having a line in bold at the top of the description which points out that this is NOT the Christian version or some such thing.

It does seem reasonable to me that an author who now considers herself to be "Christian" might be a little cautious about her older, earthier, works.


message 14: by Beth (new)

Beth (bethjustbeth) | 1586 comments Banjomike wrote: "How about combining them AND having a line in bold at the top of the description which points out that this is NOT the Christian version or some such thing.

It does seem reasonable to me that an..."


Agreed...and this would be more reliable distinction for members, than the librarian note.


message 15: by vicki_girl (new)

vicki_girl | 2765 comments You could also add "Updated Version" and "Original Verrsion" to the edition field. Though I would say definitely put it in the description. The edition field information is easy to miss IMO.


message 16: by Krystal109 (new)

Krystal109 | 1086 comments Bleh.... I don't even know which editions they were now. I will ask the original librarian to do this.


message 17: by Nenangs (last edited Sep 16, 2012 05:22AM) (new)

Nenangs | 469 comments +1 for banjomike & vicky_girl suggetions.

and LOL for jennifer's comment. :D

edited (again) for banjomike's name.


message 18: by Banjomike (new)

Banjomike | 5530 comments Nenangs wrote: "+1 for banjominke:D"

banjoMINKE

Hm, "Minke" =lesser rorqual, is a name given to two species of marine mammal belonging to a clade within the suborder of baleen whales.

That is almost certainly an insult in some ancient language but I will ignore it.


message 19: by Michael (new)

Michael | 262 comments I thought that abridged editions were NOT to be combined with original editions - have I got that wrong?


message 20: by Nenangs (new)

Nenangs | 469 comments Banjomike wrote: "Nenangs wrote: "+1 for banjominke:D"

banjoMINKE

Hm, "Minke" =lesser rorqual, is a name given to two species of marine mammal belonging to a clade within the suborder of baleen whales.

That is almost certainly an insult in some ancient language but I will ignore it."


oops, sorry for the typo. corrected right away.
never meant to insult you.

and as a diver, i love all sea creatures indiscriminately. :)


message 21: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Michael wrote: "I thought that abridged editions were NOT to be combined with original editions - have I got that wrong?"

Abridged editions are combined unless they are so different that they are considered adaptations.


message 22: by Banjomike (new)

Banjomike | 5530 comments Cait wrote: "Michael wrote: "I thought that abridged editions were NOT to be combined with original editions - have I got that wrong?"

Abridged editions are combined unless they are so different that they are considered adaptations"


I tend to write "abridged" or some such in the edition field.


message 23: by Linda (new)

Linda  (goodreadscomtakethyme) | 2 comments Let me know what I should do. I can add 'original edition' under EDITION and DESCRIPTION.

My personal experience having read some but not all, of the two series that I had separated, are the newer books are adaptions. Some of the content was revised or modified and the author even went as far as to change the title from Kiss Me, Katie to Catching Katie....which started this whole thing. I was trying to update the series information for readers and couldn't find the title because they were combined.

Let me know what you want me to do.

Linda


message 24: by Banjomike (new)

Banjomike | 5530 comments Linda wrote: "the author even went as far as to change the title from Kiss Me, Katie to Catching Katie"

So 'Catching Katie' is more Christian than 'Kiss Me, Katie'?

Given that the author is seemingly unhappy with her older works perhaps we should add a much more descriptive banner to those editions. Something along the lines of "Not revised for Christian readers". Only a suggestion.


message 25: by Linda (new)

Linda  (goodreadscomtakethyme) | 2 comments "So 'Catching Katie' is more Christian than 'Kiss Me, Katie'?"

Honestly, I don't know why she changed that title and not the others when she revised the series unless it was to remove the words KISS ME from the title.


Elizabeth (Alaska) | 6773 comments Banjomike wrote: "Given that the author is seemingly unhappy with her older works perhaps we should add a much more descriptive banner to those editions. Something along the lines of "Not revised for Christian readers". Only a suggestion. "

Rather than adding a note to earlier editions, wouldn't it be more logical to add a note to the later edition? Something like "revised edition."


message 27: by Michael (new)

Michael | 262 comments Banjomike wrote: "Cait wrote: "Michael wrote: "I thought that abridged editions were NOT to be combined with original editions - have I got that wrong?"

Abridged editions are combined unless they are so different t..."


Righto, Cait - I will bear that in mind for the future.

Banjomike - I also use the edition field to note an abridgement, so if any books I've worked on get re-combined it will be clear that they're not the original text.


message 28: by Banjomike (new)

Banjomike | 5530 comments Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Rather than adding a note to earlier editions, wouldn't it be more logical to add a note to the later edition? Something like "revised edition." "

If we do that then we would have to add the same notation to all FUTURE editions as well. Mark the old ones and then we can leave it.


message 29: by Krystal109 (new)

Krystal109 | 1086 comments That's the idea.


Elizabeth (Alaska) | 6773 comments Banjomike wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Rather than adding a note to earlier editions, wouldn't it be more logical to add a note to the later edition? Something like "revised edition." "

If we do that then we ..."


Are all future editions revised? Do we know that for certain? I thought we probably only knew about editions that are coming out now. Are they just less sexy? In any case, marking them as "Christian" might not be accurate, but I haven't read them.


message 31: by Banjomike (new)

Banjomike | 5530 comments Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Are all future editions revised? Do we know that for certain? I thought we probably only knew about editions that are coming out now. Are they just less sexy? In any case, marking them as "Christian" might not be accurate, but I haven't read them."

The current editions seem to be what the author wants so presumably new editions of those titles will be based on them. New titles would be anybodies guess though she does seem to be consistent in her Christian message.

These pages are the nearest I've found to an explanation in the authors own words and it ties in with the message from Linda that Krystal109 posted above.

This is the older pre-redeemed stuff
http://www.robinleehatcher.com/genera...

and this is the new stuff and the redeemed versions of the old stuff. I think.
http://www.robinleehatcher.com/books....

Christian is definitely the target audience of the revised books.


back to top