Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Subtitles and series names
date
newest »
newest »
I'd say use: Among the Living (PsyCop, #1) I'm not sure if the series name as subtitle issue was brought up when we last updated the series naming policy. But I've personally dropped the series name as a subtitle several times.
I always drop the series name in that instance. I don't consider it part of the title of the book. I also get rid of "A Novel" when it follows the name, whether it's a series or not.
rivka wrote: "Me three (four?)"Sounds like a consensus, then. Thanks!
Mod
If I add a series name and number to a book, should I add it to all editions?
Tayler wrote: "If I add a series name and number to a book, should I add it to all editions?"rivka wrote: "Preferably, yes."
Assuming that all of the editions number the series in the same way, of course. :) The Chronicles of Narnia are a rather infamous example.
Would you mind looking at this to see if I've done everything correctly? I'm new and afraid of messing things up.
Mod
I think I vote for the second. Other people's thoughts?
I have a question about series names. Nora Roberts has a trilogy with all titles starting with Born In. I found book #1 with the series info Born In, book 1, book #2 with no series info, and #3 with the series info Concannon Sisters trilogy #3.How do I fix this? Which series info do I choose?
Thanks.
Mod
I don't know; I'll go check and report back.
It's the Concannon Sisters trilogy, so I'll fix the other two to be consistent.
People actually tend to call it the Born In trilogy. And the titles should be consistent. I labeled them all. So someone must have been messing with them or new editions were added that haven't been labeled yet.
For general clarification though, should we not defer to what the author calls the series? I have seen this issue with a few other authors and I was always of the mind that as the author named the series, we should use whatever they refer to it as. An example is Kelley Armstrong's Otherworld series. Most people refer to it as Women of the Otherworld, but her website refers to it simply as Otherworld. Which is correct in regard to the naming convention used here?
Mod
That would be my choice.
For this series, the Born In trilogy is the most common label I've come across and what I've generally heard the series referred to. *shrug* I figured going with what people know worked best in this case.
DarkHeart wrote: "For general clarification though, should we not defer to what the author calls the series? I have seen this issue with a few other authors and I was always of the mind that as the author named the..."Didn't Kelley Armstrong change it mid-way through since she wanted to write about the men, too? That might explain the discrepency between fan-use and her website.
Isis FG wrote: "For this series, the Born In trilogy is the most common label I've come across and what I've generally heard the series referred to. *shrug* I figured going with what people know worked best in t..."I recently asked a question about this very trilogy. On her website she calls it the Concannon Sisters trilogy, but in one of her books, it's listed as the Born In trilogy. I fixed them to her official name but I think people will call in them Born In as they dont know the sisters are called Concannon (well, two of them are) until they read the books.
If it's listed on some edition's book cover as the "Born In" trilogy, that edition at least should be use "Born In", to match what users are holding in their hands.
Brooke wrote: "Didn't Kelley Armstrong change it mid-way through since she wanted to write about the men, too? That might explain the discrepency between fan-use and her website. Very possibly, although with Men of the Otherworld she lists it under the Otherworld series but then as an anthology and not in the main series listing. Very confusing.
While I prefer to defer to the author, it seems like a general consensus one way or another on the topic would go a long way towards alleviating confusion in the future.
Mod
I suspect it's not actually on any book covers. Inside flyleaf, maybe.
Brooke wrote: "Didn't Kelley Armstrong change it mid-way through since she wanted to write about the men, too?"I think she must have. I didn't realize she'd made that change, but given the "Men of the Otherworld" anthology, I'm not surprised. Plus, it makes for shorter parenthetical add-ons. *g*
rivka wrote: "I suspect it's not actually on any book covers. Inside flyleaf, maybe."Well, anywhere on the book ought to count, if someone with the book can confirm it, yeah?
Mod
I found the trilogy listed as "Born In" inside Key of Knowledge by Roberts. Of course, that's the publisher's doing, not the author's.
On the inside covers of her most recent trilogy (Sign of Seven trilogy), it's listed as "Born In." The only place I've ever seen it referred to as the Concannon Sisters trilogy is on Roberts site. And honestly, Roberts site isn't that great regarding info on her books.
Mod
Okay. I'll go back and fix them to say Born In instead of Concannon Sisters. Glad there's only three of them.
It seems logical to me that we wouldn't need the subtitle, since we'd be using the name of the series in parentheses anyway. For example, I'd use:
Among the Living (PsyCop, #1)
instead of:
Among the Living: A PsyCop Novel (PsyCop, #1)
because the latter is both redundant and makes the title unnecessarily long.
Thoughts? Official GR policy? Bueller?