Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Book Issues > Pseudonym

Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Elizabeth (Alaska) | 6565 comments Should "pseudonym" be placed in the author role field?

If so, then why not for:

and thousands of others?

message 2: by lethe (new)

lethe | 13580 comments I vote no.

message 3: by Krazykiwi (new)

Krazykiwi | 1767 comments Permissible doesn't mean required.

I'm pretty sure I've seen staff add this in some cases, so I guess it's ok.

A lot of the J.D. Robb books do have Nora Roberts name on, since the reprints have "writing as..." on the covers.

Actually sometimes it makes things clear like when a second name that isn't on the cover, is on the book, due to GR's pseudonym rules.

Some authors used a ton of pseudonyms: Philip José Farmer = Kilgore Trout = Jonathan Smith Sommers III = Leo Queequeg Tincrowder = Rod Keen = Paul Chapin (and that's just the first few I looked up). There's cases where he published as story under say, Rod Keen, in a magazine, but it became famous only when anthologised under his real name. I've actually had people come and take original author names off stories in this situation, and when I asked why say "because I didn't recognise it or know why it was there". I can see using "pseudonym" in that case, even if it's just to get them to look at the author bio snippet down the right side.

message 4: by lethe (new)

lethe | 13580 comments Well, that does make sense. I retract my vote.

(Such a shame that Leo Queequeg Tincrowder is a pseudonym. What a great name!)

message 5: by Elizabeth (Alaska) (last edited Dec 01, 2015 11:44AM) (new)

Elizabeth (Alaska) | 6565 comments I don't have a problem with Nora Roberts appearing on the J.D. Robb books, but is the J.D.Robb role specifically called out as "pseudonym"? No.

It is the role that I question, not the entry of an alternate name. Pseudonym isn't the role. Robert Galbraith is the author, as is J.D. Robb.

Elizabeth (Alaska) | 6565 comments Krazykiwi wrote: "I've actually had people come and take original author names off stories in this situation,"

Those people should have their librarian status questioned.

message 7: by lethe (new)

lethe | 13580 comments GR rules on author names are idiosyncratic, to put it mildly. If 'Pseudonym' as author role can help clarify things, I don't think it's a problem. 'Author' is never entered as a role.

message 8: by Annika (new)

Annika | 568 comments I'm butting in, it's an interesting discussion.

I'm thinking that it's not a bad idea to have the pseudonym as a role, as many people don't know all the pseudonyms.
(That being said, I don't excuse removing the author names because you are unfamiliar with the name)

message 9: by lethe (new)

lethe | 13580 comments I'm not sure if all libraries do it, but f.e. the Dutch National Library notes the pseudonym in the author field:

Elizabeth (Alaska) | 6565 comments Annika wrote: "I'm thinking that it's not a bad idea to have the pseudonym as a role, as many people don't know all the pseudonyms. "

So you would enter "pseudonym" for all of the novels by Benjamin Black (but one example)? Why do you need to know - on the book page - that the name is a pseudonym? It's not as if we can't click through to the author page if learning more is of interest. Many authors write only under an assumed name and never under their own name. I don't understand why the pseudonym should be called out.

message 11: by lethe (new)

lethe | 13580 comments I think it's useful if a book was published first under one name, then under another. GR rules that the name it was first published under should be primary author for all editions can cause confusion.

If an author keeps both names strictly separate, I wouldn't add 'Pseudonym'.

But f.e. many books that were published under the name of Barbara Vine in Britain, were published under Ruth Rendell in the Netherlands. Not every librarian knows they are the same person.

message 12: by Krazykiwi (new)

Krazykiwi | 1767 comments Like I said, just because something is allowed doesn't make it required. There's cases where it's useful because it actually does add clarity, and it could help. There's places where it doesn't, and there's no need to add it.

Just because it's on one book, doesn't imply to me in any way that it needs to be put on every other case.

In the Galbraith case, I'd be willing to bet at some point someone stuck Rowling on there, and it got removed. The role was probably a compromise to stop the second name popping on and off, until everyone just got over the novelty of the discovery, and now it's just still there. And if that isn't the case on this specific book, I've seen that kind of thing happening before with authors.

If it's really bugging you, take it off? It's clearly *not* adding extra clarification in this instance, and it's a) common knowledge now and b) in the author bio.

(Also: I didn't even realise Barbara Vine and Ruth Rendell were the same person until just this minute.
Also also: I tried to get one of my kids named Cordwainer or Queeqeeg as a middle name, but never did get it past their dad.)

message 13: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (last edited Dec 01, 2015 01:53PM) (new)

rivka | 41717 comments Mod
Krazykiwi wrote: "Permissible doesn't mean required."

Precisely. It can be used as an author role, and some authors prefer it, but it's not required.

back to top