Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Serieses!
>
Link Catch-22 and Closing Time as a series?
date
newest »
newest »
I don't think the popularity of a book affects it being a sequel or not. It seems to contain some of the same characters so yes, series can/should be created. The question is how will you name the series
Hmm. Thoughts, anyone? Maybe just call it Catch-22...
Yes, I think that would be it "Catch-22".As Amazon and Simon & Schuster both list Closing Time as "sequel to Catch-22". I even looked at WorldCat and it didn't provide anything enlightening either.
Some of the same characters but I found the style less amusing and far more surreal which meant the characters did not feel like the originals. As the setting is long after WWII you could expect the characters to change and behave differently away from combat. In the end though I cannot say I enjoyed it and it is no classic unlike Catch 22 which I view as one of the best of all time and has had multiple reads.
I haven't even read Closing Time yet, but I just figured that had to be the case, Philip. That's why I'm so reticent to hook them together. But I guess together they go, as per Joseph Heller's design!
Can someone (whoever it is) please stop deleting this series then? Whether you *like* the books or the way they go together is not one of the criteria for deciding whether books are in a series in the Librarian Manual, and indeed if it were it would be a terrible criterion since it is entirely subjective. If you don't like it, don't read it. This is a pretty clear cut case I think.
It's not a question of taste or popularity: the criterion is authorial intent. A sequel written 30-plus years after the fact doesn't make something a series, something never conceived or intended by Joseph Heller. Labeling it as such can give naive readers who have only read "Catch-22" a false impression that they must read on to get the "whole story.""Harry Potter" is a series. This is not. The difference is obvious.
It's not that clear cut. Authors do this all the time. Ariel (which is widely considered a fantasy classic with a cult following) has a sequel, written 25 odd years later, after the author repeatedly said he had no intention of writing again in that world, and at one point gave up writing entirely for most of a decade. Stephen King's The Shining has Doctor Sleep, also a sequel featuring the same characters.
In all three cases (including Catch-22) there's no requirement to read the sequel to get the rest of the story because the first book was written to be standalone, and does in fact stand perfectly well on it's own. But if you enjoyed the first book and liked the characters or the world it's set in, you will probably want to.
There is no reason to assume people will think the story is unfinished, it's easy enough to put a note on the series page (or even in the description of the sequels) to clarify that though they are sequels they tell a new standalone story set in the same world. There's a lot of series written that way anyway, where each book is effectively a completely new story, and there is very little continuity. Mystery series, for instance where it doesn't matter too much if you pick up book 15 or book 2 first.
The question for librarians shouldn't be one of authorial intent, it should be: Does it count as a series according to the GR librarian guidelines. In all three of these cases, the answer is yes. It covers all editions of the book, they are set in the same world and with (some of) the same characters.
Agreed with Krazykiwi.(Also, I see that the series "George Smiley" was deleted. That should not have been done either. It's also not necessary to delete series titles and numbers from the title fields. Actually, it is preferred to keep the series title and number in the title field.)
I've been back and forth through the manual and can find no company policy that spells out exactly what constitutes a series, so we're going to have to agree to disagree here.(Re "Smiley": I've had to explain to multiple friends that "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold" is not actually the third book in a series. The designation can and does cause needless confusion.)
From the librarians manualhttps://www.goodreads.com/help/show/2...
"As a general rule, a book is only part of a series if that designation would apply to all editions of a work. To be a series, books should have characters and/or universes in common. In the case of imprints and other non-series collections, it is common for some of these books to be published under numerous other imprints as well"
Sure, but that paragraph only offers a general guideline for which books can be grouped together as a series -- and does not state, or even imply, that all such books with common characters or "universes" must be. If anything, the tone suggests a certain restraint. That leaves it up to individual librarians to apply logic and sense on a case-by-case basis.
To be a series, books should have characters and/or universes in common.So, for fiction, that is pretty clear. Standalone books that have characters in common are still a series according to GR policy. Where it really becomes confusing is with non-fiction series.
Anyway, before deleting a series it's always a good idea to ask for a second opinion in f.e. this thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Brendan wrote: "Sure, but that paragraph only explains which books can be grouped together as a series -- and does not state, or even imply, that they must be. If anything, the tone suggests a certain restraint."I don't see that restraint. But if anything, that restraint concerns creating series. It certainly doesn't imply that individual librarians should go ahead and delete series they don't agree with.
I think Rivka's recent comment on the subject of Goodreads determining series applies here. I realize this linked comment came about in a different way than is being discussed here, but pertinent, and does come from staff.https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I'm a great believer in people correcting their own mistakes. Will the series (plural) be re-added?
This may have been discussed before, but a quick search in a few different places didn't turn anything up.