Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

The Shadow Rising (Wheel of Time, #4)
This topic is about The Shadow Rising
Page Numbering Requests > Wrong page number

Comments Showing 1-9 of 9 (9 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by [deleted user] (new)

message 2: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 24728 comments There are editions on WorldCat with that isbn showing 914 pages.

Granted there are also quite a few with 701 or 699 pages on WorldCat also, which just means they've used that isbn for 2 different printings.

Do we need to make an alternative cover edition or is there one already here for the 701 page edition?

message 3: by [deleted user] (new)

Possibly, but the Goodreads edition I linked is the stated ‘Hardcover, First Edition’. That said, the cover image has ‘The Acclaimed National Bestseller’ written across the top. The first edition would not have been a best seller yet.

Also on the cover, in the blue circle it says ‘The New York Times Bestseller’. First editions from Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series reference the previous book as the best seller. In this case the first edition should and does state ‘Sequel to the NEW YORK TIMES bestseller THE DRAGON REBORN’.

I have the first edition in front of me currently, and know it’s no where near 915 pages. I know more than that is needed to change to information. The book was later printed by Oprah’s book club, as well as Turtleback printings for schools. Usually book club prints are physically smaller and therefore longer than the publishers edition. That said, they don’t get new ISBNs. That’s the only explanation I can think of for a 200 page discrepancy.

That, or the information for the 2012 full series reprint with new cover art was used. That edition is stated 944 by Tor’s parent company Macmillan Publishers. They still list the hardcover and true first edition at 704 pages.

I understand the new policy of using the ISBN for the newest edition. That said, the listed Goodreads description ‘Hardcover first edition’ is most often reserved for the true first edition. So I thought only listings for ‘hardback’, ‘trade paperback’, and ‘mass market paperback’ were effected as new editions came out.

message 4: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 24728 comments Looking at the log for isbn 9780312854317 it has had various covers, page counts, and the first edition added much later.

I think it would be much better to get Rivka's input on this situation.

message 5: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 43570 comments Mod
Actually, most of those editions appear to belong to duplicate editions that were merged into that one.

message 6: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 24728 comments What about the back & forth before those merges?

Should we have the isbn on the 915 page book or the 700 odd page book?

Looks like either way I'll need to create an ACE, but for which one?

message 7: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 43570 comments Mod
We don't usually create an ACE if the only difference is page count. Without a different cover, the edition is very likely to get merged.

message 8: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 24728 comments OK :)

message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

Honestly I’m kind of out of my element currently. I’m just a passionate collector who thoroughly researches his punches. Cross referencing a multitude of sellers (both retail and used). Usually when an incorrect detail gets inserted somewhere it spreads a bit due to the copy and paste nature of selling online, but the accurate info usually holds firm as the primary listing for the edition. I felt like everywhere I looked the top/primary/featured listing for this ISBN matched the first edition hardcover with 704 pages, and a cover referencing the previous book in the series as a New York Times bestseller.

I also try to lean on sources with the least diluted access, such as the publishers and authors content on the book. Each time a new listing is made based on a previous listing its information becomes increasingly synthetic. I feel the publisher and author info is the most organic source in this situation. The author — Robert Jordan — is sadly passed away, but the publishers info was supportive of a 704 pg count.

Another option I consider is ‘not a credible source’ outlets. Stuff like Wikipedia and Reddit aren’t the best to depend on as a primary source due to the unknown nature of the individual source. However, far more often than not the provided info is accurate. So in a situation like this I will check to see what their stance is. In this case Wikipedia directly states shadow rising was first published on September 15 , 1992 and the Hardback was 704 pages. Unless you search by the ISBN, I have yet to find a single copy of The Shadow Rising that checks in at 915 pages. But I have checked sellers, those closest to the book itself, and the opinion of wikis and forums that are usually getting there information from people who care about the book and series.

Again, I’m just a collector, so I’m not so sure what the policy or procedures are for deciding/changing a listing. I am however an owner of two hardcover first edition/first print copies of the shadow rising published by Tor. They aren’t anywhere close to 915 pages. I’m not exactly sure which edition is. Is it possible by ‘first edition’ an Uncorrected Manuscript Proof was being referenced? Joe Abercrombie breaks down all the different types of editions in this post about the first law. He states these editions “...aren’t properly set therefore has more pages and is considerably chunkier than the production editions.”

back to top