Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

76 views
Policies & Practices > Inclusion of Anthologies in a Series

Comments Showing 1-33 of 33 (33 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sophie (last edited Nov 03, 2014 05:13PM) (new)

Sophie (sophievh) | 7 comments Greetings all -

After some circling on the Serieses forum, Rivka suggested we bring the discussion to the policy board.

The original discussion was about including anthologies as part of a series. It seems that in other threads, the general consensus has been that yes, anthologies containing short stories that are part of a series should be included with the series.

However, it gets a little trickier when those short stories are also published separately, say as an ebook, resulting in multiple listings in the series. At least some librarians have been told that if the short exists independently, that the anthology should be deleted. (Which begs the question, if published in multiple places, how do we determine which edition to keep?)

I - and the rest of the discussion board - would love to see a policy decided upon. Right now, at least in some series, libraries are adding and deleting and re-adding books, because there isn't anything set in (virtual) stone.

Personally I would argue that as someone reading the anthology, if the shorts are part of a series, I'd like to know that, and since that information often isn't specified in the anthology itself, goodreads is a great way to track that and find the rest of the related full-length books.

I look forward to hearing what you all think!


message 2: by Amanda (new)

Amanda | 2443 comments Sophie wrote: "Personally I would argue that as someone reading the anthology, if the shorts are part of a series, I'd like to know that, and since that information often isn't specified in the anthology itself, goodreads is a great way to track that and find the rest of the related full-length books. "

I think the anthologies should definitely be included in the series listing, exactly for the reason you listed. Sometimes also I pick up an anthology because of one author and find other series because of it.

Even if the story is later released on it's own, it doesn't mean it's not still in the anthology. We add omnibus editions to a series and they include books already included in a series.


message 3: by Melaslithos (new)

Melaslithos | 1356 comments Skyla, I totally I agree. I like your suggestion, i.e. to have this presentation for series :

0.5 story
1.0 book 1
1.5 story
2.0 book 2
1-2 omnibus book 1 and 2
0.5 story in anthology
etc


You have the essential first, than all the other possibilities of where to find the stories in the series.


message 4: by Dee (new)

Dee (austhokie) | 839 comments maybe have some kind of coding where anthology/box sets etc appear at the bottom of the list, and single entry books in the middle (don't know if this is doable)


MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 535 comments While it's sometimes confusing to see a single story mentioned multiple times - I adore it. It has been the only way I've even known that a particular short has even been released.


message 6: by Sophie (new)

Sophie (sophievh) | 7 comments @Skyla - Totally agree with you that having a consistent format would be an improvement.

Slightly off topic, but there are a couple of series - I think Otherworld and Morganville Vampires - that have completely separate series pages for the shorts. Which okay, solves the problem of anthologies making a mess of the series listing, but it's a pain hopping between the two pages trying to figure out where I am in the series.

I like what you suggested earlier, Skyla, with the shorts listed in order, anthologies at the bottom with collections.


message 7: by Liz (last edited Nov 03, 2014 07:12PM) (new)

Liz | 18 comments Sophie wrote: "[...]Personally I would argue that as someone reading the anthology, if the shorts are part of a series, I'd like to know that, and since that information often isn't specified in the anthology itself, goodreads is a great way to track that and find the rest of the related full-length books. "

I absolutely agree with Sophie and Amanda, I regularly check on Goodread to know if any story in an Anthology I plan to read is part of a series... or to find the title of the anthology I have to track down to get part of a series I'm reading, or to find the first book of that series, etc.

Personnally, I don't see anything wrong with the first presentation Skyla presented :

0.5 story
0.5 story in anthology
0.6 story
1.0 book 1
1.1 story after book 1
1.1 story after book 1 in anthology
1.2 story
1.3 story
1-2 omnibus of book 1 and 2
2.0 book 2
etc

In a long series it makes it clear where a story fits and that it's the same number, so same story.

Then again, with omnibuses occupying many spots in the same series I liked them at the end...

Skyla and Melaslithos prefered the presentation:

0.5 story
1.0 book 1
1.5 story
2.0 book 2
1-2 omnibus book 1 and 2
0.5 story in anthology
etc


While I can see advantages of to it, I'm not sure what happens with that presentation when the story is only in the anthology, I would not like to get something like this:

0.5 story
1.0 book 1
2.0 book 2
1-2 omnibus book 1 and 2
0.5 story in anthology
1.5 story in anthology
etc

Personnaly I would probably not see the story 1.5 before I'd read book 2 (and it would be worst with a long series), but something like this might be a compromise:

0.5 story
1.0 book 1
1.5 story in anthology
2.0 book 2
0.5 story in anthology
1-2 omnibus book 1 and 2
etc

What do you think?

For me, even if I really like having the order be easy to see, the really important part is to keep the series information in the anthologies, as well as in any edition of the story "on it's own". Like Amanda said:
"Even if the story is later released on it's own, it doesn't mean it's not still in the anthology."

And... not putting the series information on the anthology's page (linking back to the series page) would look like the stories in the anthology where "stand-alone" and not part of any series...


MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 535 comments Skyla wrote: "@Mrs. Joseph. In some cases it does look alright and if the story is only in the anthology then yes I agree, but when there is a solo release I feel like I'm getting double vision when I see them all listed together. Maybe it is because of the way I organise the book files at work?"

I can see your point. But what if you don't know the story is part of a series and you are looking at the anthology?

Example: I bought an anthology that had a story by an author that I'd never read. The story turned out to be a prequel story to a series that was meant to be read after book 1 in the series because it contains a humongous spoiler for book 1 in the series. Like, the biggest spoiler, ever. The story has also been released as a solo.

The anthology is not listed in the series listing ('m assuming its because of the solo release). I read the story then went to read reviews. That's when I learned that the story was part of a series and that I'd been spoiled.


Erin *Proud Book Hoarder* (erinpaperbackstash) | 93 comments Amanda wrote: "Sophie wrote: "Personally I would argue that as someone reading the anthology, if the shorts are part of a series, I'd like to know that, and since that information often isn't specified in the ant..."

I agree - anthologies should be included in the series listing as long as they have a story involved in that series. Most of my favorite series have this currently.


MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 535 comments Skyla wrote: "See I don't mind being spoiled so maybe that is why I prefer it the other way. I don't mind it the way where you can put all the shorts together (aka. going 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5) but I still thi..."

I hate being spoiled. In fact, I usually avoid reading reviews of books I already know that I'm going to read until after I've read the book to avoid the spoilers.

I hate being spoiled so much that I often stop reading a series if the spoiler is too large. :( I feel like my personal experience has been ruined.

And the spoiler for this book was...kinda the whole twist to book 1. I'm was a little upset and I'm still on the fence about continuing but.


MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 535 comments Skyla wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Skyla wrote: "@Mrs. Joseph. In some cases it does look alright and if the story is only in the anthology then yes I agree, but when there is a solo release I feel like I'm gettin..."

Seven Day Loan


MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 535 comments Skyla wrote: "That sucks. Prequels should never spoil the original book.

I know lots of people hate being spoiled so yeah the anthologies should be on the page. Now we need to figure out the organization. "


Oooh, I so agree! Why put something in a prequel that will spoil a later book? I don't understand that one...

But it was a shocker, lol (the spoiler, that is).

I'm pretty much ok with almost any organization. I don't mind the anthologies/omnibus to show at the end of the series page. That makes sense to me.


MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 535 comments Skyla wrote: "I heard that one was super spoilery."

Yeah. It's...the whole enchilada from what I can tell so far.


MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 535 comments Skyla wrote: "I heard that one was super spoilery."

Yeah. It's...the whole enchilada from what I can tell so far.


message 15: by Liz (last edited Nov 03, 2014 07:25PM) (new)

Liz | 18 comments Something to keep in mind:
It isn't rare for the anthology's description not to give the titles of the included short stories...

In those cases, putting both the anthology and the "solo release" on the series pages (and in so doing, having the series information attached to both) helps a lot, making it easy to recognize they're the same story.


message 16: by Liz (last edited Nov 03, 2014 07:26PM) (new)

Liz | 18 comments Skyla wrote: "I get most of my knowledge of the short stories from the author's or publisher's website rather than here because it is usually laid out better there (for me personally)."

I guess it depends on the author, unfortunately some (many?) are really bad at organizing book information and/or websites... :(


message 17: by Caro (last edited Nov 03, 2014 07:28PM) (new)

Caro | 177 comments I agree and think that the anthologies as well as the novellas should both be included in the series page. As to the order of the books on the page, they can be moved around when editing the series page. However, I've noticed that there are check boxes (when you add books to a series) that have primary by them. When the book is checked as primary they generally come first (towards the top of the list), I think.

There are two opinions on the order though. You can either make the single books the only primaries (including novellas if they are printed alone) and then have the anthologies and omnibuses on the bottom. But, say if the novella single is only available in ebook, sometimes it's harder to get/find for some, so someone would look for the anthology (usually in print). In that case, I would want the anthology listed right under the novella so I would be able to see what book that novella is in. A good example, I think, of this type of order is in the In Death series page.

https://www.goodreads.com/series/4102...

But there is one more 'order' problem with some of the bigger series. Where would you put anthologies that are made up of numerous novellas within the same series but spread out: such as .5, 12.5, 17.5? Would those go with the omnibus books towards the bottom of the page? And if so, what order?

But I would definitely like something in the manual that would help give us a clear picture on the best way to organize series and what's included. That way once we know what kind of order it's in we wouldn't have to worry about making sure we look through the whole list before reading anything or finding where we're at in a series and what's next because we don't know if it's ordered like 'this' series and not 'that' one.


message 18: by Caro (last edited Nov 03, 2014 07:41PM) (new)

Caro | 177 comments I agree with Liz on noticing that they would be the same story, one is just in the anthology. I also agree that there are some author web pages that don't always show order for a series, including the shorts. Or if they do, they sometimes write part of a series, then go back and write a prequel, then finish the series. So the prequel ends up being in the middle since the series was just added to in order of publication.

I also agree with Skyla about the novella anthology/omnibus books. They should go towards the bottom with the omnibus sets


message 19: by Melaslithos (new)

Melaslithos | 1356 comments #9 If the short story is only available in an anthology, I would put the anthology at the right place (between book 1 and 2 for example if it is 1.5).

I'd put the anthology in the end only if the short story is already available independently.

#23 If there are several short stories in an anthology, I'd put the anthology at the end of the list, such as here:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
But in this case, most (all?) of the shorts already existed individually.


message 20: by Sophie (new)

Sophie (notemily) | 469 comments I think this could be easily solved if there were some sort of visible distinction between primary and non-primary works on a series page. We have "primary work" as a checkbox for a reason, so why not do something with it? I'd like to see some kind of coding that highlights primary works, so if you're just looking to see the main works in a series, you can easily see which ones those are, and ignore the rest.


message 21: by Sophie (new)

Sophie (sophievh) | 7 comments Sophie wrote: "I think this could be easily solved if there were some sort of visible distinction between primary and non-primary works on a series page. We have "primary work" as a checkbox for a reason, so why ..."

Awesome point. I had been wondering about the purpose of that checkbox...


message 22: by Pisceschick (new)

Pisceschick | 34 comments The times I have come across a short story/novella that were originally published in an anthology and then re-released as a single ebook, I have edited the description of both with a note in italics at the bottom and then link (as in an actual html link) the titles together.

This isn't specific to series books really, but would be something that I (as a completionist who must read all the stories related to the series and in order) would love to see in more book records in general.

Oh and +1 to Sophie's comments in message #27!


message 23: by Betsy (new)

Betsy | 571 comments I would prefer to have works listed in the order they are supposed to be read, if that can be determined, even if it includes duplicates. And that would include stories in anthologies, but I have no problem listing omnibuses at the bottom if there's a way to do that easily.

However, I'd like some guidance on how to clarify the differences. In the examples above "story", "story after book 1", "story in anthology", and "omnibus book 1-2" are pretty clear. But actual titles are not always that clear. With the main books, it works if you following the guidelines for including the series reference in parenthesis, but not everyone does. And not everyone includes series references in anthology titles.

I think we ought to have some preferred guidelines for those titles.


message 24: by Melaslithos (last edited Nov 04, 2014 10:09PM) (new)

Melaslithos | 1356 comments +1 for highlighting primary works too. And make the book number in the series more obvious (not all titles include them).


message 25: by Bea (last edited Nov 05, 2014 07:24AM) (new)

Bea I am a relatively inexperienced librarian so have been sitting back and listening to this discussion. I looked at the link in Caro's message #23. I liked the fact that some books were labelled as including a series story ("Includes In Death #27.5") whereas the primary works just had the number.

As a reader, this would make it easy for me to know and choose what to read next and would not particularly be problematic if I chose to skip the shorts and only read the primary works.

I did notice in the example used by Caro that book #17.5 had two separate listings. The titles were different and both are book length not novella length. How can that be? Would not a series give a whole number to full length books with each being distinct and half numbers to stories or novellas?

OK...back to listening and learning.

EDIT: Found the answer to some of my questions about #17.5. The first book includes two novellas - a two part story. The second book is a reprint of one of the novellas. Would be nice if that note was more easily available to the average reader (wish list).


Erin *Proud Book Hoarder* (erinpaperbackstash) | 93 comments Betsy wrote: "I would prefer to have works listed in the order they are supposed to be read, if that can be determined, even if it includes duplicates. And that would include stories in anthologies, but I have ..."

I'd think a lot of that has to do with what the different librarians put in when they're adding and combining the books to make it part of the series. Not sure if it could stay 100% consistent, as it's not even that way now. I see what you mean but don't see it becoming confusing enough to warrant too much extra work over what's already being done by most librarians.


message 27: by Z-squared (new)

Z-squared | 8580 comments Sophie wrote: "I think this could be easily solved if there were some sort of visible distinction between primary and non-primary works on a series page. We have "primary work" as a checkbox for a reason, so why ..."

The only thing checking the "primary work" box does is ensure that the book cover jpeg appears on the author profile page in the 'series' section. Only books marked "primary" appear on the author profile; clicking through to the series page itself is where the remaining books (any anthologies, omnibuses, short stories) appear.

Just thought I'd clarify that so people don't think the box is anymore special than it is.


message 28: by Z-squared (new)

Z-squared | 8580 comments While I'd love to see a general guideline for the preferred ordering of books on a series page, I think it's unlikely we'll agree on one that would universally apply to every series. Some series are just more complicated than others (egads, just think of the ones that include comic book single issues and bind-ups *cringe*).

I think the only thing we can probably come to a decision on is whether or not to include omnibuses and anthologies in a series listing, and I'm guessing the overwhelming answer is yes. Goodreads is often the only place on the internet to find such information if an author is not popular enough to garner fan-based wiki articles and the like.


message 29: by Z-squared (new)

Z-squared | 8580 comments Bea wrote: "...I looked at the link in Caro's message #23. I liked the fact that some books were labelled as including a series story ("Includes In Death #27.5") whereas the primary works just had the number. "

Sometimes it's nice, if there's only one anthology a given short has appeared in. However, the numbering/titling gets onerous if, for example, the series also contains a bind-up of several short stories that are also shared in anthologies (and published on their own). For example, Nalini Singh's Guild Hunter series page. A few of her shorts have been published alone, in a bind-up, AND in an anthology. Including all that info in the tiny 'number' field would probably create more confusion than help.


message 30: by Z-squared (new)

Z-squared | 8580 comments Brenda (b) wrote: "I've come across some authors and/or publishing houses who like to reissue short stories in more than one anthology. Here's one, note book #7: Dark series. "

FYI, the example you've included is not consistent with Goodreads standards. We don't list series like "Book Blah Blah (includes series #4)". The correct way to title an omnibus or a book that is numbered in multiple series is like this:

Book Blah Blah (Series A, #1; Series B, #42; Series X, #0.5)

ALL of the series titles are included in ONE set of parentheses, and the series names/numbers are separated by semi-colons.


message 31: by Liz (new)

Liz | 18 comments Brenda (b) wrote: "[...] Another thing I noticed is that it looks so much simpler in the above examples because the book number is listed first. On the actual series page the it appears last after other info that varies in length. Therefore the numbers don't line up which makes it much harder to find them. If the number had it's own separate line it might make it more noticeable. "

I agree that it might help if, in the series page, the book number (ex: Book 1) came before the title and other informations, either on it's own line or before the cover(far left, centered vertically with the cover)

...but I realize that is not a question of policy, nor practice...


message 32: by Banjomike (new)

Banjomike | 5530 comments Betsy wrote: "I would prefer to have works listed in the order they are supposed to be read, if that can be determined, even if it includes duplicates. And that would include stories in anthologies..."

I've always thought that publication order is the best way to read a series. I've never come across a series that is improved by reading in any other way whether internal chronological (especially not Narnia) or or some editor-defined order (as with some Sherlock Holmes editions) or even some author-defined sequence. I'm all in favour of adding extra series pages for these variants but the main series page should always be in publication order.

I'd also like to see the per-book 'note' fields be used a bit more and also be visible when they have been used.

Omnibus editions are best placed at the end of the page rather than strewn through the body of the series after the last of the books they contain. That might work with some series but when there are many omnibus editions (Sherlock, Agatha Christie, Maigret, etc etc) you (or at least I) need to see them in one place in order to decide which ones to buy to get all the books I'm interested in.

My reaction to this book entry was 'yuk': Must Love Hellhounds (Sookie Stackhouse, #9.2; Guild Hunter, #0.5; Kate Daniels, #3.5; The Guardians, #5.5). It works, no argument there, but 'yuk'.

One of the main issues I have with the series pages is that there has to be a lot of opinion used to create them and keep them up to date. People remove anthologies because it is not obvious that there is anything in them which is related to the series. I've removed books from series pages when I know that that to be the case but there is often no way to know why a book is removed or even who removed it. Authors remove books when it isn't going to be published until next year (or maybe never) but I would keep it. If a book has been built up as a forthcoming member of a series then the entry deserves to be kept.

So, I would DEFINITELY like the logs to show which books are added and removed to the series. The 'added (work ids) deleted (work ids)' entry is useless unless it includes the book ID which it doesn't always. I've tweaked series and had no IDs in the log.


Erin *Proud Book Hoarder* (erinpaperbackstash) | 93 comments I couldn't agree with you more on Narnia - I like the original published version as he wrote them. The american order I wouldn't touch.


back to top