advice needed for confusing books

[Brenda (b)]

I’ve come across a confusing situation. It took me a while to get an idea of what this author has been doing. From what I was able to figure out, they have their name listed 4 different ways. One is normal and three have a genre descriptor in them: (MF), (Shifter), and (Sweet). Is this acceptable by Goodreads standards? They’ve also taken the same stories and written them each in several different genres. The genres I found were: m/m, m/m shifter, m/f sweet, m/f spicy, and m/f shifter. Essentially, they’re the same plot, even though they have different titles.

I went to the Amazon kindle edition online samples of these books:
Grumpy Boss Trouble is the m/m version,
His Alpha Wolf: MM Wolf Shifter Romance - Anthology Edition is the m/m shifter version,
My Grumpy Boss: College Sports Romance – Anthology Edition is the m/f spicy version,
I Don’t Date My Grumpy Boss A Sweet College Sports Romance – Anthology Edition is the m/f sweet version,
and The Curvy Wolf’s Alpha: Wolf Shifter Romance - Anthology Edition is the m/f shifter version.
Two of the books have a fairly long preface which three of them don’t have, but Chapter 1 of each book starts with the same sentence: "I think I just got someone killed," I said with the blood draining from my face. Should all the books with the same plot be combined together?

[lethe]

Brenda (b) wrote: "they have their name listed 4 different ways. One is normal and three have a genre descriptor in them: (MF), (Shifter), and (Sweet). Is this acceptable by Goodreads standards?"

No, it isn't. A name can be differentiated by adding an initial, or by using initials instead of a full name, or by using a pseudonym, but these genre descriptors do not belong in the author field.

Also, sweet, spicy and role reversals for basically the same book should all be combined. They can be noted in the edition field (but that is not visible on the book page anymore, only on the editions page) and/or in the description.

[Brenda (b)]

Thanks lethe. The separate author profiles are now combined. Looks like I'm gonna be spending the next couple of weeks wading through the books and trying to combine them.

[Mesembryanthemum]

lethe wrote: "Also, sweet, spicy and role reversals for basically the same book should all be combined."

Brenda (b) wrote: Looks like I'm gonna be spending the next couple of weeks wading through the books and trying to combine them.

I don't think the different-genre titles should be combined into one work. Even though the books have the same basic plot, and start with the same sentence, the rest of the content is different -- it has to be, if one version is spicy, another is wholesome, and yet another has a shape-shifter. Also, combining these books would be confusing for GR users. Most readers probably pick one title/genre to read, and will want to shelve that specific book, so it would be confusing to have a different title (and genre) appear on their shelves. Other readers might pick several “genres” (or all of them) and would want to see each as a separate entry on their shelves.

This situation is (somewhat) similar to an author who writes the same book in an adult version and a young adult or kids’ version. For example, Dan Brown adapted “The DaVinci Code” for younger readers. The YA version of the book has a librarian’s note saying not to combine it with the adult version of the book.

Other writers with an adult and children’s version of the “same” book include Trevor Noah (“Born a Crime” and “It's Trevor Noah: Born a Crime”), Marcus Samuelsson (“Yes, Chef!” and “Make it Messy: My Perfectly Imperfect Life”), Laura Hillenbrand (“Unbroken”, with different subtitles for the adult and YA versions), and Eric Schlosser (“Fast Food Nation”).

TL;DR: YA and adult editions are separate book records on GR. I feel that this author's works should follow that model.

[Arenda]

Mesembryanthemum wrote: "I don't think the different-genre titles should be combined into one work. Even though the books have the same basic plot, and start with the same sentence, the rest of the content is different -- it has to be, if one version is spicy, another is wholesome,"

Sweet and spicy editions (or however they're called) should be combined, see these comments by the former Librarian Moderator:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Mesembryanthemum]

Arenda wrote: "Mesembryanthemum wrote: "I don't think the different-genre titles should be combined into one work. Even though the books have the same basic plot, and start with the same sentence, the rest of the..."

Interesting. Arenda, thanks for posting those links. (There’s so much information buried in old threads!) I noticed that both were from authors who explained why this policy is confusing for their books (and their readers), so I know I’m not the only one who feels this way. I’m also concerned about the inconsistency compared to the treatment of adult and YA versions of a book. I'm a big fan of consistency.

However, if Rivka has ruled on this, So Shall It Be.

[annob [on hiatus]]

Mesembryanthemum wrote: "... I’m also concerned about the inconsistency compared to the treatment of adult and YA versions of a book. I'm a big fan of consistency."

I've never heard that YA and Adult content should be treated differently than 'sweet' and 'spicy' editions. Other than a situation where the content has been written so differently storywise they read like separate books, and therefore should not be combined.

Do you have an old ruling or staff advise you could point me to so that I can brush up on the YA/A topic?

[lethe]

annob wrote: "Mesembryanthemum wrote: "... I’m also concerned about the inconsistency compared to the treatment of adult and YA versions of a book. I'm a big fan of consistency."

I've never heard that YA and Ad..."

I know adaptations should not be combined with the original, but I've never heard of versions for different target groups by the same author that should not be combined. I doubt that is a rule imposed by staff. Perhaps a misunderstanding of the rules by authors and/or librarians?

[lethe]

Following up on my previous comment: adult books rewritten for children can be considered adaptations and should not be combined.

Adult and young adult versions should be combined as far as I know. (I mean, young adults also read books for adults, no?)

[Liralen]

I have always understood adult and young adult versions to be considered separate works (usually with the YA version as the adaptation). E.g., I Have Something to Tell You is the original adult version of Chasten Buttigieg's memoir; I Have Something to Tell You―For Young Adults: A Memoir is the YA version, "Completely rewritten with new stories, including resources for readers, parents, and teachers." In the absence of very, very clear policy on the matter, I would not combine them.

[lethe]

Liralen wrote: ""Completely rewritten with new stories, including resources for readers, parents, and teachers.""

If there is new content, it's a different matter, but that also counts for adult versions.

[Liralen]

Unless you've read both versions, how would you tell whether or not the content is different? (Sorry for the density—just trying to understand a bit better what you mean!)

For what it's worth, in theory I'd support combining something like sweet and spicy versions, assuming that the differences are likely to be minimal (e.g., bedroom scenes shifted to fade-to-black or similar), but when one of them's a sports romance and one of them's a shifter romance, that feels like something else. (In practice I'd likely decide that the question of whether or not to combine such versions was above my pay grade, and hardly the worst clutter on Goodreads if they should be combined but stay separate.)

[lethe]

Liralen wrote: "Unless you've read both versions, how would you tell whether or not the content is different?"

I based it on what you said: "with new stories, including resources for readers, parents, and teachers". That is new content, and it will likely be mentioned in the description.

[Scott]

New stories are one thing, but I would consider the resources to be a supplement, like when they put book club questions in an Oprah book.

[Emily]

annob wrote: "I've never heard that YA and Adult content should be treated differently than 'sweet' and 'spicy' editions. Other than a situation where the content has been written so differently storywise they read like separate books, and therefore should not be combined."

I had this question come to mind with the book Hidden Figures.
Looking at both the adult and young adult version they were very different in content and writing style so much that they seemed like different books. Rivka said to leave them separated.
There are many books published this way nowadays so I suppose it is on a case by case basis. However most people wouldn't necessarily have a copy of the books on hand.
Extremely popular books that I know off the top of my head include
Born a Crime
Unbroken
Boys in the Boat
I am Malala
and a popular challenged book these days
Stamped and the original, Stamped from the Beginning. (these are very different)
Anyway, I don't think there should be a blanket rule for those.

[lethe]

Scott wrote: "New stories are one thing, but I would consider the resources to be a supplement, like when they put book club questions in an Oprah book."

Yes, agreed.

[Julie]

Here is my two cents.

These policies seem inconsistant. How is the destinction between YA and adult any different than the difference between sweet and spicy? In both instances the language, writing style, target audience and some content are vastly different. The YA versions of Adult novels are basically adaptations even though they both have the same author. If an author has both a sweet and a spicy version of a book one edition is basically an adaptation of the other. If they had different authors, they would qualify as an adaptation.

The manual states adaptations are seperate works. There is nothing in the manual about adult/YA or sweet/spicy editions. seperating them out would be a service to the reader. The policy probably evolved to negate database clutter. But the clutter caused would be negligable compared to the current bot crisis issues.

Beause the policy is inconsistant, some librarians are treating this on a case by case issue. I would hate to use my judgement and then lose my hard earned librarian status.

[Scott]

In young readers books the entire text is very much simplified, whereas "sweet" versions just have select scenes toned down or removed.

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Scott wrote: "In young readers books the entire text is very much simplified, whereas "sweet" versions just have select scenes toned down or removed."

& I've said this before I think. In my romance reading days I read both sweet & spicy. I would be beyond annoyed if I found I had paid twice for what is essentially the same book. Some authors use different author names for their sweet & spicy books - & maybe different titles too?

[Scott]

Authors can't come up with new ideas any more; they just keep writing and rewriting the same book.

[Mesembryanthemum]

Scott wrote: "Authors can't come up with new ideas any more; they just keep writing and rewriting the same book."

LOL. I would agree, especially if you're talking about authors like Marguerite Duras. She wrote the same story at least four times. (I've read two or three of them, and they are So . Very . Very . Similar.) They share much of the same content. And yet, GR treats her four books as separate works.

WHY? More importantly, I don't understand why genre works are treated differently from "literary novels" by "respected" authors.

Just because the plots -- and first lines -- are the same is no reason to combine these works. If that's the rule, there are MANY other works that should be combined. I don't think we want to go there.

[lethe]

Julie wrote: "The manual states adaptations are seperate works. There is nothing in the manual about adult/YA or sweet/spicy editions."

The manual cannot be exhaustive. The finer points of the policy can often only be found in the Lib Group.

I wouldn't call sweet and spicy versions adaptations. As Scott says, a sweet version just leaves out or tones down the spicy scenes. That doesn't turn it into a different book.

[Julie]

I understand what you are saying, I was simply pointing out the inconsistancy. The best we can do as librarians is add a note to the book descriptions to point out the different editions to fit the reader preferences. Perhaps we could also make a suggestion to any writer who enquires about the issue complaining that only one edition shows up in their book list. That could add a few sentances to their profile page about the act that these variations do not show up as seperate books but will show up as other editions available.

[L J]

I've read sweet and spicy versions of books and speaking as a reader they're the same book. Also read werewolf versions of some others and, again speaking as reader, they're the same book. Based just on what I read they are same for me as reader but as Librarian all I can say is I've seen them combined and I've seen them listed separately and didn't choose to change either.

Child version of adult book is usually very different not just in language but in content. Too many years ago for me to remember title but I remember child version of a biography that was mostly about childhood, early career, education, non-work info while adult version was more about career and importance of accomplishments, making them very different books with different content.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Yesterday, I was looking at a list. (The Overlooked Women in History, if it matters.) A title I know I've read was on it, but it wasn't marked Read. GRRRR, I thought. When I clicked on the title I found it was the YA version.

That these editions are *not* combined is ridiculous. We combine abridged editions and translated editions and editions with additional content. It makes zero sense that all editions of the same title by the same author are not combined. Of course, adaptations by a different author are not combined - a different author, a different book.

[L J]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Yesterday, I was looking at a list. (The Overlooked Women in History, if it matters.) A title I know I've read was on it, but it wasn't marked Read. GRRRR, I thought. When I clicked on the title I ..."

I can see that with YA. The child version I was speaking of was for young children.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
versus
Hidden Figures which says it is the Young Readers edition, but the description says for children.

If there is an "edition" that should be noted, we have an Edition Field.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

And I'll stick my neck out even further. The policy on books of short stories *must* have the same content to be combined is impossible to follow. Books get republished with the same title. I have always used Wessex Tales by Thomas Hardy (421 editions) as the example where is it impossible to follow the policy. See publication history during Hardy's lifetime:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex_...

Who knows which editions include which stories? Goodreads has no problem combining all of these and, in fact, when I brought this up a few years back, Rivka herself simply ignored the contradiction in policy. I do not believe this title is an isolated example, and that many collections from years ago and reprinted/republished differ from one another in small ways.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Scott wrote: "Authors can't come up with new ideas any more; they just keep writing and rewriting the same book."

There is a line in Elizabeth Strout's My Name Is Lucy Barton where a writing instructor says:

Don't worry about story. You have only one story to tell, but you will tell it in many different ways.

[Emily]

My bringing up Hidden Figures was to point out the disparity and why I sought a moderator ruling in the past. However that one is aimed at middle grade.
There are many, many books like this which I why I listed some examples.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Emily wrote: "My bringing up Hidden Figures was to point out the disparity and why I sought a moderator ruling in the past. However that one is aimed at middle grade.
There are many, many books like this which ..."

I had forgotten that was one of your first examples.

But I was confused when I saw it on the list without the button marked Read. I think confusion can be more than one way.

[Scott]

Mesembryanthemum wrote: "I would agree, especially if you're talking about authors like Marguerite Duras. She wrote the same story at least four times."

I am not familiar with this author. Does she write books about grumpy CEOs, grumpy firemen, grumpy bartenders or grumpy motorcycle clubs?

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

She doesn't write about grumpy any of those. She was a French Indochina author, well-respected in some quarters. I have read a few things by her, but apparently not close enough together to infer any repetitiveness. But, then, I tend not to read authors back to back (although I recently made an exception to John Dos Passos USA Trilogy).