Is a movie storybook which is published in magazine form a legitimate Goodreads entry?

[RM]

I recently requested that the entry for this title be cleaned up in accordance with Goodreads standards, and a cover image added: https://imgur.com/a/GaQey9k

However, I then commenced a debate with a librarian who suggested that the entry shouldn't even be on Goodreads, and cited the Manual. My view, also after reading the Manual, is that it should. How does this kind of situation get resolved?

Arguments in favour of a legitimate Goodreads entry:

1. The book fits within this description of an exception to the non-inclusion of magazines: "Periodicals without ISBNs but substantially similar to books, defined as literary magazines valuably contributing or dedicated to literature, regardless of binding."

2. The book is a 64-page summary of the film "The Rocketeer", illustrated with movie stills and interspersed with some "behind the scenes" information. Both movie storybook adaptations and "making-of-movie" books are legitimate Goodreads entries, so just because this was published in a magazine format (no doubt for marketing and distribution purposes) it shouldn't be treated any differently on Goodreads.

3. While it's marketed as a magazine, it contains none of the usual features of a "magazine" other than its format (and its ISSN instead of an ISBN): it contains no ads (other than a single ad on the inside front cover for the publisher's own products), it doesn't have "sections" or segments. To the contrary, it presents a single unbroken narrative story (of the film).

Argument against its inclusion on Goodreads:

1. It is published in a magazine format, refers to itself as a "movie Souvenir Magazine" and has an ISSN instead of an ISBN.

My reading of the Manual is that a book should not be denied an entry on Goodreads merely because of its binding or format: while form is important, it is not as important as the substance of a particular publication.

How do I resolve this impasse?

[Dobby]

"Periodicals without ISBNs but substantially similar to books, defined as literary magazines valuably contributing or dedicated to literature, regardless of binding."

This isn't a literary magazine, and therefore doesn't qualify for inclusion.

[RM]

How is it not a "literary" magazine though? It contains literature (a 60-page literary adaptation of the the plot of "The Rocketeer")--I highly doubt the Goodreads standards imply value judgements about what is and isn't "literature"?

[Martin]

Not everything which contains literature is a literary magazine, for example Playboy.

[RM]

I'm not sure that example works as an example of your point: there was a time when Playboy contained quality literature on anyone's definition. However, I agree that individual issues of Playboy should not qualify for inclusion in Goodreads, because they are clearly "magazines". For that matter, I'd also be surprised if Goodreads anticipates that individual issues of, say, Overland or Meanjin, which clearly *are* "literary" magazines on anyone's definition, should qualify for inclusion.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the problem here is the Manual's lack of clarity about which kinds of magazines qualify for Goodreads entries. The stale debates about what does and doesn't qualify as "literature" have largely led to a consensus that the whole debate is largely a proxy for value judgements and that the term is therefore generally unhelpful as a general classifier (apart from, say, use in bookshops as a way of separating Lee Child and AS Byatt): it would be really surprising if Goodreads' Manuals intended to revive and prolong this debate.

Is there scope in the discussion boards to suggest an amendment to the Manuals?

[Martin]

I deliberately chose Playboy as an example because it contained quality literature, that way there could be no quibble over the sort of value judgements you refer to in message 3.

As I already said in our earlier discussion - librarians can only follow site standards, if you think those standards are wrong contact staff.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Personally I don't want to be involved in discussions of what should be changed in site standards - too many people with too many different opinions. No database is going to tally exactly with my ideas of what should be included, before joining Goodreads I looked at site standards and decided I was willing to go along with them.

[RM]

That's fair. Personally I'm comfortable with the standards as they are, because I think it's clear that The Rocketeer Official Movie Souvenir Magazine meets the criteria for inclusion on Goodreads. Your interpretation of the standards would lead to the following outcomes:

1. Each of the hundreds of individual issues of Meanjin which have been published since 1940 would qualify for inclusion on Goodreads, because they meet your definition of "literary magazine".

2. If the Goodreads-qualifying 56-page storybook adaptation of The Muppets Take Manhattan (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...) was published as a magazine with an ISSN instead of an ISBN, had the words "souvenir magazine" instead of "storybook adaptation" on the cover, and was sold in newsagents instead of bookshops, yet with identical content between the covers, it would not quality for inclusion on Goodreads.

Each of these outcomes seems strange to me, and quite contrary to what I suspect the standards anticipate.

[Olga]

This magazine clearly does not make a valuable contribution to literature and is therefore not eligible for inclusion to the Goodreads database.