Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Book Issues
>
Stephanie Plum series
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Rivka, thanks for the suggestion. I have sent her a message.
Yes, the brief (Stephanie Plum, #1) is preferable, even if "A Stephanie Plum novel" is on the cover.The following looks correct for a box set and an omnibus version of the first three books, respectively. The titles of the books belong in the description field.
Plum Boxed Set 1 (Stephanie Plum, #1-3)
Three Plums In One (Stephanie Plum, #1-3)
Let me know if you need help making the changes.
I thought I had all of those fixed and uniform (not counting new editions). Frustrating to learn someone is undoing the changes.
Mod
rivka, I just went and looked. I did not know before though. I think I will keep my hands off this one until a consensus is made on how the series name should be handled. I didn't mean to open up a can of worms. -grin-
Mod
Oh, and I agree with rebecca: the brief form is better.
Hey everyone - I have a question. I hope that this does not seem snippy (I'm not!) but I don't understand. The correct series title is (A Stephanie Plum Novel, #whatever). Isn't that the correct form to use vs. the shortened version? I just want to understand so that I don't make that error in the future. Thanks & sorry about the confusion! =)
"A Stephanie Plum Novel" is an advertising statement, not the name of the series. It's generally known as the Stephanie Plum Series (for example, on the author's website) or even the Stephanie Plum Mystery Series. However, I have generally tried to leave the word "series" out of series names whenever possible. I also try to leave the word "Mystery" out of series' names if it doesn't seem critical. Neither really provide additional information with respect to series specificity and it seems better to try to keep names slightly more compact whenever possible (since they're all currently tacked onto the title). Thus I prefer "Stephanie Plum, #xx" to "Stephanie Plum Series, #xx". On the flip side, Janet Evanovich has another series where all of the titles start with the word "Full". We've been using "Full Series, #xx" rather than "Full, #xx". Not sure I can explain why; it just sounded better.
Evanovich also has a secondary series of Stephanie Plum novellas which have the great fun of providing a series whose name has changed through time. These are currently in the DB using the very clunky "A Stephanie Plum Between the Numbers/Holiday Novel, #xx". Furthermore, although these are self-numbered (#1, #2, #3, #4), from a global timeline they could also be considered #8.5, #12.5, #13.5, and #14.5 in the Stephanie Plum series. Maybe we need a better short-hand for these.
I think the primary books in the series should be labeled with "Stephanie Plum, #XX". Both "Stephanie Plum Series" and "Stephanie Plum Mystery" provide no more information or specificity than the shorter version. All of these are already labeled this way, except for the most popular book for every single one which recently was changed to "A Stephanie Plum Novel" by Kristen (Hi, Kristen!)
Thinking about it now, although the slightly more formal name includes "Between the Numbers", I propose the secondary holiday books should be labeled with "Stephanie Plum #XX.5/Holiday Novel, #XX". This would be a change from the rather clunky way they're currently labeled.
Some of these issues are akin to avoiding the word "trilogy" in series names whenever possible, since the # of books in the series may not stay at three (Douglas Adams made a joke of this with "Mostly Harmless, the 5th book in the increasingly misnamed Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Trilogy"). Sometimes it unavoidable.
I agree that "Stephanie Plum, #XX" is more concise. I also like the idea of labeling the between the numbers with "Stephanie Plum, #XX.5". (Personally, I am compulsive about reading series in order which includes the "in betweens.")I am not sure about using Holiday Novel rather than Between the Numbers as the secondary series statement. These books are better known as her Between the Numbers titles.
It's one of those irritating cases where they've been released as both. The first one (Visions of Sugar Plums) was originally released with "A Stephanie Plum Holiday Novel" on it. Every other one has a holiday theme. It's not clear to me if they started calling them "Between the Numbers" with the original release of the second book or at a later time. You are right, though, they are better known as between the numbers.So we're looking at:
"Visions of Sugar Plums (Stephanie Plum, #8.5; Between the Numbers, #1)"
etc? Does that seem reasonable?
That could be a problem if people with "A Stephanie Plum Holiday Novel" come looking for their book, though....
I undid my 'corrections' to the decided upon series title. I hope that works. I did not correct anything that others changed. Please let know if thats a problem. Thanks.
Mod
This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "So we're looking at:"Visions of Sugar Plums (Stephanie Plum, #8.5; Between the Numbers, #1)"
etc? Does that seem reasonable?"
Sounds good to me. I don't think she's planning to write any more of those "Between the Numbers" books, anyway.
mlady_rebecca wrote: "I don't think she's planning to write any more of those "Between the Numbers" books, anyway."I contacted Ken at Evanovich's site and he said that they are not sure about the future of the BTN series. They didn't issue one this year because of the new Diesel series, of course.
The Diesel series brings up another question. How do we handle spin off series?
The BTN books were really pretty mediocre and just felt like quick money grabs, so I'd be happy to watch them die.Spin-off series vary a bit, depending on their depth. Sometimes their just listed independently. If you really want to tie them together as part of a common universe, you put the "universe name" first, followed by a colon. In this case, the Diesel series (actually called the Unmentionable series) has the following obvious options for the first book:
Wicked Appetite (Stephanie Plum: The Unmentionables, #1)
Wicked Appetite (The Unmentionables, #1)
BTW, I can't recall what the policy is on "books" which get ISBN's but are never written. Do we NOT A BOOK them or not?Evanovich has a phantom book, A Plum New Year, which is an error on multiple levels, but does not (and will not) exist (According to her website). 318 people have it on their shelves, mostly to-read of course, but 57 have actually rated it. I hate people who rate books which doesn't exist...makes me distrust all ratings.
This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "BTW, I can't recall what the policy is on "books" which get ISBN's but are never written. Do we NOT A BOOK them or not?"My understanding is that, yes, we do NAB them.
This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "BTW, I can't recall what the policy is on "books" which get ISBN's but are never written. Do we NOT A BOOK them or not?Evanovich has a phantom book, A Plum New Year, which is an error on multipl..."
I believe it's supposed to be NAB'd.
This is really a question about the series rather than a particular book. Some of the books have Stephanie Plum as the series statement (my preference) and some have A Stephanie Plum novel. Should I change all of them to Stephanie Plum? I have librarian status now.
Also, the boxed sets do not seem to have any consistency. Would someone have a look and see if they should be changed? I would be glad to do the work. I just want someone to verify I am doing it correctly.