Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
"The Stand" and edition-separation practices
date
newest »
newest »
From what I know the current stand on "The Stand" is to keep original and uncut version together.
Okay; I can't find where anyone's considered the issue in depth, concerning this particular book, though. There are comments in past threads but they seem to indicate that the question has been evaded rather than answered. Can you point me to a specific, recent policy that would apply here?For now, I will add a librarian note indicating which version each edition is, and keep them together.
I realize I have no clout, but as both a user and a beginning librarian, I'd like to request that we consider separating them. Any book that comes in two such divergent lengths should, imo, be separated. I would really really be peeved if I ordered a book based on goodreads' database, assuming it was going to be full-length, and I got an abridgement. Is the librarian note you're going to use going to be visible on the regular book description page?
Is the librarian note you're going to use going to be visible on the regular book description page? You're right, come to think of it, it isn't. I'll go through and add something to the "edition" field -- the second version is usually referred to as "Complete & Uncut", I guess I can call the first "Original Edition" or something.
All done, except for the Russian editions. Fantlab.ru indicates that Russian publishers brought out a translation of the first version, an abridgement(!) of the second version, and an unabridged second version; but this normally very helpful site was confusing about distinguishing which is which. More research is needed, I'm working on it now.
Okay, this is just bizarre... from what I can figure out so far, notes on fantlab.ru, the Russian publisher Kedmen put out an abridged translation of the second version (trans. Aleksandr Medvedev), then AST published an unabridged trans. by Felix Sarnov (just one edition was printed), then AST went back and started using the Medvedev translation for all further editions, but with the same covers as the Sarnov translations. Anyone heard of anything like that before?Well, no matter how odd, I'm going to take fantlab's word for it, because they carefully document just what the title pages/copyright pages say on the books.
Done... getting back to the point after this off-topic drift, any more opinions on the issue of combine/not combine the original and expanded editions?
I like the idea behind why (I think) abridgments and uncut versions are combined with original works, but I don't think it functions quite as well in practice due to the nature of Goodreads.I'm going to diverge a little from The Stand to speak my peace, but I'll circle back around.
Especially with books considered "classic" it is nice to be able to see all the editions in one place. Ideally, being able to look at and filter reviews by edition will give you a better idea of what edition YOU want to read. One might be a more modern translation, another may be deemed a horrible translation, someone might say that important plot points are left out of a particular abridged version. Granted, not everyone makes comments about editions, but I can dream...
If they weren't combined, one could miss out on a particularly good translation or abridgment without even realizing that it existed.
In some cases (The Stand included) it's very clear that there are two versions - the cut and the uncut. Going back to the classics, it's not so easy. If there are abridgments by different translators they will be different abridgments, if we were to separate abridgments from the original work - do we then have to separate the abridgments from each other? Then we have one original work with a bunch of editions, and who knows how many abridged editions floating around by themselves with no way to tie them to each other.
One could argue that exceptions could be made for books, like The Stand, that have only a few very distinct versions. However, exceptions are bad news around crowdsourcing and volunteer editing, so I think for sanity and organization's sake it's best left combined.
I see your point. I still wish there was a better way.
I have to concur with Vicky. It becomes very dangerous to go on a case-by-case basis on this issue. I think it comes down to depending on the person reading the book to figure out which edition they are interested in (judging by ISBN, translator, etc).
I'm late to the party, but I'll throw a voice in to agree that these are very distinct pieces of work. It's like merging the original "Bourne Identity" with a novelization of the screenplay. (For non-fans, the movie follows the book for about 3 chapters before it starts cutting its own path, winding up in a completely different universe by movie's end, and abandoning all resemblance by the end of the trilogy.)
Daniel wrote: " It's like merging the original "Bourne Identity" with a novelization of the screenplay. "
I understand your point, Daniel, but I don't quite agree with that sentiment in this instance. I would argue that a novelization of a movie is a distinct piece of work because it's written in reverse of a novel turned into a film. The novelization ends up based on the movie, not on the original book, and we all know how "closely" movies tend to follow books.
In the case of an abridgment, the original book is shortened rather than truly rewritten, is it not? For example, in Les Miserables the full version includes a bunch of explanation of French history and sewer construction, yet in the abridged version most of this is glossed over in order to keep interruptions of the main storyline to a minimum. And in Moby Dick, a lot of commentary regarding whaling history and boat construction isn't included since it's outside the main plot.
So I would say let The Stand, stand.
I'd just like that confirmed before I start the work of separating them. Thanks.