Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

43 views
Book Issues > "series" of same pub'd books?

Comments Showing 1-10 of 10 (10 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Eva Marie (new)

Eva Marie (evamarie3578) | 755 comments Someone may want to take a look at this:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/55915...

A librarian made a "series" titled "Signal" and I don't *think* these books are a series. I've been wrong before of course but I think these books are simply, possibly, published by the same publisher.
If that's correct I have no idea why the librarian would think it's appropriate to create a series like this but I don't want to change anything if I shouldn't.


message 2: by Vicky (new)

Vicky (librovert) | 2459 comments It looks like they're all books about teens with drug issues/eating disorders/etc. But none of the English titles say anything about being part of a series, so I also suspect it was just a line of books published by a publishing house.


message 3: by Scott (new)

Scott | 17319 comments I'm pretty sure that's the case.

Here's another:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/49798...


message 4: by Scott (new)

Scott | 17319 comments And how about this? This anthology features stories based in various of the author's series (as well as completely standalone stories); should it really be considered as a numbered entry in any of them?

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/96...


message 5: by Experiment BL626 (last edited Oct 31, 2011 07:23PM) (new)

Experiment BL626 | 358 comments Eva wrote: "Someone may want to take a look at this:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/55915...

A librarian made a "series" titled "Signal" and I don't *think* these books are a series. I've been wrong..."


No, you cannot create series simply for the sole reason that they are published by the same publishing house to the best of my knowledge. The books actually have to relate each other somehow, i.e. being set in the same world.

I deleted the series and PMed its creator accordingly. I also directed her/him to this thread should any disagreement arise.


message 6: by Experiment BL626 (last edited Nov 01, 2011 04:16PM) (new)

Experiment BL626 | 358 comments Scott wrote: "I'm pretty sure that's the case.

Here's another:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/49798..."


This looks fine to me. I seen these kind of series around before. Uncommon, but acceptable as a GR series.

Scott wrote: "And how about this? This anthology features stories based in various of the author's series (as well as completely standalone stories); should it really be considered as a numbered entry in any of..."

This is completely acceptable. Many Urban Fantasy anthologies have the same circumstance.


message 7: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42066 comments Mod
Scott wrote: "And how about this? This anthology features stories based in various of the author's series (as well as completely standalone stories); should it really be considered as a numbered entry in any of..."

I believe that numbering is based on what the author has officially stated.


message 8: by Vicky (new)

Vicky (librovert) | 2459 comments Scott wrote: "Here's another:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/49798..."


This one is okay.

When you assign a series, it applies to the whole WORK (all the combined editions) and not just the specific edition. So, a good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that ALL editions of a book should be a part of that series. If it is a series that applies only to ONE edition of a book, it is not a series per Goodreads standards.

For the Fairy Tale Series, all of the editions of the novels are branded as part of that series, which makes it an acceptable series.

One of the non-series culprits that came up recently was the Sci-Fi Masterworks "series" - The Time Machine (HG Wells) is not part of a series, but when the SF Masterworks series popped up, every edition of The Time Machine said it was part of a series. Which is just... silly. ;)

Clear as mud? Yep.


message 9: by Eva Marie (new)

Eva Marie (evamarie3578) | 755 comments Experiment wrote: "Eva wrote: "Someone may want to take a look at this:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/55915...

A librarian made a "series" titled "Signal" and I don't *think* these books are a series. I've be..."


Thanks for handling that. I hadn't encountered that before so I wanted to wait to act.
I was aware that that sort of "series" isn't allowed but I wanted to make sure it wasn't some sort of actual series I didn't know about.
Thanks for fixing it and letting them know.


message 10: by Scott (new)

Scott | 17319 comments Vicky wrote: "This one is okay.

When you assign a series, it applies to the whole WORK (all the combined editions) and not just the specific edition. So, a good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that ALL editions of a book should be a part of that series. If it is a series that applies only to ONE edition of a book, it is not a series per Goodreads standards.

For the Fairy Tale Series, all of the editions of the novels are branded as part of that series, which makes it an acceptable series.

One of the non-series culprits that came up recently was the Sci-Fi Masterworks "series" - The Time Machine (HG Wells) is not part of a series, but when the SF Masterworks series popped up, every edition of The Time Machine said it was part of a series. Which is just... silly. ;)

Clear as mud? Yep."


Not all editions of those books have the Fairy Tale brand (or the Canty cover art mentioned), though. I have the Brust right here and nowhere does it mention that it was ever part of this "series."

I see how it's different from the SF Masterworks, which of course are not unified in any way, but am just not sure where the line is drawn.


back to top