Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

558 views
Policies & Practices > Multivolume vs Single Volume Works

Comments Showing 1-28 of 28 (28 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Erin (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:28PM) (new)

Erin | 8 comments I know that books that contain more than one work are kept separate from books that have each work individually. But what about a work that's been broken down into multiple volumes? I'm seeing it done a couple of ways:

1. The single volume work is kept distinct from the multivolumes: work X is a separate heading from work X, vol. I, work X, vol. II, etc. The volumes may be combined with like volumes: work X, vol. I with other editions of work X, vol. I, for example.

2. All volumes with the same title are combined under a single heading, whether they are the complete work, or an individual volume of that work. So, in this case, Work X is combined with Work X, vol. I, vol. XII, vol. whatever, to create one big heading.

I happen to prefer method 1 to method 2, but I was wondering if there was a particular policy to follow in these cases.


message 2: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:28PM) (new)

rivka | 41078 comments Mod
As I understand it, method 1 is policy. Method 2 occurs
* by accident, ignorance, or oversight;
* sometimes when using the auto-combine feature;
* when the books were merged before precedent was established and no one has fixed them since.


message 3: by Erin (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:29PM) (new)

Erin | 8 comments Excellent. I'll fix the ones I've seen that use method 2. Thanks for the response.


message 4: by Odile (new)

Odile (qwallath) | 2 comments In this respect, The Lord of the Rings is a complete mess.

The Fellowship of the Ring (Part I) is merged with The Lord of the Rings as a whole, while The Two Towers (2) and Return of the King (3) are separate.

I'll see into fixing this bit by bit. If anyone could check, also for foreign editions, that would be great :-)

Oh yeah, another thing. For this job, a multi-separate feature would be VERY handy...


message 5: by Otis, Chief Architect (new)

Otis Chandler | 315 comments Mod
Starting tomorrow, the separate links will use ajax and won't cause the page to reload so it will be really easy to separate a bunch of items at once!


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments Wonderful! That will make things so much easier.


message 7: by Odile (new)

Odile (qwallath) | 2 comments Yep, that's brilliant :)


message 8: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41078 comments Mod
Bless you!


message 9: by Lyndsey (new)

Lyndsey (lyndseyb) | 2 comments I've been wondering about single works that have been split into two volumes in translation. This is really common when long English language novels are published in Japan. For example, the book Trickster's Choice by Tamora Pierce in Japanese is split into アリーの物語I and アリーの物語II 守るべき希望, making up the single volume of Trickster's Choice.

I feel it would be simpler to combine both volumes of the Japanese edition into the single, original volume of Trickster's Choice, however I'm worried this may be against policy.


message 10: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41078 comments Mod
Lyndsey wrote: "I'm worried this may be against policy."

It is. In fact, the combine page specifically says not to do this.


message 11: by Phil (last edited May 06, 2011 03:23AM) (new)

Phil (notacat) | 37 comments rivka wrote: "Lyndsey wrote: "I'm worried this may be against policy."

It is. In fact, the combine page specifically says not to do this."


My instinct would be to create a "series" which holds the two separated volumes as Primary Works and the original single-volume edition as an Omnibus.

Does that work for anybody else? We're already used to seeing multi-level series collections elsewhere (Star Wars anyone?), this is just a smaller scale version.


message 12: by Carolyn (new)

Carolyn (seeford) | 579 comments Phil wrote: "My instinct would be to create a "series" which holds the two separated volumes as Primary Works and the original single-volume edition as an Omnibus."

I wouldn't recommend this. This isn't what the series field is for, and the original volume is not an omnibus.

I would make sure that the title field for each of the books accurately reflects what it is - that it says (Book #1, Part 1) or something like that.


message 13: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41078 comments Mod
We have sometimes used the series field to link volumes of an originally-single-volume book. But I agree that including the single volume as an omnibus is confusing.


message 14: by Phil (new)

Phil (notacat) | 37 comments Well, you might not actually call it "Omnibus": I'm sure there would be some more suitable moniker you could apply.

I was simply saying that including the single-volume edition as a non-primary work would serve to link the various editions together.


message 15: by Carolyn (new)

Carolyn (seeford) | 579 comments Phil wrote: "Well, you might not actually call it "Omnibus": I'm sure there would be some more suitable moniker you could apply.

I was simply saying that including the single-volume edition as a non-primary wo..."


The other consideration, though, is what does it do to the original volume's book page? It shows up as part of another series, which is very confusing.


message 16: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41078 comments Mod
Carolyn wrote: "The other consideration, though, is what does it do to the original volume's book page? It shows up as part of another series, which is very confusing."

Correct. A link to the complete book in the series description is a better idea.


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments Do we have a formal description of how to deal with these cases, particularly with respect to multi-volume divisions of books which themselves are parts of larger series? It happens often enough that adding it to the librarian manual would probably be a good idea if it's not already there.


message 18: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41078 comments Mod
Nope.

Did you just volunteer? ;)


message 19: by Chuck (new)

Chuck (ccaldwel) | 19 comments I think this is a good place to ask this. It seems as it there are different thoughts about the titles of multivolume books (or omnibuses, if you prefer). For example, one compilation in a series may be presented as Myth Adventures: Another Fine Myth, Myth Conceptions, Myth Directions, Hit or Myth while the next is simply Myth Alliances. So should the title of the compilation include the title of the individual volumes or should it not (perhaps leaving that for the description field)?


message 20: by Envite (new)

Envite | 10 comments Hi all

I have bought "Juego de Tronos" (Game of Thrones) and it comes in two volumes. They have no separate titles, and a single ISBN (shared with the single volume edition). The cover just reads:

George R.R. Martin
Juego de Tronos
I
Canción de hielo y Fuego / 1

and

George R.R. Martin
Juego de Tronos
II
Canción de hielo y Fuego / 1

In fact, there is a note on the backcover saying "sale forbidden separatedly from volume II (or I)", and comes with a single barcode in a wraparound.

Is it one book or two? How should I add it? (This edition seems not to be currently added).


message 21: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41078 comments Mod
If they are sold as a single unit, they should be added as a single item on Goodreads, with their shared ISBN.


message 22: by Envite (new)

Envite | 10 comments Thanks. How can I add them? As I said, the ISBM is already took by the single-volume edition. The system doesn't allow me to add a new edition with an already used ISBN.

I mean: two different editions (single-volume and two-volume) may be sharing the same ISBN but are clearly different.


message 23: by Emy (last edited Apr 12, 2014 06:33AM) (new)

Emy (emypt) | 5017 comments In this instance though the single volume edition and this edition appear to be identical - the note on the backcover indicates that indeed these are viewed by the publisher as the same edition. I don't believe that this particular edition should be treated as a reused ISBN unless the covers don't match.

What is the ISBN you have?

If the covers don't match the other record, you can add an Alternate Cover edition, but do check whether it exists already. It might be worth adding something like "2 volume edition" to the edition field, so that other readers are aware that it's the same as you have in hand.


message 24: by Envite (new)

Envite | 10 comments ISBN I have is 978-84-96208-91-9 and the covers do not match.

Cover in Goodreads for that ISBN has the same image and font, but my two volumes have each a circle in the second white line with a I (or a II) which the currentñy uploaded image does not have. Also, page numbers are different (Current has 373 pages and mine have 394+426).


message 25: by Emy (new)

Emy (emypt) | 5017 comments OK, in that case I would suggest adding them as alternate cover editions - leaving the ISBN fields blank. Once added, if you post back here, we can add a note to the record to indicate that it's an Alternate Cover edition of the other version.

For what it's worth, the other record on 9788496208919 is for vol. 1 ONLY. Can you check whether there is a second ISBN inside the other volume? Lastly is there another ISBN on the casing?


message 26: by Envite (new)

Envite | 10 comments 9788496208919 is NOT for volume 1 ONLY. It is for the whole book "A game of Thrones", first book of "A Song of Ice and Fire series".

There are no separate ISBN for each volume.

Look at these images:
http://rolamasao.org/2014-04-12%2021....
http://rolamasao.org/2014-04-12%2021....

It may not be clear on the second image but the two volumes have the same ISBN and barcode as the wrapper, but in gray (not black) and with a phrase saying "Sale forbidden separated from vol II (or I)".

Anyway it seems this author is a mess at a whole. Why are different these two pages?
https://www.goodreads.com/work/editio...
https://www.goodreads.com/work/editio...


message 27: by Emy (new)

Emy (emypt) | 5017 comments Envite,

Excellent photo - I was hoping that was how they were sold, but it's hard to tell without seeing, but that's almost as good! :)

When I said that 9788496208919 was for vol 1 only, I meant the record on Goodreads NOW. Looks like that might be an error, so go ahead and add the two volumes you have as Alternate Cover editions anyway.

The two different pages are because the editions on the first link are Book 1 as published by GRRM, and the editions on the second link are only the first half of Book 1 as published. Or at least that's how they SHOULD be - sometimes errors slip in and we have to fix them, of course :)


message 28: by Envite (new)

Envite | 10 comments Hi Emy

(I hope) I think I start to understand. But if
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8...
is for first half of volume 1, it is wrong, as the ISBN is 9788496208919 which is the one I have for both halves.

Besides I'm not being (yet) a Librarian (I've only a few days here), I do not know how to manage to fix this all.


back to top