Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Book & Author Page Issues
>
Pop-Up Adaptations Combined With Actual Work?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
willaful
(new)
Dec 20, 2011 12:02PM
How different is the text? The blurb makes it sounds like Carroll would be appropriately the author.
reply
|
flag
Would have to agree with Abigail on this one because of this: Source- http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4...2) "Young readers" adaptations which generally tell the entire story in simpler language, possibly with some illustrations.Exceptions of an adaptation that should NOT be combined.
3) "Picture book" adaptations, with minimal text and a generally broad overview of the plot.
I def. agree with Abigail. As far as a quick way to undo it, did the mis-guided librarian not even list Sabuda as a co-author so you could search by him?
Cheryl in CC NV wrote: "I def. agree with Abigail. As far as a quick way to undo it, did the mis-guided librarian not even list Sabuda as a co-author so you could search by him?"Robert Sabuda is listed as the illustrator.
Abigail wrote: "Well, it's twelve pages... There are little booklets included, that contain more of the story, but it's nowhere near the length of the original. As the title states, it's an adaptation... not an il..."Does the text has "little to none of the author's original words"? If not and it does have more, then it should be combined. I know it's just semantics, but some adaptions are to be combined. The link I mentioned above listed five exceptions that shouldn't be combined.
Adaptions are never combined, but the definition of an adaption is one that has little to none of the author's original words. Looking at some of the pictures on B&N/Amazon it seems likely that most of the wording is in tact through smaller books on each pop-up page. The description also says "The text is faithful to Lewis Carroll's original story."Abigail - do you own the book? If so, you can compare what text is in the book with Carroll's original work.
Based on what I can see, I'd keep in combined. But if you see something different in the physical book... that's a different story.
Reviewers of the pop-up edition say "heavily abridged" and "excerpts." In a book where word-play is key and story is minimal, I'd say this counts as an exception to combination, as in msg 3.
I'm not offering an opinion re the combining, but if the text is faithful to the original, Carroll should remain as the author, IMO. Creators of pop-ups are generally listed as the authors by the publishers, that doesn't mean they literally are.
I remember seeing this awhile back. I decided not to separate it at the time, because it was "heavily abridged" with illustrations, not adapted. The excerpts that are included are from the original work and have not been re-written by someone else.I am fine with separating it, if that is what is agreed to by the community. I just wanted to present a counter argument for keeping it. :)
Abigail wrote: "I'm fine with keeping Carroll as an author, but he should be in the secondary position, in my opinion, to prevent inappropriate combining. Which, I believe, was formerly the case. "I guess that's a reasonable argument.
looking at the librarian change log it seems to have been combined and uncombined a number of times already.
Abigail wrote: "I hadn't seen your post, when commenting above, Vicki. I do not own this book, but have looked through it many times. I cannot say I ever held it next to Carroll's original, but I don't see how it could be considered combinable, when there is so much less text, than the original. We're not talking about a slightly different text here, but a significantly different one."I was commenting based solely on the on the pictures I saw. There were several on Amazon that make it look like there is a substantial amount of text in the booket included on each page. Hence why I asked your opinion. :)
In defining the difference between adaptions and abridgments, I don't think we're necessarily talking about the volume of text. An abridgment of Le Mis cuts out 40% of the text, another cuts out almost 75% (very liberal percentages based on pages when words per page can vary greatly, but still substantial cuts) - these editions are still combined with the original, because the parts of the text that remain are the same. Whereas an adaption is more akin to a retelling - a version of Alice in Wonderland set in the modern day for instance - and uses little or none of the author's original writing.
That said, the argument for combining them is that the text that remains comes directly from the original work - whether one chapter is cut or five, it's still an abridged version instead of an adaptation.
However, in the case of this particular book, I can see the case for making it an exception for it's separation as it seems (from reading some reviews) to use excerpts from the novel to supplement the pop-up image which is the focus of the book. In addition to that, it's primary author on WorldCat is Sabuda and his is the only name on the front of the book (though Carroll should be kept on in a secondary position).
I have actually had this same confusion recently. I came across a Romeo and Juliet adaptation from Wishbone. It has Shakespeare as the primary author, but almost all of the book is in modern english save for a few stray quotes here and there. It is combined with the real Romeo and Juliet.http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24...
What I am asking is, knowing what was said above, would it be right if separate this edition from the original Romeo and Juliet book and put Shakespeare as a secondary author?
Danielle wrote: "I have actually had this same confusion recently. I came across a Romeo and Juliet adaptation from Wishbone. It has Shakespeare as the primary author, but almost all of the book is in modern englis..."Yes. Please separate this. Many, many of these types of adaptations are incorrectly combined with the original work.
Just found this discussion, thanks to vicki_girl, and would like to add a vote for separating these out. The focus is truly on the "illustrations" and the 3-D work, so it fits well within a graphic novel point of view. Just my opinion.
