If the cataloger is pretty confident that this book is REALLY written by
Charles Schultz, is there any reason (in priniciple or in code) that she
can't simply add "Schultz, Chares..." as the controlled heading/access
point/1xx?
Snoopy would still be in the transcribed 245 statement of responsibility
of course.
There will of course be occasions where the cataloger has no way of
knowing that the title page statement of responsibility is fictitious,
and will then go through the ordinary procedures for establishing a
controlled heading, the procedures Adam et al helpfully clarified.
That's how it goes, this will inevitably sometimes happen.
But in cases where it is obvious what's going on.... it seems to me it
would be preferable for the cataloger to act upon that. I am not a
cataloger. What would they have do under AACR2? Is there anything in
RDA to make it either easier or harder (more or less 'legal') for the
cataloger to just use this obvious knowledge, and assign Charles
Schultz's heading. (Ie, establish the relationship to a Charles Schultz
authority).
In my idea world, we'd also all be using a cooperative database, such
that if the initial cataloger didn't realize "Dr. Snoopy" was really
Charles Schultz, a later cataloger could always improve the record to be
so too, and everyone else would get those improvements back in their
databases too.
Jonathan
On 4/27/2011 1:01 PM, Deborah Tomares wrote:
Here's the thing, though. Snoopy doesn't have the profession of author,
because as we all know, he didn't really write the book. He is a fictitious
dog, lacking in digits and English language necessary to put out the work
he "authored" (even in the cartoons, he never speaks). So I don't believe
we can, or should, apply the same rules and standards to him that we do to
real, live, preferably human authors.
And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it
would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I
believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to
find them. As in my Spiderman example before, I don't think it would
benefit anyone, cataloger or user, to have to constantly revise and sift
through the changeable natures/personae/call-them-what-you-will of
fictitious characters. Because they aren't real, so aren't bound by rules
of reality, to attempt to impose reality upon them seems to me wrong and
not useful.
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9561
dtoma...@nypl.org
Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New
York Public Library policy.
From: Peter Schouten<pschou...@ingressus.nl>
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: 04/27/2011 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Sent by: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access<RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain
Snoopy,
and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each
differing
guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: "even
fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae". But I would
argue
against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot
truly
have professions, so they aren't really different "persons" despite the
guise;
But in this example, the publication presents Dr. Snoopy as the author,
which causes the fictional character to have the profession of author.
Would you also have 1 heading for both Clark Kent and Superman?
Peter Schouten
