One point of having authority records is to recognize that entities can have a coherent presence--an identity--that goes beyond what is found on one book. In the case of Snoopy, that identity is primarily iconic--we recognize his various images as Snoopy, regardless of what he's sometimes wearing. Knowing that, when I encounter "Dr. Snoopy," I see it as Snoopy--Snoopy in one of his many personae, but primarily as Snoopy. The fact that Snoopy's existence is primarily visual and that he remains recognizable as Snoopy across so many personae says to me that these personae are not equivalent to pseudonyms, which tend to hide the fact that two authorial names are the same. They're more like "different forms of the same iconographic identity." That being the case, I'd establish the authorial Snoopy as just "Snoopy," and give "Dr. Snoopy," "Joe Cool," etc. as 400s, if they ever turn up as authors.
The question is, what level of granularity is most appropriate for collocation and will best match users' expectations and needs. I find it dubious that most users would prefer to have to track down all the Snoopy personae under their individual names when they're looking for stuff by or about Snoopy. We have only one subject heading for him. Would a new subject heading be needed to catalog a poster of Joe Cool, or would "Snoopy (Fictitious character)" still apply? Three minor notes: it's Schulz, not Schultz. I don't think anyone would argue that the book by Dr. Snoopy should also have Schulz as an access point. And let's not forget spirits, who can also be authors under AACR2 (e.g., "Seth (Spirit)"). Stephen On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Laurence Creider <lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu> wrote: > John, > > What you say is well thought, and made me realize that I should have been > clearer in saying that I consider Dr. Snoopy to be a form of a name and not > a different name until proven otherwise, particularly given the presumed > character depicted in the illustrations and the name of the illustrator. > Joe Cool presents a different case, of course. > > As you say, RDA may need some revision here, as AACR2 certainly did for some > of its "unintended" consequences. > > Larry > > -- > Laurence S. Creider > Special Collections Librarian > New Mexico State University > Las Cruces, NM 88003 > Work: 575-646-7227 > Fax: 575-646-7477 > lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, John Attig wrote: > >> >> On 4/27/2011 11:40 AM, Laurence Creider wrote: >> The point of my comment yesterday was that there was no proof >> that Dr. >> Snoopy was in fact a different "person" from Snoopy. The >> existence of a >> title means nothing. Sometimes I use my Dr. or Professor, >> sometimes I do >> not. >> >> >> As the JSC was reviewing the drafts of the section of RDA that dealt with >> multiple identities or personae, it struck me that a literal reading of >> RDA >> would suggest that the simple use of different names (but not different >> forms of the same name or changes of name) was sufficient evidence of the >> intent to establish a separate bibliographic identity. If that is true, >> then Larry's point above is not relevant: you don't need proof that "Dr. >> Snoopy" is a different person, you only need evidence of the use of a >> distinct name -- and a decision that this is a different name rather than >> a >> different form of the same name (which I suppose one could argue). > -- Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328 Fx: 612-625-3428
