Editions & expressions case study: Thomas’ Stowage
CharlasTalk about LibraryThing
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1Muscogulus
I’ve just cataloged my grandfather’s weather-beaten copy of a 1930 nautical reference work (here). It’s an unusual book that may be useful for thinking about editions and expressions.
The work has been a merchant-marine bible since 1928, and is usually called Thomas’ Stowage.
Under the short title Stowage, it seems to have gone through at least two numbered editions and four dated printings by its first author, Robert Ellis Thomas (1928, 1930, 1935, 1937).
Then another author, O.O. Thomas, updated it. This was published and reprinted under the titles Stowage and Thomas’ Stowage. I’ve only seen Google Books snippets, but it appears there were later revisions with the help of co-authors.
Between 1985 and 2008 Thomas’ Stowage has been updated at least three times by three different authors. Instead of looking them up again in WorldCat I’ll call them Abe, Bill, and Chuck.
Abe’s update came out in 1985/86 as the 3rd edition of Thomas’ Stowage; Bill’s appeared in 2002 as the 4th edition, and Chuck’s in 2008 is the 5th edition.
There’s probably some overlap in the numbering of editions between Stowage by R.E. Thomas, Thomas’ Stowage by O.O. Thomas, and Thomas’ Stowage by the latest three authors.
I believe all five authors’ efforts should be considered one work. Then I’d arrange five expressions of the work:
So in practical terms, how would I name or label each expression? Thomas’ Stowage (1), Thomas’ Stowage (2), etc.? Or something more descriptive?
Is it possible in LT to have a work with a “passing of the torch” from one author to a series of successors? Will this change make it possible?
Have I missed something?
The work has been a merchant-marine bible since 1928, and is usually called Thomas’ Stowage.
Under the short title Stowage, it seems to have gone through at least two numbered editions and four dated printings by its first author, Robert Ellis Thomas (1928, 1930, 1935, 1937).
Then another author, O.O. Thomas, updated it. This was published and reprinted under the titles Stowage and Thomas’ Stowage. I’ve only seen Google Books snippets, but it appears there were later revisions with the help of co-authors.
Between 1985 and 2008 Thomas’ Stowage has been updated at least three times by three different authors. Instead of looking them up again in WorldCat I’ll call them Abe, Bill, and Chuck.
Abe’s update came out in 1985/86 as the 3rd edition of Thomas’ Stowage; Bill’s appeared in 2002 as the 4th edition, and Chuck’s in 2008 is the 5th edition.
There’s probably some overlap in the numbering of editions between Stowage by R.E. Thomas, Thomas’ Stowage by O.O. Thomas, and Thomas’ Stowage by the latest three authors.
I believe all five authors’ efforts should be considered one work. Then I’d arrange five expressions of the work:
- the versions by R.E. Thomas
- those by O.O. Thomas
- Abe’s edition (1985)
- Bill’s edition (2002)
- Chuck’s edition (2008)
So in practical terms, how would I name or label each expression? Thomas’ Stowage (1), Thomas’ Stowage (2), etc.? Or something more descriptive?
Is it possible in LT to have a work with a “passing of the torch” from one author to a series of successors? Will this change make it possible?
Have I missed something?
2aulsmith
So, my first question would be: Should it be one work? I think there are many questions that need to be settled before we'll have general agreement on things like this. But for the sake of going on to expressions, I'll accept your judgment.
So, we have a work R. E. Thomas's Stowage.
Expression 1 is his original version. (to the work name would be added "original" or some such (unless Tim's talking about numbers, I haven't been following all the threads he was posting to about this)
Expression 2 is his revision. (rev. R. E. Thomas 193x) (Note the printings don't count until maybe the edition level and not even then if they're made from the same plates as the previous printing - at least that's how it would be in library land)
Expression 3 (rev. O. O. Thomas)
Expression 4 etc (rev O. O. Thomas and X)
Expression 4+x+1 (rev. by Abe)
Expression 4+x+2 (rev. by Bill)
Expression 4+x+3 (rev. by Chuck
The editions would be distinguished by date, not by edition number, which is fairly useless in this case.
So, we have a work R. E. Thomas's Stowage.
Expression 1 is his original version. (to the work name would be added "original" or some such (unless Tim's talking about numbers, I haven't been following all the threads he was posting to about this)
Expression 2 is his revision. (rev. R. E. Thomas 193x) (Note the printings don't count until maybe the edition level and not even then if they're made from the same plates as the previous printing - at least that's how it would be in library land)
Expression 3 (rev. O. O. Thomas)
Expression 4 etc (rev O. O. Thomas and X)
Expression 4+x+1 (rev. by Abe)
Expression 4+x+2 (rev. by Bill)
Expression 4+x+3 (rev. by Chuck
The editions would be distinguished by date, not by edition number, which is fairly useless in this case.
3Muscogulus
In other words, it would be presumptuous of me (or anyone) to set up these expressions without access to copies of each expression, or at least the bibliographical data.
I do have a gut feeling, though, that all these books should be linked together as “Thomas’ Stowage.” They are all part of the same — I don’t know — tradition, as a reference work. While the content changes, and the authors change, the book itself is continually referred to the same way. Yet the books are not a series in the sense we usually mean it.
Maybe other reference works are good to compare with. Are Webster’s Eighth and Ninth Collegiate Dictionaries two expressions of one work, the Collegiate Dictionary?
Probably not.
I do have a gut feeling, though, that all these books should be linked together as “Thomas’ Stowage.” They are all part of the same — I don’t know — tradition, as a reference work. While the content changes, and the authors change, the book itself is continually referred to the same way. Yet the books are not a series in the sense we usually mean it.
Maybe other reference works are good to compare with. Are Webster’s Eighth and Ninth Collegiate Dictionaries two expressions of one work, the Collegiate Dictionary?
Probably not.
4aulsmith
I can see your point about Thomas' Stowage being a work. However, I suspect there's going to be a lot of pressure here on LT that a new author/editor means a new work. We'll have to wait and see. This is one of the things I find exciting about this experiment.
To make an expression record, you have to know if some "thingie" is "expressed" differently from the original conception of a work. Probably a revision-notice/edition-statement or a new copyright date will ordinarily be sufficient to determine a new expression, but since the edition statements on your work were messed up, it's a harder case. I suspect that most expressions are going to be translations, which should be very clear without access to the original manifestation of the original work.
When you get down to editions, I think that for the 19th century and the early 20th century, you're often going to need access to copies, since publishers were not consistent about the use of edition (a new typesetting at the very least) and printing (a run from plates that were already used for a previous issuance of the material). I've spent weeks at work comparing "editions" page by page trying to determine if they are printings or true editions.
To make an expression record, you have to know if some "thingie" is "expressed" differently from the original conception of a work. Probably a revision-notice/edition-statement or a new copyright date will ordinarily be sufficient to determine a new expression, but since the edition statements on your work were messed up, it's a harder case. I suspect that most expressions are going to be translations, which should be very clear without access to the original manifestation of the original work.
When you get down to editions, I think that for the 19th century and the early 20th century, you're often going to need access to copies, since publishers were not consistent about the use of edition (a new typesetting at the very least) and printing (a run from plates that were already used for a previous issuance of the material). I've spent weeks at work comparing "editions" page by page trying to determine if they are printings or true editions.
