1EGBERTINA
https://www.librarything.com/work/4967276/summary/230128222
The Author (primary and only) is Charles Edward Carryl.
The illustrator is Charles Santore.
I couldn't fix the wrong author status
The Author (primary and only) is Charles Edward Carryl.
The illustrator is Charles Santore.
I couldn't fix the wrong author status
2AnnieMod
It needed an “author/title” recalculation - always needed after playing with the other authors fields.
Although it may take awhile to “take”. Give it a few hours to catch up.
Also - the link leads to a single copy of the book. It shows the data for that copy - and that can only be fixed by the user holding the copy, in the Edit screen of their own copy. As it is your book, edit your own book and fix the roles there.
Although it may take awhile to “take”. Give it a few hours to catch up.
Also - the link leads to a single copy of the book. It shows the data for that copy - and that can only be fixed by the user holding the copy, in the Edit screen of their own copy. As it is your book, edit your own book and fix the roles there.
3EGBERTINA
>2 AnnieMod: I can wait.
ummm....my work is correctly labelled. it was everyone else (56?) that listed Santore as the author.
thank u. I will check again
ummm....my work is correctly labelled. it was everyone else (56?) that listed Santore as the author.
thank u. I will check again
4Nevov
If it is a work where the visual/graphical part of it is significant then it's quite common for people to give the illustrator the primary credit.
Looking at the cover art, the illustrator's name is in larger type than the other name, so that might also contribute to how people catalogue this one.
Also, I think here it's that the original author of the poem is long-deceased, so won't have had anything to do directly with this new work. That can make it more appropriate for the author to be only a secondary author.
At the moment your own copy (you linked to this in >1 EGBERTINA:) has got 'illustrator' showing against both names, so you'd definitely want to fix that.
I would be minded to leave Santore as the primary author, if the majority of copies have got that as the primary author, but maybe others can chime in on what the usual thing to do in a situation like this is.
Looking at the cover art, the illustrator's name is in larger type than the other name, so that might also contribute to how people catalogue this one.
Also, I think here it's that the original author of the poem is long-deceased, so won't have had anything to do directly with this new work. That can make it more appropriate for the author to be only a secondary author.
At the moment your own copy (you linked to this in >1 EGBERTINA:) has got 'illustrator' showing against both names, so you'd definitely want to fix that.
I would be minded to leave Santore as the primary author, if the majority of copies have got that as the primary author, but maybe others can chime in on what the usual thing to do in a situation like this is.
5lilithcat
>4 Nevov:
I think here it's that the original author of the poem is long-deceased, so won't have had anything to do directly with this new work. That can make it more appropriate for the author to be only a secondary author.
I don't think the fact that the author is dead makes any difference! In this case, I would probably make the author a "main" author, rather than a "secondary" one. I agree that, for this edition, the illustrator is primary.
I think here it's that the original author of the poem is long-deceased, so won't have had anything to do directly with this new work. That can make it more appropriate for the author to be only a secondary author.
I don't think the fact that the author is dead makes any difference! In this case, I would probably make the author a "main" author, rather than a "secondary" one. I agree that, for this edition, the illustrator is primary.
7Nevov
>5 lilithcat: A very fair point, well made! I was mixing the situation up with adaptations, and that's not what we've got here.
8EGBERTINA
>4 Nevov: so..."has got 'illustrator' showing against both names, so you'd definitely want to fix that."
i can't fix it... took me awhile to get it to show him as illustrator. but it kept primary author, too.
it is one my pet peeves. when attempting to fix authors- u r allowed to say it is an illustrator - but the website- at that location always keeps it as author its as though illustrator is not an option.
also, when ive asked about primacy of illustrator in past- ive always been told. a work was a single work, regardless of illustrator.
so, then, coincidentally, yesterday, i was reviewing "t'was the night before christmas" editions, looking for illustrators- only to find, that the website had already separated those out by illustrator. i like that.
but, i would also like it for translations of homer. all my homers go in one kettle; but on my own editions i get to display the translator. some people only have one illiad- so they dont care; i have many. to me pope; lawrence, butler, lang, lattimore, Fagles, that guy down the street.... it makes a difference
i can't fix it... took me awhile to get it to show him as illustrator. but it kept primary author, too.
it is one my pet peeves. when attempting to fix authors- u r allowed to say it is an illustrator - but the website- at that location always keeps it as author its as though illustrator is not an option.
also, when ive asked about primacy of illustrator in past- ive always been told. a work was a single work, regardless of illustrator.
so, then, coincidentally, yesterday, i was reviewing "t'was the night before christmas" editions, looking for illustrators- only to find, that the website had already separated those out by illustrator. i like that.
but, i would also like it for translations of homer. all my homers go in one kettle; but on my own editions i get to display the translator. some people only have one illiad- so they dont care; i have many. to me pope; lawrence, butler, lang, lattimore, Fagles, that guy down the street.... it makes a difference
9MarthaJeanne
You need to go to the edit book page to change the way your book shows.
10EGBERTINA
>9 MarthaJeanne: do u mean- edit your book?
that page is fine.
its the main page - where u go to add authors etc- that has always been wonky to me. i finally was able to get santore. listed as illustrator- but it calls him a primary author. perhaps i am too literal. an illustrator is not an author- except when he is an author, additionally.
those decisions lie elsewhere beyond the veil of mystery.
that page is fine.
its the main page - where u go to add authors etc- that has always been wonky to me. i finally was able to get santore. listed as illustrator- but it calls him a primary author. perhaps i am too literal. an illustrator is not an author- except when he is an author, additionally.
those decisions lie elsewhere beyond the veil of mystery.
11Nevov
>10 EGBERTINA: On your book, if you are editing it via this page "Edit your book": https://www.librarything.com/work/4967276/edit/230128222
To the right-hand side next to the author name is a dropdown box that would let you select "Author" (I believe at the moment it will be blank), which I think will get your copy not to show it as having two illustrators.
To the right-hand side next to the author name is a dropdown box that would let you select "Author" (I believe at the moment it will be blank), which I think will get your copy not to show it as having two illustrators.
12AnnieMod
>10 EGBERTINA: But what is shown on the top of your link is NOT what the Work page shows but what your own copy has. The work is ok - this designation comes from inside of your catalog. It may be an echo from an older problem but only you can fix that one - possibly by forcing the type to "Author" if it is now empty and carries a cached value.
13Nevov
>10 EGBERTINA:
Yes, in some cases it's not entirely literal that the primary author must be an author. For a movie that's been entered, the primary author is usually going to be the director, for instance. Or for a musical item, the band or artist.
Yes, in some cases it's not entirely literal that the primary author must be an author. For a movie that's been entered, the primary author is usually going to be the director, for instance. Or for a musical item, the band or artist.
14AnnieMod
>13 Nevov: Or for an anthology or a magazine, it will be an Editor. :)
15EGBERTINA
I will spare us all five hundred rounds more. My comment was about the "main page" location for adding/editing authors. if u all are content that it is doing that which it is designed to do- then i am content.
i find it cumbersome and not straight forward. i avoid it whenever possible.
after a few tries- i succeeded in getting it to list as illustrator.
onward and upward. thank u
i find it cumbersome and not straight forward. i avoid it whenever possible.
after a few tries- i succeeded in getting it to list as illustrator.
onward and upward. thank u
16Nicole_VanK
>10 EGBERTINA: I understand full well that the word author is mostly used for writers. But it also means "the person who originated or gave existence to anything". I'm the "author" of every painting, sculpture, illustration, etc I ever created. (And I published some stuff in writing too).
It's a mishap of language, similar to art generally meaning "visual art" - while music and literature obviously are arts too.
It's a mishap of language, similar to art generally meaning "visual art" - while music and literature obviously are arts too.
17AnnieMod
>15 EGBERTINA: And what we all were trying to explain is that the issue you were reporting was not on that page :)
When looking at a specific book, these fields are shown from that book, not from the main work. Changing the Work page's Other Authors will fix it for the work level but not in your own book (and sometimes, if the primary author is forced on the work page, it can cause the book itself to require somewhat of a workaround to get the correct role in place for the book (as it may show as empty even if it is not) because of the forced primary author). Nothing unfixable but we cannot fix books unless they are in our catalog - all we can fix are works.
While trying to fix the book, you got that one in the "sometimes" scenario of my explanation. The basic rule is that you should fix your own book before you start fixing the work itself - then things don't cache badly.
When looking at a specific book, these fields are shown from that book, not from the main work. Changing the Work page's Other Authors will fix it for the work level but not in your own book (and sometimes, if the primary author is forced on the work page, it can cause the book itself to require somewhat of a workaround to get the correct role in place for the book (as it may show as empty even if it is not) because of the forced primary author). Nothing unfixable but we cannot fix books unless they are in our catalog - all we can fix are works.
While trying to fix the book, you got that one in the "sometimes" scenario of my explanation. The basic rule is that you should fix your own book before you start fixing the work itself - then things don't cache badly.
18EGBERTINA
>16 Nicole_VanK: hmmm....
in this particular work, he being a valued illustrator, i see why people wish to differentiate him. but, did he "give existence to this work? ( idk- maybe he did.)
an editor gives existence when it makes a compilation; but in most children's books does the illustrator weigh more heavily than the author?
asked this question not long ago, when i wanted a slot separate for illustrators- because sometimes u care more about the illustrations.
also asked about sorting a title based on illustrator and was told no. only to find by accident- that in - the night before christmas- others had already separated them by illustrator.
while i like this, frankly, there are very few illustrators of this work- which are truly worthy of that separation. i had hoped to find something spectacular, but not so far.
anyhow, if it works for others- I'm okay. many projects to occupy the few remaining grey cells
thank u
in this particular work, he being a valued illustrator, i see why people wish to differentiate him. but, did he "give existence to this work? ( idk- maybe he did.)
an editor gives existence when it makes a compilation; but in most children's books does the illustrator weigh more heavily than the author?
asked this question not long ago, when i wanted a slot separate for illustrators- because sometimes u care more about the illustrations.
also asked about sorting a title based on illustrator and was told no. only to find by accident- that in - the night before christmas- others had already separated them by illustrator.
while i like this, frankly, there are very few illustrators of this work- which are truly worthy of that separation. i had hoped to find something spectacular, but not so far.
anyhow, if it works for others- I'm okay. many projects to occupy the few remaining grey cells
thank u
