the librarian in me, again

[adelaidesean]

This may sound like a small thing, but I'm forever unsure how to organise my bibliography.

Should I do it by series, as per the current version, or by genre (sf vs fantasy)? By author (solo vs collaboration) or by readership (adult vs YA vs kids)? By country of release (Australia vs the rest of the world) or in chronological order?

The last one sounds simple enough, but it too is fraught with complications. Do I measure from when I started the book, when I finished it, or when it was published? The result isn't always the same.

For instance, Metal Fatigue was the first book I started but the second I finished. The Storm Weaver & the Sand was the thirteenth I started but the ninth in print. Only four books (Heirs of Earth, Reunion, The Blood Debt and The Dust Devils) retain the same ranking by each measure (14, 15, 18 and 24 respectively).

Do other writers have this problem? It could equally apply to short stories too.

Maybe I just write too many goddamn books.

And maybe I'm writing this to avoid doing some real work...

Comments

[throughsoftair.livejournal.com]

By height!

[crankynick.livejournal.com]

Do other writers have this problem?

Only those with your workrate. So not that many I suspect.

I think maybe the question you haven't asked is why you're compiling the list - or, to what end?

The answer to that question should define the answer.

Are you compiling a list for a CV? In which case srtict chronological, with by publication date (to show regularity of publication and work) would be the go.

Are you compiling a list so your fans can work out whether they've read everything youv'e written yet? By series, with chronology as a second thought - with series that are linked in some way (ie shared universe) should be close together.

It also depends on your readership - are your readers consistent across genres? If they aren't (ie the readers of your fantasy novels are fantasy readers, and unlikely to pick up the SF series) then dividing by genre is important.

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

Nice one, dude. Wish I'd thought of that. :-)

[crankynick.livejournal.com]

Jees, spelling...

That was awful. My apologies for spelling badly on your blog, Sean.

[throughsoftair.livejournal.com]

You know, it's scary how many ways I can think of for you to organise your bibliography.

Note: I said you..... :)

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right, hence my dilemma. I'm assuming that I have all sorts of people coming to my site and looking at the bibliography there: publicists, editors, readers, and the like across many different genres with diverging angles. I've occasionally considered giving them several different options but thought that might be extreme. Maybe not.

For the record, I already have three options on the site: a strictly chronological version containing everything, including OS reprints and short stories; one with just the titles, which is linked to the original LJ post; and one containing full publishing histories, grouped by series in rough chronological order. My brain hurts at the thought of having to update seven or eight every time a new book comes out...

[throughsoftair.livejournal.com]

here's how I organise all my published books:

"I think I'll put it over there. Now what's on telly?"

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

No worries at all, dude. I make mistakes all the time. That's okay on LJ, isn't it?

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

Dude, you know that's only a temporary solution. Soon you too will be wondering if you should arrange your vast oeuvre by colour, odour, or in-jokes.

[throughsoftair.livejournal.com]

I'm going to release every book I wever write with exactly the same cover. That'll show 'em.....

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

Hell, that's much cooler than my plan, which is to release the same two books over and over under different titles. Ho ho.

[throughsoftair.livejournal.com]

Oh Crap! How did I end up on Robert Jordan's LJ?

[stegoking.livejournal.com]

Date published. It's the one, true way.

[arcadiagt5.livejournal.com]

What about by publisher?

The list of "other books by ..." in the front of any new book tend to be limited to books issued by the same publisher (naturally enough, they want to advertise their products rather than a competitors).

There may be scope here for readers who know about your work with one publishing house to discover the work you've done for others.

Not to mention the possibility that the various lists may actually be useful to your publishers (saves them having to do it).

[arcadiagt5.livejournal.com]

The comment you replied to had one line and two sentences. One of those sentences had only two words in it.

Ergo, far too brief (and tightly edited) to be Robert Jordan's LJ.

:)

[throughsoftair.livejournal.com]

ROFLMAO

[damienw]

alphabetical by title. with notes for translations, later editions, etc.

put it all in a database, and automatically generate the webpage from that.

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

Alphabetical? Hmm. I'd not seriously considered that one before.

The database scheme sounds suspiciously like coding to me...

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

Argh! Another option--and one with some nasty complications, with books appearing in different countries with different publishers but overlapping in others.

HarperCollins was pretty egalitarian about listing books from other publishers in the front of "their" books--particularly if they had the words "Star Wars" in the titles. :-)

Still, worth thinking about, yes...

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

It's certainly the least ambiguous, and therefore very tempting indeed. But is it what a reader would want to see? This is what I ask myself...

[stephen-dedman.livejournal.com]

Or you could try doing what Simon Haynes did; release different versions of the same book, with different covers, but only one ISBN. Guaranteed to make librarians tear their hair out...

With the bibliography, why not order all your novels by date published, but treat each series as one 'book'? The first publication of the first volume determines where it goes in the sequence. Then you put the volumes in order of either (a) story chronology, or (b) first publication? (Which in my case would be by 1997, 2001, never, but in yours would be more like Monday, Wednesday, Friday...)

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I was about to make the same suggestion -- put it in a database, and let visitors choose their own ordering scheme. Computer people always think like this, its a wonder we ever get anything done.

And yes, it sounds suspiciously like coding to me too -- but we think of that as a plus....

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

It's an absolutely brilliant solution. One day, when I get around to paying someone to maintain my site, I'll be sure to make them implement it. :-)

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

:-)

That's kinda the way the list is at the moment, but I've never been entirely happy with it. I'm beginning to suspect that, until I learn how to code the database option Damian and David are plugging, I'll never find the perfect solution.

Of course, if I'd only stop writing series, everything would be much easier.

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

Loathe though I am EVER to laugh at another author... hee hee!

[arcadiagt5.livejournal.com]

I've, ah, expanded on this theme in my own journal...

[arcadiagt5.livejournal.com]

And is it the version that will lead a reader to successfully choose which book to read next?

[For values of success equal to "rinse and repeat"...]

[stegoking.livejournal.com]

Sean, in all honesty, as a reader, I don't care to read bibliographies. Your novels are a different story.

[ladnews.livejournal.com]

:-) That's good to hear. Thanks.