Our Troth - two very different editions - is this really the same book?
DiscussãoCombiners!
Aderi ao LibraryThing para poder publicar.
1ArlieS
I own 3 related books. All are called "Our Troth", with various subtitles. I believe all can be said to have been edited by KveldúlfR Hagan Gundarsson (variously spelled), and compiled and/or published by an organization called variously "the Troth" and "the Ring of Troth".
ISBNs are 0-9623957-8-1, 1-4196-3598-0 and 1-4196-3614-6
Library Thing thinks that the first two of these are the same work (241111743) and the third is work 112168772
My understanding is that the first of these books was a single volume first edition, published in 1993, and the remaining two were the separate volumes of a second edition, published in 2006 and 2007, with more than enough changes to be considered a new work even if it had been in a single volume.
The story I heard was that the editors didn't own all the copyrights, and weren't able to get permission to republish all the individually-owned chapters in a new edition, and for some reason also couldn't simply reprint the old one. Because of this I went out of my way to acquire the first edition, after I already had both volumes of the second one.
I therefore think work 241111743 should be split.
But I could be wrong; I don't normally split works, and only combine books when they are very obviously identical.
Comments? Opinions? Willingness to do the actual split so I don't wind up botching it?
ISBNs are 0-9623957-8-1, 1-4196-3598-0 and 1-4196-3614-6
Library Thing thinks that the first two of these are the same work (241111743) and the third is work 112168772
My understanding is that the first of these books was a single volume first edition, published in 1993, and the remaining two were the separate volumes of a second edition, published in 2006 and 2007, with more than enough changes to be considered a new work even if it had been in a single volume.
The story I heard was that the editors didn't own all the copyrights, and weren't able to get permission to republish all the individually-owned chapters in a new edition, and for some reason also couldn't simply reprint the old one. Because of this I went out of my way to acquire the first edition, after I already had both volumes of the second one.
I therefore think work 241111743 should be split.
But I could be wrong; I don't normally split works, and only combine books when they are very obviously identical.
Comments? Opinions? Willingness to do the actual split so I don't wind up botching it?
2Nevov
You've described the situation quite well.
I've separated the ISBN you gave for the first edition, link is at: https://www.librarything.com/work/30325731/
I've separated the ISBN you gave for the first edition, link is at: https://www.librarything.com/work/30325731/
3MarthaJeanne
If you create work relationships it becomes a lot less likely that the will be recombined. Disambiguation notices are also helpful, but are often ignored.
4Nevov
Agree, though it's not so straightforward since the second edition two-volumes hasn't been catalogued as a single work, meaning the only option would be to relate both parts of the second edition to the first edition, a bit clumsy but tolerable.
>1 ArlieS: can you say whether the second edition is purely an abridgement (missing the chapters that you mention) or is there also some new content added that the first edition doesn't have?
>1 ArlieS: can you say whether the second edition is purely an abridgement (missing the chapters that you mention) or is there also some new content added that the first edition doesn't have?
6ArlieS
FWIW, there may also be a third edition, which I don't have.
Edited to add. It's real. I found it on Amazon. It appears to be in 3 volumes, published 2020-2022. New author/editor, but similar covers to the 2nd edition.
Edited to add. It's real. I found it on Amazon. It appears to be in 3 volumes, published 2020-2022. New author/editor, but similar covers to the 2nd edition.
8Nevov
>5 ArlieS: Thanks for checking, I've added some disambiguation notes and done the relationships as "adaptation" in that case (not really a perfect way to describe it when it's a scenario like this, but...), do feel free to adjust if you like!