[DCRM-L] MSS editions To bracket or not in cataloging manuscripts

Tue Sep 10 08:08:11 MDT 2013

We DCRM(MSS) editors agree wholeheartedly, Richard, that scripts, screenplays, and the like fall into a real gray area, bringing up a number of intriguing questions (or sucking one into a number of intellectual swamps, depending on one's outlook). For one: When does a work cross the dividing line between "unpublished" and "published"? If I write a letter to Mother on a typewriter using carbon paper, so that there are two carbon copies in addition to the original, and I hand the two copies to my siblings, does it count as a publication? What if I take the same letter and run off 10 copies on a photocopier and send them out to family members? What if I run off 50 copies on the photocopier and sell them downtown for 10 cents each? Which of these factors (if any) makes the letter a publication? If the letter is handwritten rather than typewritten, does that make it "more manuscript-y"? Should it matter whether it's handwritten or typewritten?

Another issue: Is a version of a manuscript equivalent in some sense to an edition of a published work? Where does version information belong in the catalog record?

Another issue: What balance should be struck between consistency across formats on the one hand, and responsiveness to the nature of each format in the interests of accurate description on the other hand? RDA is pulling us firmly onto the side of consistency across formats, but what's the tradeoff that we make if we go that route? Where do we strike the balance between consistency and flexibility? Where do we obey RDA, and where do we beg to differ?

The DCRM(MSS) editorial team will be wrestling with some of these issues next week at its Fall meeting. Wish us luck (and strong coffee)!

Best,

Margaret

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:27 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: [DCRM-L] MSS editions To bracket or not in cataloging manuscripts

In the discussion of "To bracket or not in cataloging manuscripts" Erin has addressed a tangential topic that also implies a further question.

Regarding Erin's Question: RDA instructs (2.5.1.1 Scope) that "For resources in an unpublished form, statements indicating the version of the work contained in the resource are treated as edition statements. Some examples of a resource in an unpublished form are manuscript drafts or videorecordings that have not been commercially released or broadcast." That's pretty direct, and certainly applies to a statement such as "Production draft" in her example (cf. the example under 2.3.2.3, "Draft, May 2000"). It should no doubt be taken into account in a revised DCRM for mss.

Further Question: I have recently cataloged a couple of mimeographed Hollywood scripts much like Erin's example, one as OCLC type t, the other as type a. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others regarding the appropriateness of the designation in such cases. I'm now leaning towards type a for both of these items, especially since I could not see any rationale for duplicating the record for Nothing sacred, from which I copy cataloged for Brown, having RDAddled the record in upgrading it from M to I.

http://josiah.brown.edu/search~S7?/twhite+christmas/twhite+christmas/1%2C18%2C60%2CB/marc&FF=twhite+christmas+motion+picture&3%2C%2C3

http://josiah.brown.edu/search~S7?/tnothing+sacred/tnothing+sacred/1%2C5%2C7%2CB/marc&FF=tnothing+sacred+motion+picture&1%2C1%2C

My sense is that designation of a "resource" (such language ...) as type t creates the expectation that it is inherently unique, and that the record for it is not appropriate for copy cataloging/addition of holdings, only for derivation as the basis of another master record for a similar resource. What I had in hand, as in the case of Erin's example, is inherently not unique, though the copy in hand differs in some resepcts from others. We have the script as originally delivered. I reckoned that in the case of an inscribed, extra-illustrated copy (inscribed by Selznick, with three actors' headshots) that the variation was copy-specific. I'm less certain regarding the Ohio State copy, which does exhibit characteristics of a "continuing resource" (the addition of a week's worth of revision pages, apparently without change to the cover designation).

 So what's the real difference between a "manuscript" text and an "unpublished" text? The use of a duplicating medium? (What about ribbon and carbon copies?) Is copy-catalogability a proper criterion for choosing a record type?

Bibliography of published books is so easy compared with this stuff ...

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu<mailto:EBlake at folger.edu>>
Date: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] To bracket or not in cataloging manuscripts
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>

I think one of the issues that was giving some people pause was that it can be desireable to describe a manuscript that presents itself as a book the same way that a book is described, so not even having the option of Area 2 for an edition statement was a problem. Deborah mentioned in person that DCRM(B) could add an appendix on using DCRM(B) to catalog manuscripts.

I imagine this would be useful for typescripts such as screenplays, which present themselves formally and are mechanically reproduced. Though unpublished, they're circulated by a corporate distributor. For example, you could end up with something like:
As you like it by William Shakespeare [manuscript] / screenplay by Kenneth Branagh.
Production draft.
[S.l.] : HBO Films & Shakespeare Film Company, 14/03/05.

The appendix would be analogous to DCRM(S)'s projected appendix on manuscript serials, and DCRM(G)'s appendix on cataloging material with title pages as graphic material rather than as books.

Erin.

----------------
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20009  |  eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  office tel. 202-675-0323<tel:202-675-0323>  |  fax 202-675-0328<tel:202-675-0328>  |  www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130910/c2e018dc/attachment-0001.html>