Article Response for Lecture #4 - Creider

 Creider, L.S. (2006). Cataloging, reception, and the boundaries of a "work." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 42(2):3-19.

In Creider’s “Cataloging, reception and the boundaries of a “work,”” the author gives several examples of complexities arising from the definition and distinguishment of one work from another.  Complications get in the way of defining any given work by a single criteria.  For example, editors and publishers often make alterations to an author’s work before its even published, so author intentionality isn’t a basis on which to define a work. 

Translations are often considered different expressions of the same work. However, many translations, and translations of translations, wind up altering the text through sloppy translations, or just through the difficulty in transliterating concepts between languages.  The concept of the “work” in the translator’s mind is what ultimately determines what is translated, which may be entirely different from the “work” in the author’s mind, or for that matter in any reader’s mind. 

Every reader has a different conception of the work, even the cataloger.  This conception can depend on how thoroughly one reads the work, and what surrounding knowledge and scholarship the reader knows about the work, as well as preconceptions from what access point the reader arrived at the work from.  Hearing about the work already predisposes a reader to a certain viewpoint.  This is significant for the cataloger because one can’t expect a cataloger to do a full scholarship study on the work in front of them in order to categorize it, so social factors play an even bigger role in how to define a work.

When a single “work” has several sections, all written at different times by different authors, with different, sometimes contradicting knowledge and viewpoints, it seems to be a collection of several works.  But often, especially in terms of ecclesiastical literature, they are considered the same work because of the same point of origin.  Writings which are nothing alike can be considered sections of a single “work.”

There seems to be no single defining feature in what distinguishes one work from another.  It reminds me of Wittgenstein’s game theory, wherein we don’t define a game, or any word really, by a single definition, but rather by association and social construct.  Works are similar in this respect because they can’t be defined by a single factor, or even a set of factor, and are defined more by association, or feeling, of the person doing the categorization.

The solution posited by the author, is that catalogers must be willing to change their definitions later on as research and scholarship continue to evolve and study the connections between similar works, or similar expressions and manifestations of those works.  I approve that sentiment, but also add another caveat in terms of usage. 

I would add that subtle differences that define whether a writing is a distinct work or a different expression of the same work involve in-depth scholarly analysis.  A person doing that needs to find and study disparate versions of a work for which the line between expression and separate work is blurry and uncertain is likely a scholar, and will certainly search for different expressions of a work, as well as for different works of scholarship associated with the work, and thus is likely to find another version of a work.  If we tag keywords and subjects that associate two distinct works, for which the line is blurry, a scholar is likely to find those works.  So, I would say that it is safer to err on the side of considering a writing a new work rather than an expression of the same work, because the majority of people searching for works with such subtle distinctions will be able to find what they need, and the casual reader will not be so inundated with various versions, as different expressions.  I would say that approach would serve more users more effectively.