Cataloging Beatles, or: "Where'd My Book Go, Then!?"

Be careful when cataloging that information about a given book is complete; some bookies have more than one name or author -- All You Need is Ears, by George Martin is one (it was written with a "with"); another is Peter Brown's The Love You Make, his co-author being Steven Gaines.

The reason to include co-authors is not only for the sake of accuracy and completeness, but also because omitting co-authors, as some do, results in there being several "groups" of a given (or bought-and-paid-for) book that cannot be combined because invisible to each other.

You don't see that? Then try this one, then:

There are numerous copies of Peter Brown's The Love You Make as having been written by (not to be repetitive, or to repeat myself) Peter Brown. That forms one combined "group" of that book.

In actuality, Peter Brown (a name few have heard before now) wrote The Love You Make with a co-author named Steven Gaines. (It's actually likely that Gaines did most of the heavy lifting, even though not paid to write about Manual Labor.) If one includes not only Peter Brown, whoever he is or was, and his co-author Steven Gaines, as one should, the result is a second combined "group" of the same book, which is invisible to the Peter-Brown-only "group" (so he's overweight, is he?). And to which the Peter-Brown-only "group" (he's full of himself to overflowing, isn't he?) is invisible.

(Invisiblity is not only a problem, but it can't be seen so cannot be fixed.)

Also: when providing names of co-authors, they must be in usual order -- i.e., Peter Brown and Steven Gaines. If one does it as intended -- Brown, Peter, and Steven Gaines -- the results are: Peter Steven Gaines Brown or the like. I assume the two co-authors got along well enough, but not that they married (I've seen nothing in the papers) or merged and thus became a four-leggegged being armed equally as well. (Two heads are fine, until they get into an argument.)

The names of authors also should be spelled as the authors themselves spell them, an example being Pete Shotton -- who's book also has a co-author (Nicholas Schaffner, author of the ever-enduring and endeering -- I am not a fawning fan! -- The Beatles Forever). Some have made it PeteR, despite his formal insistence that he be referred to by the informal "Pete". (Why his other name is spelled "Shot-on" is probably a story he'd rather not reveal, for reasons which also remain unrevealed, which doesn't explain the continuing controversy, which is probably why it is continuing.)

Those are simple standards which incorporate integral facts, and due credit, and simplify the organization of books into properly combined "groups".

That also helps distinguish, as example, Peter Brown -- when one includes his co-author Steven Gaines -- from other authors named Peter Brown; and, also, from such as Peter Brown, and another author named Peter Brown. And, of course, that other author, over there, named Peter Brown, from the other authors named, respectively, Peter Brown, Peter Brown, Peter Brown, and Peter Brown, none of which is the identical twin or twins of any of the others, despite all the dirty roomers.

Least therefore last: titles. Go by the title on the title page, as sometimes the publisher misrepresents that on the cover in order to sell more books -- especially when the author has an unusual name, such as Peter Brown.

"Keep on rockin'! -- Booming Johnnie and His Fronds

P.S. I'd ask that you say "Hello" for me to Peter Brown, but I don't know which one.

Peter Brown did not write one word of The Love You Make. He had no artistic control whatsover over the book. He sold his information for half the advance.
I wrote every word and he looked at it when it was finished.

Oh? And to which of the Peter Brown's I identify do you refer? :|