Examples "by author"

I'd say the value in keeping the author's name even if the examples aren't grouped by author is so that if someone is looking for examples by a particular author (because they conceptually associate the author's works more with the author than on their own), they can still Ctrl+F for it.

Is this something we need a crowner for? We've agreed at least that putting them in their own section is unnecessary.

As someone who's done this multiple times myself, I think sorting examples by author is a valid method for alphabetizing pages when the unalphabetized entries make little distinction between separate entries under one author, and it would be more difficult to rewrite the entries entirely than to put them under their own header.

For example, many of Stephen King's works share a universe of sorts, but there's no work page for this universe, and alphabetizing an entry under K for King is confusing because it's the author's name, not the work's. Putting those entries at the top of the folder in their own little section makes them easier to find and is in my opinion less obtrusive.

Of course, if the examples can be easily alphabetized with the rest, then an author header isn't required.

---

I for one do not agree. There's no good reason to not have a crowner, if only to confirm that there is in fact a general agreement.

Edited by ClancyGardener on Nov 6th 2023 at 12:19:21 PM

Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.

This thread has been dead since last year, but I think it's worth necro-ing it given that Discar has made edits claiming that sorting examples by author has been depreciated, citing this thread as proof (here, for example).

Now, it seems that a few people have agreed with each other, but without a crowner, I don't think there's been anything like an official decree that this sort of thing is no longer allowed. My post above should explain my own opinion on the appropriateness of sorting examples by author.

Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.

I think honestly it should be treated similarly to subpages rules. If it's just one or two works by the same author and which have their own pages, just list them separately. But if you've got a case where a single reasonably prolific author uses a trope extremely frequently, it's alright. Isaac Asimov comes to mind: he wrote a ton of stuff, a lot of which consists of short stories that have no page of their own.

Also, paging ~Discar to the thread, given

I also think we shouldn't be alphabetizing them separately. A ton of Asimov short stories can go under A, a ton of King stories can go under K, etc

Listen to my podcast

But not always. Yeah, most examples can easily be alphabetized normally, but sometimes they reference multiple stories by the same author without focusing on one, and in those cases, I think it's best to sort them by the author.

Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.

What i meant is that we shouldn't have a section for things alphabetized "by author" that just has one or two authors in it. and then a section for alphabetized by work. Instead, we should just alphabetize the whole literature folder as one thing, and put a tree for an author whose name starts with "A" in with the "A" works

Listen to my podcast

Agreed with this.

I disagree. I think a section for things alphabetized "by author" can be useful in certain cases. For example, compare this example from Mutants:

• Isaac Asimov:
  • "Kid Stuff": The elves in this story have a suite of Psychic Powers, and the elf antagonist is a mutant who demonstrates their mutation allows them to turn on a bare lightbulb while holding it.
  • "The Mule": The reason why the Mule's status as a mutant is so plot-significant is that several characters think that this may make him unpredictable by the mathematics of Psychohistory. It's revealed near the climax that his mutation allows him to manipulate the minds and emotions of other characters.^note His origin is retconned in Foundation's Edge to create the background for a new faction within the galaxy.

...to this example from Nebulous Evil Organisation:

• The Sombra Corporation in Stephen King's fiction weaves a twisting web of influence throughout many of his works. They're finally described in more depth in The Dark Tower, in which it is revealed that they serve The Crimson King, and are therefore pawns of the ultimate evil force in the multiverse.

The first example is actually two examples which could easily be separated and alphabetized under K and M, respectively. The second example is much more general, and I believe it being in an author-specific section is appropriate.

Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.

Then we could only alphabetize examples by creator if they meet certain criteria:

• The works are part of the same universe or series, and the universe does not have a separate page for it

• The use of this trope is a characteristic of the author

Works that don't meet this criteria can reasonably be split into separate examples.

"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory Doctorow

I think that sums up my view of it pretty well.

Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.

I think examples that can't easily be split up into work-specific examples can also go under a "by author" section. For instance, another example from Mutants:

• The escapism inherent in this trope was subverted as early as 1954 in Alfred Bester's short story "5,271,009", in which the main character is put in a Lotus-Eater Machine and experiences multiple juvenile fantasies, each of which is explained by "a mysterious mutant strain in his makeup that makes him different". On the other hand, the Espers (telepaths) of The Demolished Man fit the X-Men version very closely, including the idea of classifying them according to different levels of superpower.

You could possibly split this example in two parts, but the way it's written, comparing and contrasting two examples by the same author, would make this difficult.

Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.

By the way, I stopped cleaning the pages once Clancy posted the first disagreement.

Anyway, I don't see why we need a separate section for authors. What's the problem with sorting them by author, but with all the other titles? For example:

• James Bond: Starting with the eighth Bond novel, Thunderball, Ian Fleming introduced a Nebulous Evil Organisation to replace the Soviet counterintelligence unit SMERSH as Bond's primary enemy. The new organization was S.P.E.C.T.R.E., the SPecial Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. Like the film version, the literary S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is a nationless group organized and run by Ernst Stavro Blofeld. However, unlike the film version, the literary S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is a mercenary group that's in it strictly for the money. S.P.E.C.T.R.E. serves as the Big Bad for three novels: Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and You Only Live Twice. It returns in the "new" Bond novels, starting with For Special Services by John Gardner.
• Stephen King: The Sombra Corporation fiction weaves a twisting web of influence throughout many of his works. They're finally described in more depth in The Dark Tower, in which it is revealed that they serve The Crimson King, and are therefore pawns of the ultimate evil force in the multiverse.
• Mediochre Q Seth Series: "The Organisation Which I Represent" is... probably this. They're so nebulous that it's hard to tell.

The only problem I anticipate ordering them along with everything else is that traditionally, authors are sorted by last name, but books are sorted by first word. In the three examples above, James Bond is sorted by J (because it's the title of the series), while Stephen King is sorted by K (because it's a name). I guess we could pothole it as King, Stephen to make it more obvious.

The problem you mention of authors being sorted by last name and books being sorted by first word is one reason why I think this practice should continue, but I think your recommended solution would just exacerbate the confusion. I don't like works being potholed because it can cause problems with alphabetizing, and I don't like it any more when it's being done with authors.

All of this begs the question: why shouldn't there be separate sections for examples by author? You may not think it's necessary, but that doesn't mean there's a fundamental problem with it.

Edited by ClancyGardener on Mar 16th 2024 at 8:38:30 AM

Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.