From: jwkenne@attglobal.net   
      
   On 2014-04-25 23:10:07 +0000, Jacey Bedford said:   
      
   > On 23/04/2014 07:26, The Starmaker wrote:   
   >> The Starmaker wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> Quadibloc wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 5:14:33 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I see.  So OCLC must be mistaken in classifying "Stranger in a Strange   
   >>>>> Land", "On Basilisk Station", and "Dune" as 813.54,  "Sense and   
   >>>>> Sensibility" as 823.7, "A Christmal Carol" as 823.8, and on and on and   
   >>>>> on.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> But what do they know, they just own and publish the Dewey Decimal   
   >>>>> System.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So I am mistaken. While most libraries *using* the Dewey Decimal System   
   >>>> file all their fiction books separately, without numbers on them, it is   
   >>>> possible to include them, just as libraries using the Library of   
   >>>> Congress classification system do.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> John Savard   
   >>>   
   >>> what are you talking about?   
   >>>   
   >>> The Dewey Decimal system has nothing to do with ...numbers.   
   >>>   
   >>> It has to do with where the books should be at....   
   >>>   
   >>> So when you walk into *any* library,   
   >>> you see 100   
   >>> you see 200   
   >>> you know   
   >>> if you keep   
   >>> going to 800   
   >>>   
   >>> you'll find the science fiction section.   
   >>>   
   >>> Now, if you got a SF book   
   >>> and you put it in the 300 section..   
   >>> it's in the wrong place!   
   >>>   
   >>> It doesn't make any difference if it has   
   >>> numbers or not...the system is there.   
   >>>   
   >>> The science fiction section is not in the science fiction section...   
   >>>   
   >>> But since I don't read...fiction, there isn't any need for me to go   
   >>> past...700.   
   >>>   
   >>> It's too boring past 700.   
   >>>   
   >>> Keep SF away from children...put science fiction in the 1 million   
   >>> section.   
   >>>   
   >>> The Starmaker   
   >>>   
   >>> I see 800, that's not for me....that's far away land.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> In other words, if you're looking for True Crime books, it's not in the   
   >> True Crime section,   
   >> it's in the section where the True Crime books are.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> So don't give us this "So I am mistaken." business, ...that wasn't a   
   >> mistake...you just don't know what 'written' means.   
   >>   
   >> You never been to a library, that's all.   
   >>   
   >> Admit it.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I don't know about libraries in the USA, but no _public_ library* [1]   
   > in the UK would classify fiction by the Dewey Decimal system. The 800s   
   > are literature, sure, and poetry and plays can be found there, plus   
   > literary commentary - but not actual works of fiction unless it was   
   > something esoteric. You'll find them in alphabetical order of author in   
   > a whole nother section, sometimes with genre fic separated out and   
   > other times with it mixed in. I've worked in libraries that did both.   
   >   
   > Not sure I like the idea of ghettoising genre fiction (in proinciple)   
   > because there will always be books that sit on the fence between   
   > general and genre, i.e. they _could_ fall into a genre classification   
   > (or more than one), but should they? Would you put LMB's Sharing Knife   
   > quartet into romance or fantasy? Is Jules Verne literature or science   
   > fiction? Margaret Atwood? It's easier to shelve all fiction in   
   > alphabertical author order.   
   >   
   > And if you never go higher than 800, you're missing out on Geography,   
   > biography and history in the 900s   
   >   
   > * [1] If it's an academic library all bets are off, but they possibly   
   > don't use Dewey anyway, but subscribe to something like UDC -   
   > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Decimal_Classification   
      
   Here in the US, substantial academic libraries don't use Dewey much at   
   all. They're more likely to use Library of Congress or some home-grown   
   system they've used since before Dewey was born -- although our local   
   university uses Dewey for gross topic placement, subdivided by an   
   author/title encoding vaguely connected with Library of Congress that   
   gives each book a unique number.   
      
   --   
   John W Kennedy   
   "But now is a new thing which is very old--   
   that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,   
   which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."   
     -- Charles Williams.  "Judgement at Chelmsford"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)