"Birmingham, George A." See Hannay, Jas. O.
There is at least one example of an author publishing works of fiction under both his real name and a pseudonym, viz., J. E. Preston Muddock, who writes some stories under his true name, and his detective stories under that of "Dick Donovan." The right course to pursue in this case is to enter all under Muddock. Unless there is strong objection to placing books by one writer in two places, there is no reason why the separate entries should not appear under both names. While introduced here to show a possible method of treatment, it must not be taken as recommended.
Muddock, J. E. P. The dead man's secret.
— The lost laird.
See also Donovan, Dick.
"Donovan, Dick" (J. E. P. Muddock). Tales of
terror.
— The sin of Preaching Jim.
See also Muddock, J. E. P.
When the name of an author is known to be, or, from its nature, is obviously a pseudonym, it is better given in inverted commas, or whatever other style is adopted to mark a pseudonym, whether the real name be known or not. Such names are "Skelton Kuppord," "Walker Miles," "Home Counties," "Daniel Chaucer." A pseudonym which consists of a phrase can rarely be regarded as a name, and it is wiser to treat the book as if it were anonymous, after the manner referred to later, bringing the phrase-pseudonym into the title-entry in this way
| Kruger's secret service, by One who was in it. | |
| 1900 | 968 |
To enter under "One who was in it" would be useless as well as wasteful. A similar example is
The life of a prig, by One. 1886
when the entry under "One" would be equally futile and absurd. So also would be