/lit/ - Literature

They don't look fancy, they look like they're from a cartoon.

>>13160852
I own the Lovecraft one, and it's fine. My only issue is that most of them look pretty gaudy.

>>13160852
Those are some terrible leather bounds

>>13160880
Same here desu.
Im ok with the quality.

They're gaudy and look ridiculous on a bookshelf. Go with Everyman's Library if you want something that's durable and feels more special than a paperback.

>>13160873
This. I'd be pretty embarrassed to have most of them, though I've been thinking of getting one for my 6 year old niece eventually.

>>13160976
>I've been thinking of getting one for my 6 year old niece eventually.

Alternatively, you could get her something from Calla Editions or the Children's Classics collection from Everyman's Library, both of which are tastefully done, come with excellent illustrations, and have all the stuff you'd want an intellectually curious kid to be reading (Aesop, the Brothers Grimm, Dahl, all the classic fairy tales, Charles Lamb's Shakespeare, etc.).

>>13161032
Hey thanks man. I appreciate it.

>>13161044
You're welcome.

>>13160852
My biggest problem is that most of them are gaudy as hell, especially if you have legit high-quality hardbacks on the shelf with them.

That said the material quality is good for the price.

>>13160880
The Lovecraft volume is the best out of all of them in both content and appearance.

>>13160852
y мeня тoлькo Лoвкpaфт ecть

>>13160852
Kys

>>13160852
I have the Charles Dickens one , but it's not leather bound, it's just hard plastic

>going in a Barnes and Noble, ever

They are gift books. For rich people to give to each other at parties. I go to Barnes for religious materials and Penguin paperbacks.

>>13160852
Someone gifted me the Jules Verne one. it's pretty nice I guess. I wouldn't pay extra if there was a paperback of the same book for cheaper. I imagine that Barnes & Noble are cashing in on the reddit crowd who buy books as a personality trait rather than enjoying reading.

I have the Dune, Foundation, and Art of War ones. All were given as gifts, and I appreciate them for that. Generally I prefer paperbacks for ease-of-transport and shelf space considerations, but I don't mind having a couple gaudy talking pieces on my shelf.

>>13161419
>rich people
I think they usually go for 10 bucks or less. I see them more as gifts for the person who thinks "My friend reads but I don't know anything about books. This looks neat though and won't break the bank."

>>13161512
I internet shop for gifts if the situation is like that

They're all made in China.

>>13161032
not him but I'm looking at those calla editions and they look great. Too bad they don't have inside the book previews, but I might roll the dice on a couple of them, it would be great to have some high quality books to pass on to my kids' kids' kids.

>>13160880
awww what a cutie

>>13160852
my own personal view is that they are just kitsch, and gaudy.
objectively, they are very low quality bindings.
folio are far superior, and similar price range.

>>13161080
>the material quality is good for the price
it really isn't
>>13161623
>calla editions
now those are really nice.

>>13161694
>"folio are ... [at a] similar price range."
Are you crazy?

>>13161739
B&N hardcover The Hobbit $35
Folio hardcover The Hobbit £39 (approx £50 dollars)
it's not a huge increase in price, but the quality of folio is miles ahead of b&n

my opinion is that they are gaudy; something for grandmothers to buy for their preteens

>>13161032
bruh

>>13160852
I have Lovecraft and Arabian Nights, the sides of the "gold leaf" on the edges of the pages of Arabian Nights had markings even though it was new and wrapped, so be wary of that. Other than that I think they're pretty decent, though they do stand out from most of my other books due to their style.

>>13161791
Generally speaking though, Folio is much more expensive. That's not necessarily a bad thing; you pay for what you get.

>>13160852
>Leatherbound
not actually leather

I want the Jurassic Park one. There's no other nice editions of it and it's far less gaudy than most of the others.

>>13161791
There is no Barnes and Noble hardcover The Hobbit. Not all books available from Barnes and Noble are published by Barnes and Noble

>Star Wars Trilogy
?????!?

>>13160852
I own the Divine Comedy and "Art of War and other Eastern Philosophy", and they're pretty nice, especially for the price. On the other hand, I'd want to shoot myself if I had some of the more gaudy ones on my shelf, like the Hitchhiker one. So, I'd say they're a good deal, so long as you're selective about which ones you get.

>>13164888
>>13161080
>>13160880
>>13161992
I would agree with these general sentiments. Most of them look like crap but a few are of good quality.

I have the collected writing of the founding fathers one and I am very pleased with it.

>>13160976
Get her an ereader instead.

>>13160852
I think they look really tacky

>>13161705
>>the material quality is good for the price
>it really isn't
They're $10-20, they're competing with trade paperbacks.

>>13160852
>The Star Wars Trilogy

>>13160852
>not reading cheap paperbacks exclusively
poser

>>13161791
>£50 dollars

>>13165797
A good trade paperback feels and looks a lot nicer

>>13160852
You need to beware the PC intros to guys like HPL or Kipling (most are along the lines of "don't enjoy this too much, it's raciss!"), but otherwise they are fine.

>>13160873
I bet the font is an eyesore too.

>>13160852
I have the Shakespeare one because I found it for 4 pounds and I specifically didn't want commentaries.
It's OK, far too gaudy, one on its own is fine, but not stacked together.

>>13160852
Anna Karenina doesn't look to bad. I would buy it if I didn't refuse to read russian books in anything but my native language

>>13166898
S.T. Joshua wrote all the interstitial text to the Lovecraft edition and while I don't really recall exactly what he wrote, I don't temember him doing this and he is in general very unapologetic/dismissive of the "muh racism" crowd's sniping at HPL..

>>13167574
Joshi is dismissive of Lovecraft's racism to a delusional degree. Obviously I think all these low-lifes who think they're geniuses for 'exposing' racism in Lovecraft are morons but you'd have to be pretty retarded not to realise that racism is intrinsic to Lovecraft's own idea of horror, it's clearly in the fucking writing. That's not necessarily good or bad, I personally don't care, but it's in the writing. Joshi always gets weird about the racism and I can't understand why.

Canterbury Classics, because $10.99 at Costco.
Not as gaudy as B&N, but still some millineal style artwork on the covers. pic related

>>13160852

I have the Poe, Lovecraft and Alice in Wonderland ones. Pretty nice for the price.

>>13168113
they're just as vulgar and using the original title for a translation is too pretentious.

>>13168113
Looking sexy, gonna order the Eastern Philosophy one. Thanks for recommending.

>>13168211
>>13168113
>>13160852

What is the point of owning a hardcover book if it not even sewn.

I own most of them. I think they look nice on my shelf. I've gotten a lot of compliments on it, too.

>>13160852
they insist upon themselves

Some of them are alright, but having a whole shelf of them looks unnatural and try-hard

>>13161857
Harry Clarke's illustrations are great! I love his take on Poe.

I don't know what everyone is talking about, the Lovecraft collection is ugly.
Dune, Austen, and Vernon are the best looking ones.

>>13168225
All English language translations of Morte d'Arthur and Les Misérables have the titles untranslated you fucking brainlet.

>>13169565
because $10.99 at Costco

>>13171088
>english translation
>of Morte d'Artur, an english text
??

They look bad, they tend to have bad translation's and notes, and their binding is on par if mot worse than some of the cheap paperbacks you can buy of the same work so for similar or cheaper prices. If you're on a budget get yourself a vintage/penguin/Oxford paperback. If you want to get a hardback on a budget get an everyman's edition, or possibly a penguin hardcover if available (thoguh their designs are often kind of shit too, and everyman's look pretty generic on the shelf because of their uniform spines). If you want a nice edition pay the premium for something like a folio.

>>13160852
Cringe. They look so fake and artificial.

>>13169673
Have you read them all at least?

Two or three is fine, but they're too gaudy to have too many of them.
There's a pic floating around of some guy's shelf that's nothing but these. I didn't know someone had put two Dan Brown novels in the same book before.

>>13169673
>A Wrinkle in Time Trilogy
>Trilogy
I know this isn't a case like Hitchhiker's Guide, so what the fuck happened to the last two books?

>>13169673
Don't you have the problem that if you want to read anything else, you'll have books that stand out?

I fucking hate how you can't find books with good aesthetics anymore.
The only thing I've found that matches what I would consider "good taste" are standard ebooks but those are digital only.
Just give me something like this, a plain colored spine (preferably white) a cover with the title and author plainly stated and with a fitting and not gaudy or trashy picture (most publishers fuck this up) and a back with a proper description and up to date copyright info.

>>13172612
>a plain colored spine
>preferably white
Just turn them around

>>13167750
>but you'd have to be pretty retarded not to realise that racism is intrinsic to Lovecraft's own idea of horror
I'd have to disagree.
I recently found a hardcover book edited by Joshi, which contained a description in the introduction of Lovecraft's racism, and which drew parallels between the style in which he wrote about the polyglot inhabitants of New York City and the horrors of his own fiction.
(a work of fiction based on his experiences there - "The Horror at Red Hook" - was referenced multiple times in that recent documentary on Lovecraft as evidence of his racism. but that's indisputably a minor work.)
that said, as someone who's recently read all of Lovecraft's major works, I find it really difficult to find anything that is overtly racist in any of his works.
racially insensitive for 2019's America? definitely; but the only major examples of that which spring readily to mind are the hilariously over-the-top way he describes the Black boxer in "Herbert West - Reanimator" (though he was writing for a humour magazine at the time), and the name of the cat belonging to the protagonist of "Rats in the Walls" - Niggerman
in my view, Lovecraft was far too busy delineating threats from other worlds and gods to worry much about anything human. whatever his private views were, it really doesn't come across in the best of his writing.
one thing I find funny is, if there really were shoggoths, "Old Ones," or powerful alien races and ancient gods indifferent to the destruction of Earth, or bent on conquering its inhabitants - humankind would be wholly justified in holding racist or xenophobic views against such cosmic threats.