/lit/ - Literature

It’s a nice cover. What’s it about?

that's a nice book and i hope you like it

>>13175559
I believe it's about a WWI vet trying to settle back into life after the war. Not sure. I read the blurb months ago and just now got to it—I have a huge backlog. But it's NYRB, so it's going to be good.

>>13175539
le have sex

>>13175539
They are probably 1:1 deservedly forgotten vs obscure world classics. I guess that's a fairly good ratio for a publisher. For softbacks they're well-made. The main problem with them is despite the veneer they are never scholarly editions, overpriced, and "fashionable" which has the ugly consumerist features reflected in your post.

>>13175596
>needing a scholarly edition

>>13175596
>scholarly editions
What the fuck does that mean?

>>13175626
>knowledgeable in the obscure details of political and social history of every era

Honestly I'm impressed. I envy you. Most people need footnotes. I think that's... well, hypothetically some people could just read through a book missing all the important contextual detail to which it refers and which makes it meaningful, but nobody is that fucking obtuse.

>>13175740
>I can't do research on my own
>I only read books once

>>13175710

Proper annotation of obscure items and crucially uncontextualized things, introductions that aren't breezy personal essays by a prominent writer that touch on the book, thorough textual editing for typos/misprints/etc, material explicating the textual editing that's gone into the book (different editions/revised passages, etc), related material such as letters, reviews, essays, etc, contemporary to the book, bibliographies indicating good scholarly material on the book or further work by the author, etc.

The NYRB does a great job at finding and presenting obscure books for a general audience but a bad job at equipping people for digging further into the author/book.

>>13175740
>>13175746
I also forgot to add:
>the only way to read and enjoy a book is by doing a thorough exegesis

>>13175746
>I can spot every subtle allusion to forgotten figures and events of the day, so I can do my own research off primary legal documents if need be. You mean you don't spend all day at the national archives reading room?

>>13175767
>I can't google a book title to find scholarly papers on it for free
Woah

You can stop shilling now NYRB

>>13175539
>>13175559
>>13175571
>>13175581
>>13175595
>>13175626
>>13175710
>>13175746
>>13175758
>>13175760
fuck off with this hipster meme shit

I have at least 80 nyrbs and maybe read about 10 of them

>>13175773
>The types of papers one can google (google is shorthand for being presented with perfect knowledge of course) are always better than the work of a scholars tasked with amending a university press edition of a work, and are always more authentic. And to reiterate, I can always spot the subtle allusion being made metaphorically, and which may even be a defining feature of the narrative, in every work I read.

>>13175807
>I have never used or heard of a library
>I don't know how to do simple research
>I buy scholarly editions because I'm a lazy nigger who needs to be spoonfed
>scholarly papers apparently don't deal in any way with allusions, metaphors, and defining features of a work
Holy shit, you're fucking dumb.

>>13175807
>scholars don't publish papers or essays independently
>they only publish them in conjunction with scholarly editions
Woah

>>13175829
>I brag about things online I rarely if ever do

>>13175840
C O P E
O
P
E
pic related is you

>>13175835
> I've never looked at the bibliography of any scholarly edition, so don't even understand the implied arguments that they draw on a wide range of scholarship, wider that what I can google in the 20 minutes between shitposting and masturbating

Woah

>>13175860
>I've never done research in a library
>I don't know how stacks are arranged
>I don't know how to independently find second sources
>I've never used a library database
>I can't do simple research; I need an editor to do it for me, and present in a "scholarly edition" so I can look smart to peolple who browse my shelves
Bro, you're just a lazy nigger who can't think independently and do some research on a book that interests yourself.

>>13175860
>papers found on google don't have bibliographies
>papers found on google aren't the same ones found in books
>papers found through google aren't scholarly or authoritative because they aren't in my "scholarly edition"

>>13175857
>I have memes saved for internet arguments. But really I spend most of my time compiling firsthand google scholarship on every book I read so I can blind strangers with my radiant enlightenment.

>>13175897
>I can't google to find out top scholars on an author
>I can't google those top scholars to find out papers they have written
Woah, it's almost like you think you're some kind of gatekeeper and that the internet is not a valid tool for research. It's almost like you can only trust trademarked knowledge that is stamped and certified by an editor of a "scholarly book". Have you tried living independently?

>>13175884
>Oooh see you misunderstood. I pretend I go through all the unnecessary labour of doing personal research of dubious if not fictitious quality because I use it to compensate in proofless arguments online for my lack of a social existence.

>>13175912
>Woah. Like, Woah. I've vanquished this pseud! I could keep this up all night. It's not like I have anything else to do. Certainly not reading and it's attendant original research, or going out and experiencing life--all these things which are the crux of the persona I'm building to puff up my views, yet don't seem important enough to actually being doing.

>>13175919
>looking up papers on the internet that are the same ones published in scholarly editions make them of dubious quality because they were found by googling
>>13175942
>I have no rebuttal except a strawman because I realize you don't need scholarly editions to "understand" a book. But I have to appear "intelligenter" somehow

>>13175965
>I could easily btfo this anon by posting an image of a notebook of original scholarship and the unique and personal conclusions it lead me to, but for some reason I'm not... I mean, a guy who's espousing using scholarly editions because they're more efficient, easier and less pretentious is the one who's trying to seem smart. Saying I'm a genius who garners all his own insights from really really personal research isn't the one trying to seem smart, right?

>>13176015
>reading papers by scholars is original scholarship
Holy shit. Stop grasping for straws. You're acting like the only person who can find secondary sources on a text is a fucking editor for a book. You are a retard. A fucking retard.

>>13176026
Post a picture of the notebook full of insights you nailed down for your last book you've read. Point blank. Or just an novel you annotated yourself. Otherwise you're full of shit. That's the takeaway.

>>13176026
Chump

>>13175767
It's just books, who cares you fucking pseud.

>>13176026
Faggot

>>13175539

>comfy is code word for boring: the book

>>13175539
Yeah, NYRB are great.
I really like their paper and the covers

>>13175779
Literally only one person in that thread hated NYRB, the OP.
As far as i’ve seen, most people on /lit/ have always spoken highly of them.