/lit/ - Literature

Hipster.

I bought the Jane Austen book from this collection. It may be beautiful on the outside, but it definitely isn't worth the $19.00 I spent on it. The text is extremely tiny and the pages are tissue thin. It's hard to enjoy it if the book is nearly impossible to hold, easy to rip, and the text is hard to see.

Besides, Jane Austen is shit.

I feel like a lot of them are too gaudy.

How does it feel to be a shallow worshiper of the idea of books?

Personally, I find your materialism nauseating.

>>1787852
GO FUCK YOURSELF

HIPSTERS WOULDN'T EVEN CARRY AROUND SHIT LIKE THAT.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK SHIT, AT LEAST MAKE SURE THE SHIT YOU'RE SAYING MAKES SENSE.

HIPSTER HIPSTER HIPSTER

PRETENTIOUS PRETENTIOUS PRETENTIOUS, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, BUT YOU'RE PRETENTIOUS

>>1787851

ARE THERE MORE TITLES IN THAT SERIES? BECAUSE FROM THOSE I ONLY LIKE THE "GRIMM'S TALES COMPILATION" AND THE "LEWIS CARROLL COMPILATION".

THE "LOVECRAFT COMPILATION" WITH THE HORRIBLE "NEBULA" COVER IS PART OF THIS SERIES?

ITT: pretentious hipsters

>>1787859

what are you talking about the basket on my fixie is full of expensive leatherbound editions of classics

now if you'll excuse me i've got some seitan to dumpster, good day sir!

>>1787861
HEY KOZ, DO YOU MIND IF I CALL YOU KAPS?

THUMBS UP IF YES.

OH HOW I MISS JUST RANDOMLY SITTING WITH PEOPLE IN BARS IN JAPAN, I DON'T REMEMBER ANY OF THESE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE, BUT I'M SURE WE ALL HAD FUN

>>1787866
>expensive
>leatherbound
I don't think you know what you're talking about. They are cheap production runs of mostly public domain works.

I have the Shakespeare and Doyle editions (or some very similar prints). When I became interested in reading both of those authors, I found it very convenient to have the whole body of work available in one volume at low expense.

Generally I prefer trade paperbacks.

>>1787870

SURE, I DO NOT CARE.

REMEMBER WHEN YOU USED TO CALL ME FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME "YOUR NEGAVERSION"?

>>1787859
a thousand times this.
>>1787870
You look much more normal than I'd have expected.

>>1787892
MAYBE.

NEXT JAPAN TRIP I'M GOING TO TAKE SO MANY PHOTOS OF MY ADVENTURES.

LOL FIRST TIME I'VE REALLY LOOKED AT THAT PHOTO, AND THE CHICK AT THE BACK LOOKS SO SILLY.

THAT'S NOT THE CAMERA YOU'RE LOOKING AT GIRL!

>>1787898
>MAYBE.

I actually got the c.s lewis Narnia one the other day.

Collects all 7 books and is about 15 bucks cheaper than getting the collected hardback that is also out.

Overall I'm happy with it.

Wish the line had a wider selection though.

Anyone pick up the Sherlock Holmes one?

Is it actually the entire body of work? It doesn't seem larger enough to fit everything in.

>>1787906
I DON'T REMEMBER :(

I WAS NOT HAPPY TO TRY THAT SEAFOOD (I USUALLY HATE IT) ESPECIALLY WHEN I'D ALREADY STARTED DRINKING AGAIN THROUGH A PRETTY CRAPPY HANGOVER.

>>1787922
BUT SERIOUSLY, THOSE TWO GUYS, DAVE AND CHIE WERE SO FUCKING AMAZING.

MEETING RANDOM PEOPLE DURING HOLIDAYS IS THE FUCKING BEST

YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT I WASN'T BULLSHITTING WHEN I SAID I WAS TALL BY THE WAY

Someone please take pictures of the actual text to see if they are all unreadable

>iliad and odyssey are probably badly translated
>narnia lol
>the divine comedy must be read in italian; translation is bad unless otherwise proved
>grimm's tales are probably bad translated
>complete shakespear in only one volume lol
>sherlock holmes lol

i'd buy those seven novels tho
and i pity poor amerifags with no knowledge on other languages and info on translations

SO WE'RE JUST SCREAMING AT EACH OTHER IN THIS THREAD?

why the fuck is capswanker turning this into a camwhore thread about himself instead of talking about literature?

screaming, camwhoring and those funny faux luxury books. top shelf thread you got here, op.

>>1787985
SORRY, THAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES. I'M BANNED FROM THE LITCLUB CHATROOM YOU SEE.

Meanwhile back at the plot

So are these book shitty to read or not?

>>1787999
I think they would be a pain to lug around so to me it just isn't worth it. They might look really cool, but I think they would be the kind of purchase you instantly regret.

>>1787999
They are. It's a chore to read any book bigger than a paperback, and you all know it. These are doubly irritating to read.

>>1788001
>>1788002
Is there any other reason they are bad beside their size?

>>1788001
>>1788002
These gentlemen shall never understand the delight of poring over a tome at a desk by candlelight.

>>1787851
I don't buy books for their decorative value.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I present you my collection of Barnes & Noble Classics.

>>1787852
It would only be hipster to buy decorative books if they were just covers with blank pages inside. Not everything that's stupid is hipster.

>>1788093
Your ones and zeros don't impress me. Gotta have some pulp.

I want this fucker. I already have the standard hardcover of JP from 1991 and a a paperback of The Lost World but this edition looks more awesome.

too gaudy

This isn't hipster, this is sub-hipster, this is pre-entry level, like when your favorite movies are Nightmare before Christmas and Inception.

>>1788729
I have it. The text is a lot easier on the eyes compared to the HG Wells collection and Arabian Nights.

Also, for anyone interested, The Count of Monte Cristo and Niel Gaiman's works are being published in leatherbound this summer.

>>1788744
Go back to /mu/ please.

>>1788744
In The Mouth of Madness.

>>1788777

I'm not even a hipster, I'm just sayin' is all.

Hipster this, hipster that...

I had hoped that /lit/ would know better than to throw around terms that no longer mean anything, but it seems this place is like every other board on 4chan (and every other website on the internet).

>>1788841
Hipster means anything that is done due to emotion I don't feel.

>>1788719
No, no, no, no... You are misguided, those books are not filled with "ones and zeros".
They are are filled with words and sometimes pictures, see. They're, READABLE, you know?

>Pages too thin
>Body of the book too heavy for the binding.
>Cheap "leather"
>Gaudy covers art
>Glued together
>Mass produced with least cost materials
>Still costs almost twenty bucks.

Nope.

That's not to say I won't pick them up at library sales/yard sales if and when I see them, once you grow tired of your impulse buy and donate either donate them or put them out for a buck. I'd go a dollar for one of these.

>>1789768
So are the scars I carved on to my penis. What is your point?

>>1789969
What do they say?

>>1789969
too bad that just you and your mom can read them with a microscope

Bourgeois fetishism is getting kinda old. You know you can get these books for cheap and even free right?

>>1789978
Instructions on how to cultivate wasabi.

>>1789992
You know you can also support the book industry?

>>1789995
You know you can support writers without supporting the printing business?

you jizzed your pants over the gaudiest most poserish collection of books ever seen?


they look like theyve been stolen from a fairy's castle

>>1790003
It seems as if the publishers are targeting those who have read mostly Harry Potter books.

>>1790003
The people who buy these or even get excited over them suffer from the book-as-trophies syndrome.

They don't care about the contents nor the readability. They want something aesthetic to sit on a shelf, untouched.

>>1790006
Look at you talking about people you don't know. Can you provide any evidence as to why enjoying the content and the looks are in your mind mutually exclusive things? I like the looks when it sits on my self and I like the contents when it is open in my lap. Is this too complicated for you?

for MOST of the ones shown, i would probably want the constituent books in separate volumes, just for portability's sake.

I've gotten some of these as gifts; they're not bad. The Chronicles of Narnia edition was, in my opinion, an especially nice-looking book. And they're leatherbound, which is interesting.

The only issue is that, at that size, they're not particularly portable, so you can't easily read them on the go. But, if you've read the book/author and enjoyed it, these can be a fancy copy to keep on your bookshelf instead of that battered paperback you got for a dollar from the used bookstore that looks like three grad students marked it up with pen and highlighter.

After reading through the thread I haven't seen a good reason why you shouldn't buy these books.

The Lovecraft one intrigues me.

Books are too dull as objects to buy special 'display' versions of. If I didn't become excited and happy at the thought of the contents, 200 rectangles made of paper... wouldn't really do much for me as an ornament collection.

>>1787853
Wait, what?

>>1790941
>Books are too dull as objects to buy special 'display' versions of.
Probably depends on where you are putting them and what is the decor around them.

But these are matters of taste. Which is why I find some of these people, who seem to be frothing from their mouths because of, wait get this, some books look pretty, to be quite... simple.

>>1787851
Pics of font of text

bump