/lit/ - Literature

>>21021923
I only a few and I’ve read them. They would be nice and moderately priced if it wasn’t for the flakes rubbing off

>>21021923
I ordered one online because I thought it would be interesting. Touched the cover once, the details came of. Sent it back. Low quality shit books.

>>21021923
Those are for girls.

>>21021923
Yeah, that usually happens with these things. They also use glue bindings instead of sewn bindings (defeating the purpose of a hardcover). You're better off getting their paperbacks

>>21021923
Pretty sure those are just for displaying on one's shelf and cleaned carefully with a soft cloth. The cheap softcovers are for when you actually want to read the book.

I only have The Naked Lunch and I read through halfway and nothing happened to the cover. Maybe I just wash my hands more often than yuo or something.

>>21021923
I only a few and I’ve read them. They would be nice and moderately priced if it wasn’t for the flakes rubbing off

>>21021923
I bought the odyssey one and read it. Im glad I did because it was a shitty prose translation and its made the fagels seem way better in contrast. I have since donated the prose copy to salvation army.

>>21021923
Word on Fire makes better clothbound hardcovers.

>>21021923
I only a few and I’ve read them. They would be nice and moderately priced if it wasn’t for the flakes rubbing off

>>21021982
>They also use glue bindings
The reddest of red flags. These books shouldn't even be considered.

>>21021946
You are a faggot if you don't appreciate beauty

>>21021923
I accidentally bought their Don Quixote. I saw it being sold used online and the photo was so bad it looked like a brown leather bound book, not a neon orange piece of shit. I didn't even get 200 pages in and I started finding yellow crap on my palms. The screen printed design on the cloth cover was rubbing off in my hands. So you can be sure that someone hasn't read their copy of Don Quixote if the design hasn't completely worn off the cover.

>>21021923
Post pic of the damage

>>21021923
I don't like them, they're like the book equivalent of steelbooks, tacky and gaudy

>>21021946

this. men prefer everman's libbrary

They're poor quality, the cover issue is well known and the bindings are glued
I'm not sure if it's penguin or oxford but I remember someone saying the paper was identical to that found in their paperbacks as well
Try buying Everyman's Library if you want affordable hardbacks, used is good as well
>>21024224
I'm a girl and I prefer Everyman's library

>>21024302
reveal your breasts

>>21021923
Damn those are ugly. They remind me of those super cheap ones at B&N

>>21021923
And the pages soak in finger grease

>>21022409
Based and cathpilled

>>21024333
don't give it attention, brother

>>21022587
>not reading Edith Grossman
your fault anon

>>21022409
I keep thinking about picking up their Confessions. Not particularly religious but it's a unique autobiography from late antiquity and would look neat on my history shelf.

>>21025004
They chose the best translation btw. Sheed is the most powerful.

>>21021946
This also fags

>>21021923
One or two of these would be okay but let's be honest a whole shelf of them like that is some gaudy tacky shit.

>>21022409
What translation of the Confessions do they use? Chadwick's is the gold standard.

>>21025570
They use Sheed. Sheed reads way better than Chadwick, compare for yourself sometime. Sheed resonates and Chadwick is dry—best I can describe it. I once went to my college library and tried like 6 translations side by side and Sheed was obviously the best.

>>21021982
>Yeah, that usually happens with these things. They also use glue bindings instead of sewn bindings (defeating the purpose of a hardcover). You're better off getting their paperbacks
I just checked them out again when I was at B&N.
The bindings might be glued, but the paper on second inspection does appear to be somewhat better quality than the regular Penguin editions.
Regular penguin paperbacks (except some of the art and comic books), tend to have very cheap acidic paper.
Without buying one of the deluxe editions and testing the paper, I can’t say for certain, but the paper does seem to be better.
The cloth covers look nice at least, and even if the graphics come off, the cloth should stay way more durable the the normal Penguin paperback covers.

>>21022553
>They also use glue bindings
>The reddest of red flags. These books shouldn't even be considered.
Modern Library uses glued bindings.
ML’s paper however has gotten better than it was decades ago.
Sadly, ML is sometimes the only semi quality edition of certain books.

>>21022409
These are really nice and I want all of them. Have you got any books from Angelico Press?

I was gifted some of these. The shitty paper quality, patchy patterns on the covers, glue binding and so on aren't even the worse of it. They often choose the worse translations or abridged versions.

I've yet to come across a better publisher than Everyman's. Extremely high quality, smooth yet firm paper. It's not glaring white nor cheap recycled for optimal reading contrast as to no strain the eyes. Cloth backs that don't smell / feel like like chemicals and don't discolor even over an extended period of time. Not too heavy. Very nice typesetting (at least for my taste). Uniform look across their releases. Extremely good value over everything else. Is there anything that compares to that?

>>21025983
What are essential Everyman editions? As of now, the only ones I've considered are Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France and Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; the former because I can't find any decent quality antiquarian copies and the latter because I like the slipbox storage. I pondered them for Dostoevsky, too, but I'm less sure there due to not knowing whether Everyman's translations are the best.

>>21025998
It‘s funny that you would say that because I personally think the most essential Everyman‘s editions are Dostoevsky‘s. Superb translation by Pevear & Volokhonsky that as far as I can tell best catches the russian spirit without being comical or unreadable. Also it contains minimal annotations for historical context which are not at all intrusive, they‘re also not included as footnotes but in the end. Really can recommend them.

>>21024333
is this what you usually say to women?

>>21021923
I have that monte cristo and that image is missing C&P. Bought them because they're the best translations available not because they look like some fag shit. I wish everyman's had the best translation for Don Quixote but as of now it's still either Harper or Pengoyim

>>21026256
Oh wait im dumb theres c&p on top left

I only buy used hardbacks that look like they could survive a war

>>21021923
They are for collecting and gifting

>>21021923
They are fucking awful. The cloth is like burlap with shitty paint on it for the design and it rubs off on everything when I'm reading. Unfortunately no one makes books bound in buckram cloth with the title or designs embossed on them anymore. If someone else sold the Briggs translation of War and Peace as a cloth bound I would probably have gotten that.

>>21021923
For me, it's gotta be secondhand.

These look more like display items than things you actually pick up and read. And with secondhand books, I never worry about how well I treat them or longevity. Gifting makes sense, but I can't say I admire collectors.

>>21021923
I appreciate clothbound books and colourful books but these are really shitty. Your money is better spent elsewhere.

>>21026128
>P&V translation
>good

>>21024224
Penguin has a better translation of W&P.

>>21026128
>Superb translation by Pevear & Volokhonsky

>>21021923
the clothbound penguin version of the illiad is one of the first books i bought when i started reading more literature. As is standard with penguin, excellent introduction and notes, but the binding is horrible. As others have said, the patterns flake off easily, and in my opinion multiple of them together always end up looking garish. if you buy penguin its honestly best to just buy the paperbacks. if you can, get one of the old second hand ones from when they actually printed sturdy paperbacks.

>>21022561
Nothing of these modern commie covers is beautiful

>>21021923
They're ugly as fuck, cringe, childish. Would never buy that teenager youtuber girl shit.

>>21021923
The only ones I did buy were the Iliad and the Odyssey as translated in prose by E.V.Rieu (I am not a native speaker, thus I feared the verbose of Pope, Fagles or Lattimore would be a bit difficult, but I did find the prose translations healthy enough to enjoy wholeheartedly).

As for the Penguin Hardcover edition: I did not deal with any troubles - they have sewn bindings and the covers wear off, but quite slowly. I managed to read the Iliad in 12 days, while the Odyssey I read in 8. And the results are as you can see.

>>21028324
>the Iliad and the Odyssey
>translated prose

>>21028324
>holding a book rubs away the design
>this is acceptable
No. It's not. These books are made for women to put on shelves and never read.

>>21021982
I got their edition of Emma by Austen simply because I had a dream where a book by Austen called 'Emily' with a greenish-blue cover featured very prominently. Weeks after the dream in a bookshop I saw their version of Emma which had the exact same hue, and the feeling of remembering that dream was so surreal and moving I instantly bought it. I had never heard of the novel before or ever knowingly seen that edition before. Anyway the glue binding was coming undone a week later; utter shit will never do this again.

>>21026128
HELLO IS THE EVERYMAN EDITION OF ULYSSES GOOD AND IS IT GABLER THANK YOU

i buy them for books i greatly enjoyed, as i pirate everything on my ereader

>>21028326
If translated prose is unironcally better. Rieu’s version is great

>>21027459
>>21027473
Then whomst?

>>21021923
>People still fall for the hardcover meme

>>21028740
This, I've got probably 100,000 books electronically. Physical books are for comfy rooms.

>>21026128
I'm thinking of getting the divine comedy from everyman, is it worth it? i just like that it's all three "books" in one.

>>21029825
>Allen Mandelbaum
Have a look yourself.

>>21029822
Enjoy when Skynet electronically edits your books to brainwash you. Also staring at a screen is not the same as holding a book.

Leather backed books are patrician.

>>21029324
Pride will be your downfall paperbacknigger, when the GLUE that holds your world together UNBINDS.

>>21030161
>he doesn't have sewn paperbacks

>>21021923
nope. I only buy everyman because they sell sewn hardcovers at price that my ass can afford.

>>21030173
Did Everyman finally switch back to sewn?

>>21030171
stfu that's not even a real thing

>>21030188
IIRC that was only a thing that happened for a very short period of time with the American branch
You should expect all everyman's library books to be sewn except the pocket poet editions

>>21030197

>>21026185
tits or gtfo. those are the rules

For all those talking about how much better Everyman is, I like them too as a general rule for widely-distributed works, but it's not like they don't have similar issues with the gilt and debossed parts rubbing off (pic very much related).

For my money the best wide-distribution publisher out there in terms of overall quality is Library of America, but they only have American authors so you're limited on selection.

>>21025570
>>21025576
Highly recommend you give Thomas Williams' translation a try. It is remarkably good.

>>21031929
If only there was a dust cover you could have used.

>>21031961
Quite. That said, the bookstore I bought it from (20+ years ago now!) didn't sell it with a dust jacket and I didn't know any better at the time.

I'm not sure if all of them even come with dust jackets desu senpai; I got a set of Gibbon's Decline and Fall and I don't recall any of their volumes having dust jackets (even though the two three-volume sets were still shrink-wrapped when I got them; maybe I'm mis-remembering though).

Anyways, I have a ton of cloth-bound books from the 1920s-1960s and none of them have issues with the covers and spines rubbing off, so I think the rubbing off is more associated with the open weave of the everyman cloth and the ink-stuff they use than anything inherent to cloth-bound books in general.

The pattern rubbed off my copy of Monte Cristo as I was reading it. It's pretty funny to see this is a common occurrence.
I also have Great Expectations - I've never read it, but maybe this is what Penguin intended when these editions passed their quality control.

>>21027459
>>21027473
I've noticed people making these posts never explain why they don't like P&V translations.
Everyman editions are really nice as well.

>>21031978
>cloth-bound books from the 1920s-1960s and none of them have issues with the covers and spines rubbing off
That's fair.

>>21026271
christ this anime girl is so attractive

>>21031978
>I got a set of Gibbon's Decline and Fall and I don't recall any of their volumes having dust jackets (even though the two three-volume sets were still shrink-wrapped when I got them; maybe I'm mis-remembering though).
Strangely, I've seen it both ways.

>>21021923
I think I only havw one of those and I think I will ditch it for a different copy. I hate seeing those

>>21024302
Ywnbaw

>>21031929
Library of America has extremely thin paper though

>>21022561
Commit suicide, you have the aesthetic sensibility of a 14 year old girl

>>21030188
>Did Everyman finally switch back to sewn?
The only Everyman’s Library editions that are currently glued, are the pocket sized editions, and maybe the few titles sold as EL in paperback.
From what I understand, the larger Everyman’s Library titles that were glued, were American Editions, and the gluing process used actually still kept the pages in signatures, like a sewn binding, but with glue squeezed thru perforations in the signatures.
I don’t own any of those EL editions, but I fo have a Modern Library ‘Le Morte d'Arthur’ that may use the process, and other than not being able to see the threads in the page signature gutter, the book opens just as well as the Library of America sewn bindings.
I presume in a pinch, if or when the glue fails, the signatures could be sewn, unlike regular glued perfect bindings.
There made still be stock around from those glued editions, but it’s probably getting uncommon nowadays except used.
All the Everyman’s Library main titles seem to be printed and bound in Germany nowadays, snd German publishers seem to to have issues sewing bindings even on paperbacks if they want to.

>>21033741
Kek at 14 year old girls having better aesthetic sensibilities than you

>>21031929
Yes ,
I’ve had the cloth cover printing rub off EL books as well.
As for Library of America, the bindings may be sewn, but the bindings are also stiffer than EL books, and don’t open as well, although this is offset by the thinner paper LoA uses.

>>21031961
>If only there was a dust cover you could have used.
Everyman’s Library books used to not come with dust jackets, at least on some editions.
I’m not sure exactly why, but the EL titles I got years ago at Borders, didn’t have dust jackets.
This included Chaucer, and a few others.
According to a Small publisher and their blog, dust jackets actually can add enough of an additional cost to his price, that he no longer includes them in most cases, and this is a publisher that insists on sewn bindings, acid free paper, US printing, usually with foil embossed buckram cloth covers.

>>21033627
Everyman’s Library is now owned by Penguin, but I believe it got restarted, maybe in the 1990s, and the original editions from the decade after it got restarted might not have had dust jackets.

>>21021923
The only Everyman I ever got without a dust cover was the W&P box set. I always buy them new and own 40+ of them

>>21033718
>Library of America has extremely thin paper though
The LoA paper is thin, but seems to be as durable in use as the EL paper.
I think I read that LoA uses paper that is 1000 pages to the inch, for most books, and about 750 pages to the inch for books that might have images.
Some like the Lynd Ward with heavy graphics might be 500 pages to the inch, which I think is closer to what EL uses.
Some more recent LoA books I’ve gotten seem to use the 750 paper maybe due to supply issues.
LoA supposedly has their paper specially made for them.

>>21021923
considering how often i see them second hand no they don't

>>21026256
>Don Quixote
What's the translation to get and why?

I thought everyone loved harper

>>21034638
The Grossman translation is terrific and should be considered the new standard to judge other translations by. As an aside, other female translators (*cough* Emily Wilson *cough* *cough*) should take note of how to focus on just giving a good and literate translation without inserting their own inane politics into things to try to make the original work into something it isn't).

>>21034638
Nta but I’ve read Rutherford and Grossman. Loved them both. Dropped Motteux( who EL uses). A rare poor choice by EL

>>21034651
I’ve never read Wilson’s Homer but I’ve read a few Euripides plays done by her. I never notice anything egregious

>>21034658
I haven't read her translations of Euripides, but her Odyssey is comically bad (and was held up as a new great feminist interpretation by NPR, the Guardian, etc; Wilson then leaned into that world and hasn't left it since).

>>21034663
I’m not saying her translation of Homer is probably good, but I’m sure she leaned into the feminist stance for marketing reasons to some extent. Appeal to the huge female reading audience who probably won’t pick up Homer without a nudge

>>21034658
>>21034663
>>21034702

>>21034638
Grossman
Rutherford
Ormsby

No particular order but check their stuff and see which you like the best

>>21031992
>I've noticed people making these posts never explain why they don't like P&V translations.
It's been explained to death.

>>21034651
>As an aside, other female translators (*cough* Emily Wilson *cough* *cough*) should take note of how to focus on just giving a good and literate translation without inserting their own inane politics into things to try to make the original work into something it isn't).
I want to give a shoutout to Caroline Alexander's Iliad here. It was discussed in a thread earlier this week, but Alexander's Iliad really should join the conversation usually dominated by Lattimore, Fitzgerald, and Fagles. It's pretty telling she didn't get the loud and glowing rollout from the media that Watson did, especially since it's significantly better than anything Watson attempted and is guaranteed to be better than whatever Watson's Iliad will be.

>>21034962
*Wilson. Not sure why I always thought her last name was Watson.

>>21029825
Get the Henry Francis Cary translation. It's the one the Romantics and Melville read and the blank verse in that translation flows pretty nicely. Mandelbaum is dry and inelegant as fuck

t. read Mandelbaum's and was severely disappointed

>>21034718
>Tell me about a complicated man.
ffs it gets worse every time I read it

>>21034987
What about Ciardi, which was preferred by Eliot?

>>21034997
Meanwhile, Tyrone's gets better the more times I see it. It stands up to being read aloud as well.

>>21021923
no
https://twitter.com/petrarkin/status/1549722329659359232
this post has over 100k likes and i guarantee not a one of them reads

>>21035527
>and if someone wants to buy this type of books, i read a lot of tweets that the color fades if you hold your book very long time…
So not even the person shilling them has read a single one of those copies.

>>21036343>
>21035527
Why are you all so surprised by this? Most "booktube" videos do not envolve reading at all. Just look at how the book hauls and TBRs. These people just love collecting books and the idea of reading. They remind me of /lit.

>>21037146
A reader is greater than a non reader who collects books, who is greater than a non reader without books. The last one is a cancer on /lit/ and doesn’t belong here. At least a book collector is relevant to literature

>>21037146
Reminds me of blu-ray collectors on YT, with full-wall bookcases of still sealed blu-rays. One I remember admitted he had never seen the majority of the movies in his collection of over 1000, neither in theaters nor streaming nor on the discs he owned. Another went through his numbered Eureka Video "Masters of Cinema" collection and confessed he couldn't say much about most of the movies because he'd never seen them.

>>21034512
Not even close, but good try. You’re defending the book equivalent of Funko pops. Re-examine yourself

>>21037343
But you can read Penguin Clothbound. You can only display funkopops. Not similar at all

>>21037163
>At least a book collector is relevant to literature
Wrong. A book "collector" who would show off his clothbound Penguin or his Everyman's Library is completely irrelevant to literature. He might be relevant to the mass market of books, but not to literature as an art form.
>>21037175
I always sense that these people are so insecure about their own sense of hollowness and worthlessness that they believe they can just buy a personality by sheer accumulation so they, at least, can be known around as being "a film buff", "a bookworm", etc. It truly is pathetic.

>>21037570
Those would-be "film buffs" are still stuck in the early 00s age where you bought a DVD just to watch a film you've never seen before. If it sucks? Well, it's stuck on your shelf anyway, never to be touched again. In the age of 4K UHD, if you're the type of person who wants to own stuff physically rather than just pirate 100%, the least you can do is pirate stuff beforehand and only buy after you know you not only like the thing but fully intend to revisit it, watch all the extras, etc. And never "blind buy" again. There is no reason for "blind buying" movies to still be a thing in the 2020s. As for books, it's a similar thing. Is it an important book to you? Is it rare? Is it not on libgen?

Quality over quantity should always be the motto. If you were to ever share your shelf, be it of movies or books or whatever, with someone else, and you find yourself like the "Masters of Cinema" guy I used as an example, unable to explain at least in general what the fuck each thing is and why precisely you have it, you're doing it wrong. Hell, even a silly reason is probably better than "idk i just like the look of them."

>>21035527
So, they're /lit/ users

As for the Penguin cloth bound editions;
The editions may have issues, but they’re better quality than regular penguin paperbacks.
Price wise, they’re maybe twice as much as the regular paperbacks, but with nicer covers, and possibly better paper.
The prices are all over the place, but street price from many websites might be $10 more for a thick volume.
Aesthetics tend to be personal, but the covers have a good decorative, but semi minimalist design, that doesn’t try to be the gaudy design like the Barnes & Noble “Leather” Collectors editions ( which are a late Victorian style of aesthetic binding).
The Penguin covers sort of remind me of the early original Everyman’s Library aesthetic from the original series ( not the current EL editions, which are higher quality in a number of ways, but use a more staid design).

>>21038058
Thanks for the blog post you massive faggot

>>21021923
Stay cozy Pepe.

>>21029825
>>21034987
Get the Hollander translation. It's a separate set of all three. Best translation and the books look amazing.

>>21025576
>Sheed
hehehehehehhohohohohohohohoho
more like... Sneed HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>21040126
Yes.

>>21025818
Paper quality is irrelevant if the pages start coming off after a few years. I've handled three hundred year old cheaply mass produced books that still hold together well and bought 'premium' hardcovers that are already coming apart.
Now I only buy hardcover if it's actually thread-bound or the same price.

>>21022409
Thread-bound too?

>>21041512
This. Hardcover vs. paperback isn't the real debate; it's sewn vs. glued. The largest hidden benefit to sewn books beyond all the obvious benefits is that, in the direst of circumstances, you can easily have the sewn book rebound or rebacked. For glued books, no matter how well you take care of them, sooner or later the glue is going to fail and the pages will fall out. For cheaper mass-market paperbacks, they may fall out during your initial reading; but even the "best" glued books, hardcover or otherwise, will eventually fail, either from use or just from time.

>>21041523
Yes. To my knowledge, Word on Fire doesn't have a single non-sewn book. Don't quote me on that because I only own some of their hardcovers and their leather Bibles, but I've yet to see a single book without signatures.

>>21028324
>I am not a native speaker
Why the fuck would you buy them in an English translation then? Why not your own language?

>>21041543
>>21041523
But for that specific "WOF Classics" line pictured, yes, I can tell you with certainty that they're all sewn, cloth-cover books.
https://bookstore.wordonfire.org/collections/word-on-fire-classics-books/Word-on-Fire-Classics

>>21041554
Neat. I wanted to gift Orthodoxy to a friend for a while and have been looking for a good edition.

>>21041533
Also, since I was reminded of it, my edition of Chesterton is the interesting case of a thread-bound paperback. See attached picture.

>>21042089
I recently used the WOF Orthodoxy for my first-time reading, and it was a very comfortable read. Felt good in the hands, print was consistent, ribbon marker meant I didn't need to use a bookmark, construction meant it would lay open and flat for the most part, and the volume was nice and compact. For the price (I got it sub-$20 as part of a deal), it was the best copy I could find. Not long after I added the Confessions and O'Connor collection from them, and intend to eventually add the rest as I read.

As for aesthetics, there's something pleasing about them having a uniformity to them but not looking like carbon clones (like Everyman or Penguin) while also not looking too flashy on a shelf.

>>21021923
Which paperbacks use sewn pages?