/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11048645]

Which edition of A Portrait by Joyce would you recommend me between Oxford classics and the Penguin classics? Which one is overall better?Which is physically better and which one has better content (notes etc.)?

[Anonymous No.11048647]

[Anonymous No.11048649]

Norton Critical

[Anonymous No.11048672]

>>11048649
This. The binding is still shit but the paper quality and the font are better. The content is also much better than the Penguin, and better than the Oxford.

[Anonymous No.11048689]

>>11048672
>>11048649
this one?

[Anonymous No.11048833]

>>11048689
Yep, that one.

[Anonymous No.11048840]

>>11048833
thanks, i'm buying it

[Anonymous No.11048894]

>>11048833
But are the font and the paper nice? Sorry I am a bit of autist with these things

[Anonymous No.11049419]

>>11048894
I mean, they're not premium quality like Everyman's Library or the Library of America. But the paper is certainly nicer/whiter and the font is sharper and bigger than Penguin and Oxford editions. I could take a picture of the Norton edition but unfortunately my cellphone is fucked and I don't have a camera. I guess you'll have to take my word for it, but I wouldn't lie to you about this stuff since I care about it too.

[Anonymous No.11049442]

>>11049419
I do have to say, though, the difference is not that big between Norton and Penguin/Oxford regarding the font and paper, but it is noticeable enough. You are buying paperback kinda-academic editions after all. And in any case the content is much better than the other two.

[Anonymous No.11049474]

>>11049442
>>11049419
ok thank you, I have bought it

[Anonymous No.11049601]

>>11049474
>>11048689

Norton Editions are criminally underrated. They have such good content and the font is quite nice. The criticism you find in these books is always excellent.

[Anonymous No.11049732]

>>11049601
>The criticism you find in these books is always excellent.

I find they are very hit and miss and vary with each title. I also feel that sometimes they go overboard with the footnotes, footnoting very basic stuff that doesn't really need it. Although in a way it's not so bad because you can just dismiss what isn't useful to you.

[Anonymous No.11049754]

>>11048645
Millennium library is of great quality

[Anonymous No.11049780]

>>11049419
>>11049442
What do you even mean by quality paper? Is it supposed to be smooth? Thick? White?

[Anonymous No.11049889]

>>11049780
Yes, thickness, whiteness, and whether it is acid-free or not. For example, Everyman's Library uses acid-free paper, so the pages don't become yellow, and the kind of paper they use prevents the ink from getting smeared if you pass your fingers over it. The degree of whiteness is good on your eyes even in the sunlight or in low light. Their paper is rather thick too, so it doesn't break easily and you don't see what's written on the other side.

[Anonymous No.11049911]

>>11049780
Also smoothness, but that depends on your taste rather than in the reading experience, in my opinion. The other qualities of the paper are more objectively important, I think.

[Anonymous No.11049932]

>>11049889
nice to know, i like everyman
i have their iliad and odyssey, also just ordered the first vol of shakespeare's tragedies

how do you find out which publishers and series use acid-free paper?

[Anonymous No.11049938]

>>11048645
I have the Oxford classics and its pretty good

[Anonymous No.11049958]

Fucking plebs up in this thread

[Anonymous No.11050882]

>how do you find out which publishers and series use acid-free paper?

That's a good question. Usually the publisher announces it in their website, as part of a marketing strategy (since it adds value to the book and not all publishers do it). I know for a fact that Everyman's Library and the Library of America do it (the latter even uses super acid-free paper or something like that which lasts for 400 hundred years; or so they claim).

As a rule of thumb, the cheaper and more "layman-oriented" the publisher, so to speak, the less likely for it to use acid-free paper. Thus Penguin and Oxford's World Classics.

[Anonymous No.11051024]

>>11049889
>prevents the ink from getting smeared if you pass your fingers over it
What kind of disgusting grease fingers do you have where this ever happens with any book?

[Anonymous No.11051988]

>>11051024
not him but my hands are always eternally sweaty for no reason, every book i read ends up with the lower half wet with wavy pages

[Anonymous No.11052061]

Everything that’s been posted is true but the book deserves a cover like pic related. Oxford classic is also well made tho

[Anonymous No.11052064]

>>11048645
Lol that cover looks like a grug

[Anonymous No.11052208]

>>11052061
that looks like tumblr shit

same with their dubliners cover

[Anonymous No.11052229]

>>11052064
Den an a berry gud den it wuz wuz a moomoo gruggin at da grug-walk an dis moomoo dat was gruggin at da grug-walk met a gooden leettle googer wuts naem wuz bebby grugoo. . . .

[Anonymous No.11052254]

>>11049732
There is some context Americans wouldn't understand without the footnotes for an Irish or British text, or any other place, and vice-versa. I had no clue about the Russian serfs and their liberation until I read a Norton Critical Chekhov, which also had to explain who Jesus was in another footnote. Yes, we all know who Jesus is, but I think they're compelled to be concise.

Anyway, why do such footnotes bother you? They can't hurt.

[Anonymous No.11052309]

>>11052208
agreed, i was just about to say that it looks like some stephen universe fangirl's fanart from tumblr
is it the same anon always posting it or something?