[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 41 KB, 306x499, 48503411-40DF-45B1-BE79-C3CEF32426E1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11202864 No.11202864 [Reply] [Original]

What does /lit/ think of Norton Critical Editions?

>> No.11202874

>>11202864
its not the worst translation you could get

>> No.11202934

>>11202874
what is

>> No.11202979

>>11202874
>Translation
Are you a retard?

>> No.11203177

>>11202979
>>11202874
Topkek.

>> No.11203440

Excellent. Whenever I want queer (as in faggot) and feminist analysis of classic poetry I always buy Norton knowing that they won't disappoint.

>> No.11204005

>>11202864
I like the Robinson Crusoe edition because it has a collection of critiques from the 1700s up to modern day which include stuff from Coleridge and Joyce

>> No.11204845

>>11202864
They're good.

What college did you just get accepted to btw

>> No.11204861

>>11204845
This is a pretty embarrassing attempt to appear smart.

>> No.11204941
File: 599 KB, 2000x1200, NortonCriticals.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11204941

>>11202864
I like them.

>> No.11204952

>>11202864
My favorite. I try not to buy books anymore unless I’ve already read them and want a really nice edition to own, but I enjoy their format, extraneous texts, and footnotes.

I have Norton Critical Editions of Anna Karenina, War and Peace, Moby Dick, and Fathers and Sons.

>> No.11205516

>>11204941
I have the same Moby-Dick edition. We're Dick-Niggas now man! Damn!

>> No.11205932
File: 86 KB, 700x585, tseliot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11205932

>>11204941
How's the extra content in that Waste Land?

>> No.11205950

>>11204861
no its just mildly witty and amusing

>> No.11206247

>>11202864
except for their shakespeares, they're great
excellent texts, excellent extra material, very well printed, well made and very resistent books

>> No.11206421

>>11206247
I have the Norton Shakespeare (not like a Norton critical edition of just one play), is that bad? It seemed like a nice book with plentiful glosses and whatnot.

>> No.11206853

>>11206421
Not true. The latest one is the best one.

>> No.11206875

>>11202864
They’re well made and well arranged, the footnotes can be really interesting, and occasionally it has a really good essay or two with it.

They can be hit or miss depending on the editor though.

Overall definitely one of the better publishers though, I’d put them up there in the same category as someone like Dalkey.

>> No.11207487

>>11205932
Really useful, including long source excerpts, contemporary reception, and some newer interesting scholarship (speaking as an Eliot scholar with a pile of books about him).
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=10806

>> No.11207496

>>11205516
That sounds cool, if slightly gay.

>> No.11207586

I would say they’re great except the fuckin assholes spoiled later parts of The Sound and the Fury in the footnotes.

>> No.11207600

>>11204941
>needing a critical edition for A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court or Heart of Darkness

>> No.11207615

>>11207600
>you could only possibly be interested in what critics have to say about a book if said book is erudite and difficult to understand on a surface level

>> No.11207867

>>11206247 >>11206421 >>11206853
I mean, their individual Shakespeares. For that it's better to get the Ardens.
For the complete works, the latest Norton is bitchfuckingly good.

>> No.11207868

>>11202874
based

>> No.11208099

>>11207586
I'm reading The Sound and The Fury right now in the norton edition. Where does this happen?