/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12577243]

Is this edition any good? It's the cheapest I could find.

[Anonymous No.12577273]

Just get it, you fuck. One thread had to die just because you're indecisive about buying a book? What could another edition offer you more than the text? Are you telling me you're one of these idiots who read forewords, critical introductions or afterwords? Jesus.

[Anonymous No.12577303]

Its good

[Anonymous No.12577308]

>>12577303
The book on the other hand

[Anonymous No.12577371]

>>12577308
Is pretty great

[Anonymous No.12577375]

>>12577371
For me to poop on

[Anonymous No.12577386]

>>12577375
A use of the book that Pynchon himself would be proud

[Anonymous No.12577392]

>>12577243
Yea, I wish I had bought this instead of the retarded deckle edge edition I own.

[Anonymous No.12577409]

I have it and it's fine, haven't tackled the book properly yet though

[Anonymous No.12577415]

>>12577243
That edition sucks

That edition sucks niggers

[Anonymous No.12577425]

>>12577273
Yes. A thread about which Instagram thot you would want to have brap in your mouth died so that someone could ask a question about a book on a literature forum.

[Anonymous No.12577431]

>>12577415
No, that would be you, Marvy.

[Anonymous No.12577432]

>>12577273
Well I remember some people bitching on /lit/ about certain editions of GR, so I prefer to ask.

[Anonymous No.12577443]

It's fine. The editions to avoid are the older Vintage editions and the one with the green Where's Waldo-looking cover.
You can buy one of the original (1973) paperbacks from abebooks for like 7 or 8 dollars.

[Anonymous No.12577444]

>>12577243
This is the best one out of the new ones. The Penguin edition is a mess to navigate through.

[Anonymous No.12577457]

>>12577443
Link?

That's the orange cover right?

[Anonymous No.12577460]

>>12577457
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30222944207&searchurl=ds%3D20%26sortby%3D17%26kn%3Dgravity%2527s%2Brainbow&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp2-_-title2

[Anonymous No.12577464]

>>12577243
Yes. Vintage is perfectly fine.

[Anonymous No.12577590]

>>12577460
Thank you, are used copies generally alright?

[Anonymous No.12577591]

>>12577273
Imagine being this much of a pseud that you don’t know certain editions have rampant typos. Sorry but I think iFunny is more your speed.

[Anonymous No.12577633]

>>12577590
Depends on the seller really. I've bought used books from ebay that have been classed as "good" and gotten pristine condition 1st editions. Conversely I've also bought books classed as "good" and received ones that smelled so strongly of tobacco that it stunk out my room and one that had had its front cover ripped off.
The seller in that listing has 5 stars, abebooks is typically a pretty conservative site, ratings wise, so you should be ok. It says in the disclaimer that there might be writing in the margins, in my experience that's a rare occurrence.

[Anonymous No.12577659]

>>12577633
Awesome, I'll be buying that edition. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.12577669]

>>12577243
Anon, please don't be bullied by the pseuds here.
That edition is fine. The only one you have to worry about is the first edition of the penguin's deluxe because of misprints.

[Anonymous No.12577837]

>>12577243
not a good edition if you're fussed about paper quality. might be the worst i've ever encountered in a book that wasn't a tv manual

[Anonymous No.12577856]

What's the point of this thread? Are you so poor that you have to buy an edition of a book that might be of low quality? Even if that were a concern for you, just download a version online. I think you want to talk about books without going through the effort of reading them, which is more challenging.

[Anonymous No.12577877]

>>12577273
imagine being this much of a sperg

[Anonymous No.12577887]

>>12577856
What the fuck are you even on about I just asked if certain edition was good or not do you have some kind of mental disability friend

[Anonymous No.12577890]

>>12577243
Its meh

[Anonymous No.12577903]

>>12577887
I still don't see the point. The answers here are what you would expect, and the likelihood that this book would somehow be deficient was extremely small. It would be like asking on /tv/ if some DVD was an acceptable version of a film when there's no reason to expect that it would be different from any other version.

[Anonymous No.12577946]

>>12577903
You don't know how editions work or something do you think threads have to be made specifically so you can find a point in them I don't think so you narcissist

[Anonymous No.12577974]

>>12577946
Well, that is why I was asking the question. I didn't see the question was pointless, only that I do not see the point. Maybe my speculations were presumptuous, but those are what occurred to me. I would see the point in asking about editions if there have been changes to the text, or if there are commentaries, or if the contents are arranged in any special way, but I do not see the point if it is just the text with little to no frills.

[Anonymous No.12578004]

>>12577903
>It would be like asking on /tv/ if some DVD was an acceptable version of a film
But this is frequently relevant.
Some editions of films will be missing scenes, will be in full screen without advertising it, etc. same goes for book editions. Look into the history of odd editions of books like Ulysses, storm of steel, and yes gravity’s rainbow.

[Anonymous No.12578035]

>>12578004
I qualified saying there wouldn't be a reasonable expectation that the movies will be different, like if I were asking for the best version of some anime shit.
If editions of modern works, (as opposed to works like that of Shakespere, where it is more understandable), do have additions, omissions, and changes, then I was unaware of this. This frankly smacks of incompetence on the part of publishers, as they have a fairly simple and primary job of publishing works accurately, the neglect of which is not excusable.

[Anonymous No.12578046]

>>12578035
Mistakes are made sometimes, how could you not have thought about that?

[Anonymous No.12578149]

>>12578046
That is not my experience with books generally. I've found maybe a handful of errors in books that I have read, and nothing to be a factor in selection. Of the book book where I remember there were errors, it was a somewhat niche book about the current research on a particular issue, meaning it is more excusable than for a classic from a modern author.

[Anonymous No.12578825]

>>12577243
Reading this edition now and it's good

[Anonymous No.12578865]

>>12578035
>This frankly smacks of incompetence on the part of publishers, as they have a fairly simple and primary job of publishing works accurately, the neglect of which is not excusable.
Exactly. Which is why OP would ask if that is a good edition, especially given GR’s track record of having a few bad editions. You’re just saying dumb shit and then stating the obvious.

[Anonymous No.12578878]

>>12578865
>GR’s track record of having a few bad editions.
I was unaware such a record existed. I merely asked the point of the thread, gave the reasons why I thought it was pointless, which were also the reasons why it comes across as inexcusably incompetent on the part of the publishers. I fully admit my initial ignorance on the subject.

[Anonymous No.12579053]

>Joaquin Stick

[Anonymous No.12579367]

>>12578878
That's why you should /lurk/ before posting instead of assuming dumb shit.

[Anonymous No.12579379]

>>12579367
Well, I made assumptions, but I said nothing incorrect. The only post that mentioned errors with this book's edition was >>12577591, and I could not tell how reliable that was.

[Anonymous No.12579400]

>>12579379
Shut the fuck up you worthless newfaggot retard jesus christ

[Anonymous No.12579551]

>>12579400
No, I do not think I will, as much as I think this place does not live up to its pretentious, and there are remarkably few "thoughtful, well-written posts."

[Anonymous No.12579562]

>>12579551
absolutely yikes and cringepilled

[Anonymous No.12579567]

>>12579562
Why?

[Anonymous No.12579578]

>>12579567
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.12579580]

>>12579578
No, I don't.

[Anonymous No.12579610]

>>12579551
just read a book and lurk

[Anonymous No.12579668]

what happen to slothrop, bros?

[Anonymous No.12579695]

>>12579367
well if OP lurked he wouldn't have made the thread

[Anonymous No.12579709]

>>12579695
You're responding to me, OP. I've lurked here since 2012. I know there's an infographic on Pynchon editions to avoid. I was just too lazy to search in the archive (sorry).

[Anonymous No.12579729]

>>12579695
>he's still going
oh man
>>12579709
Don't apologize to that faggot. The infamous one was the early runs of the frank miller cover. I ordered a vintage years ago and instead of rainbow rockets or the whered waldo one which was the thumbnail. It was silver colored with an orange star on the front. I gave it to my brother in law and I'm going to have to figure out how to get another copy that isn't the rainbow rockets because that cover looks literally gay as fuck with the white and black rockets in the forefront

[Anonymous No.12579777]

>>12579729
Not me ;)

[Anonymous No.12579896]

>>12579729
>>he's still going
that was my first post ITT

>>12579709
You BETTER be fucking sorry. I asked this same question yesterday:
>>12573909
>don't want to waste a thread on a dumb question
Then YOU had to go ahead and waste that thread anyway. lol jk I'm just pretending to be mad

[Anonymous No.12580546]

>>12579668
He got what he wanted all along.
For no one, not even us readers, to be able to know his every move. Beautiful.

[Anonymous No.12580564]

>>12577243
yes its the best looking cover imo

[Anonymous No.12580652]

>>12580564
Personally I find the first edition cover more aesthetically pleasing.

[Anonymous No.12580697]

>>12579729
This is the cover I had. I want to get it again. I gave it to my now-brother-in-law after my wedding, but now I'm mad about it because I don't want the rainbow cockrockets cover

[Anonymous No.12580830]

>>12580697
>being this insecure

It's okay to be gay/bi Anon

[Anonymous No.12580867]

>>12580830
Bruh the modern vintage cover is supremely gay. I actually just ordered new copies of GR and TCoL49 five minutes ago. I did some legwork and lord willing I will get pic related as a cover. The first one I had. I have bought and given away TCoL49 3 times now. GR cover should be where's waldo or silver with orange star cover. I'll post when they arrive.

[Anonymous No.12581043]

>>12579551

[Anonymous No.12581388]

>ttw OP cover is literally the shittiest one of all time

[Anonymous No.12581396]

>>12581388

[Anonymous No.12581405]

>>12581388
>>12581396

[Anonymous No.12581412]

>>12581388
>>12581396
>>12581405

[Anonymous No.12581540]

>>12581412
Way too macabre.

[Anonymous No.12581604]

>>12581540
Its not inaccurate at all.

[Anonymous No.12581692]

>>12581405
>waste.org
guys I found the Tristero

[Anonymous No.12581699]

>>12581388
Oh I don`t know about that buddy.

[Anonymous No.12581708]

>>12581412
This one and the blueprint cover are the best. I enjoy the hardback 1st edition cover too, but those cost like $1000

[Anonymous No.12581749]

>>12581692

[Anonymous No.12581766]

>>12581699
That's perfect lol wtf. Those covers are great for GR

[Anonymous No.12582201]

>>12581412
I found this one in a second hand book store for $5.

Every instance of someone saying "jesus christ" in vain has been scribbled out in red pen, yet the dreams of gang rape and scat dominatrixes go untouched.

[Anonymous No.12582743]

Someone post the Japanese cover

[Anonymous No.12582822]

[Anonymous No.12582827]

moo

[Anonymous No.12583371]

>>12582822
Shit chart. Only good information is about the frank miller cover and it doesnt even matter anymore.

[Anonymous No.12583419]

>>12583371
Nice opinion.

[Anonymous No.12584372]

>>12583419
The entire rest of the chart is a "nice opinion" and people have been saying that since that faggot made it 5 years ago with his faggot opinipns