[ 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: 113 KB, 682x457, 1417222928991.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5930739 No.5930739 [Reply] [Original]

Which one do you think is better, Norton Critial Editions or Oxford World's Classics? Why?

And which one do you prefer, personally?

Pic unrelated.

>> No.5930745

norton critical easily. the bindings are better, they are packed with more stuff.

owc probably tend to have better translations though, but that's case by case

>> No.5930765

norton has garbage translations and is full of useless crap.

>> No.5933183
File: 191 KB, 851x315, banner-The_Kelmscott_Chaucer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5933183

>>5930739
How is this a question? Nortons are superior in every way except price, from binding, editorial work, secondary sources, etc. Check out the old OWC version of Hesiod's Theogony: the fuckwit editor/translator spends most of his time making fun of Hesiod as a poet, and has an endnote that says, "One of the few poetical lines in the entire work" followed shortly by "another good line too, and so soon after the first one!" That's the level of scholarship you're dealing with at times (though they do get lucky and have good translators and editors at times). I use OWC when I just want an uncomplicated text and don't care overly about anything but price. Now if you'd asked Broadview vs. Norton, than we'd have a discussion.

>> No.5933207

Oxford World Classics because of the excellent Kindle editions