/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8632825]

>finish ulysses
>nothing else interests me anymore
>order a copy of finnegans wake
>go with penguin classics edition because it seems like the most popular one
>what's the worst that could go wrong ?
>book finally arrives
>can't wait to start reading
>open book
>see this
Why does Penguin hate readers so much ? Which edition of this book can I get that isn't filled with errors ?

[Anonymous No.8632914]

Oxford worlds classics. It looks the best as well.

[Anonymous No.8632977]

>>8632914
Thanks. I didn't want to get it because, ironically, their edition of Ulysses is a reproduction of the incorrect first edition. What a confusing situation. I also don't like how bloated the Oxford versions are and how flimsy the binding is.

[Anonymous No.8633248]

>See classic
>Good price
>Seems like a good edition, pretty cover and whatnot
>About to pick it up
>See ''the text has been revised for modern readers''
>Mfw

[Anonymous No.8633268]

>>8632914
That's such a fantastic cover

[Anonymous No.8633274]

>>8632914
I have this version. Holy crap, with the errors fixed, it's just a normal story in plain English. Incredible.

[Anonymous No.8633286]

>>8633274

[Anonymous No.8633328]

>>8633248
What book ?

[Anonymous No.8633343]

>>8633328

Not any book in particular, it's happened a few times.

[Anonymous No.8633384]

Viking Compass 1959 edition embodying all the author's corrections is literally the only way to go, OP

[Anonymous No.8633431]

>>8633384
From what I've read, the Oxford University Press edition is the same as that one except that it's still being printed.

[Anonymous No.8634746]

>>8632914
That cover is awful. Clown vomit.

[Anonymous No.8634793]

Anything wrong with this one? Dirt cheap so I ain't complaining

[Anonymous No.8634842]

>>8633286
Where did you get that picture of my wife's son?

[Anonymous No.8634868]

>>8632825

please post ur interpretation/feels when done.

[Anonymous No.8634877]

>>8634793
It has the same problem as the one in the OP. It's the first edition, so typographical errors on pretty much every page.

[Anonymous No.8634949]

>>8632825

>get the first historical version of the book, as made clear by the opening note

>wah

I vaguely get that the complaint is supposed to be that this version is not the "best/real" version, but on some level this complaint just doesn't register with me. The thing has been presented in its earliest honest complete form, at some point you might as well complain about it to the ghost of Joyce himself.

I also defy you, OP, to tell me that you have /actually read/ any two distinct versions of Finnegans Wake, compared them closely, and come away with a substantive personal understanding of why the one is better than the other, rather than getting a second-hand idea. Short of this you are a disingenuous poseur. Charade you are!

[Anonymous No.8635763]

>>8634949
Why do you insist on posting this without reading the thread or having any background on Joyce's works ? Nowhere did the Penguin edition advertise that it was the first edition. I had no way of knowing that until I got my copy in the mail and looked at the title page. Furthermore, I suggest you take a look at this page of corrections THAT WERE WRITTEN BY JOYCE HIMSELF regarding the first edition : http://www.rosenlake.net/fw/Corrections-Misprints-Finnegans-Wake-1945.pdf

Yes, those corrections take up 16 pages and list errors on nearly every page. You are trying to tell me that Joyce was wrong about his own book and that the people at Faber & Faber who misprinted his manuscript knew it better than the man who actually wrote it.

[Anonymous No.8636855]

>>8634949
Are you legitimately retarded?

[Anonymous No.8636879]

>>8633274
lold