Name a better publisher.pro tip: you can't
Easy: NYRB.
>>7421076
Penguin books, friend.:^)
>>7421084
That's no way to talk to your friend, friend.
>>7421086
It's just banter, trip cunt.
>>7421079
Came here to post this. You can't go wrong with NYRB.
pengu
i
n
>>7421076
> Vintage
> open book
> *CRAAAAAAAAAAACK goes the spine*
Oxford University Press
>>7421125
Hello Mr. McBait.
>>7421143
> Oxford University Press
> open book
> CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK
I never cracked a spine in my life.
Is this a meme?
I hate all those red spines on my bookshelf, it looks awful. The page and print quality is often bad too, and the critical material is non-existent. For classics I tend to opt for Oxford.
>>7421161
It would be extremely painful.
>>7421177
> not using a library
kindles are for manchildren
>>7421076
That was easyyou stupid anglo
>>7421076
vintage and bantam are my favs
>>7421076
DALKEY
Those Vintages with the red spines looks nice, I have a few myself, but I hate the pages. It's like super absorbent newsprint, the ink looks blotchy and I don't like that color of page. I like: NYRB, New Directions, Routledge (their edition of History of Madness is beautiful), and Verbamundi. NYRB may be my favorite, they look nice, feel nice, and have a great selection. For hardcovers I'm a sucker for Everyman's, especially maroon ones hnnggh
>>7421352
Someone else knows Verba Mundi
Loeb is one of the NEATEST, i don't think they can be beat as far as greek texts with their original latin translations and english in the same book.
Verso
New Directions and Dalkey Archive.
>>7421139
My Vintage spines are frighteningly sturdy and unblemished despite me caring not a shit for cheap books.
>that minimalist cover art.
I like New Directions, and Princeton University Press. Penguin cloth bound is nice as well.
>>7421076
Pushkin Press, NYRB, Twisted Spoon, Everyman.
>>7421468
idk about the Murakami, but the Camus are made differently/better than the red spine Vintage classics.
>>7421468
maybe if their catalog wasn't as insufferable.
>>7421468
Is the Stranger one supposed to be the sun?
>>7421103
+1. cool catalog, stylish covers
>>7421076
That copy of Gormenghast is sexy as fuck.
Somewhat related: Is the UK Vintage Classics version of Gravity's Rainbow good?
Is the UK Vintage Classics any different from the US version? I want the most unadulterated version of GR.
>>7421460
These, as they actually publish interesting stuff
>>7421747
You mean you want an edition without that printing error? Just avoid the shitty deckle-edged edition published by Penguin and you'll be fine. The book's never been abridged or censored AFAIK.
>>7421797
Sweet. I know that the Vintage edition doesn't have printing errors. I was mostly asking if the book was edited for a UK market or something. Don't think they'd do that though.
i am no penguin fag but this is better than any vintage cover i have ever seen
>>7421212
I've got a pocket "The Ego and His Own" like this. It's beautiful.I can't read German ; ; but I'm trying to learn
>>7421143
They're alright. Their font can be so fucking tiny at times though. I wished they used footnotes more too. I don't know why publishers are still using endnotes over footnotes.
I like the aesthetics of vintage, but they're pretty skimpy on supplementary material.
mcgraw hill
>>7421900
Got that one in a Cardiff charity shop for a pound the same day I was thinking of getting the Vintage one. Still can't decide which one I like better, that cover is already quite broken
>>7421211
>Ctrl+F "Norton"
>Phrase not found
I thought you people read books
>>7421212
Those kinds of covers always remind me of pic related
>>7422224
Yah this one is really nice. I look at it every time I go to B&N but I've already got a nice old hardcover and can't justify spending $25 for just the supplementary material
>not one farber
>>7423097
*faber
I guess I should write it twice
Is NYRB the worst faggot hipster publisher out there?
>I want everyone to know I have super obscure taste but I need to be spoonfed it because I don't actually know shit about literature
>>7421468
vintage murakami covers are cancer
>>7423343
You'd be right if the quality wasn't genuinely great and they weren't generally publishing out-of-print books. Same with New Directions. You gotta be a real contrarian to dislike either of them imo
>>7421900
i prefer the vintage moby dick. i got it from charity shop cheap
>>7421203
You're a big book
Everyman's Library
So, do you people actually at times, pick a more expensive book just based off the publisher or even just the appeal of the cover?
Cause I just took a gander at my bookshelf and there is really no general theme to either the publishers, cover or back.
>>7423888
If it's in free domain or more than one publisher/translation i'll look up which is considered the best version of a book. For most books they're all the same but for some, such as Ulysses, there'll be a version such as the remastered Vintage that are better than the others.
>>7423888
I pick based on the book and publisher. Some publishers are more reliable with good translations and supplementary material, and make better quality covers, spines, etc.
>NYRB
>their e-books cost more than their paperbacks
dropped.
>>7421212
Suhrkamp's books are more durable, though
>>7421076
Can we have a list of best edition for core /lit/ books?
penguin have the pimpest covers and the longest introductions
>>7421449
I ain't no commie so I don't own a lot of Verso books, but my copy of The Ego and His Own is one of my favorite books based on its material features.
![716aY-w9nhL[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FZlwpqq.jpg "716aY-w9nhL[1].jpg")
>mfw no-one mentions Wordsworth Classics
>>7426074
Jesus at least Dover Thrift have decent covers
>>7421076
Oxford World's Classics
>>7421449
literally worst publisher. my minima moralia lost 20 pages after a week of reading and so did my friend's. also overpriced. also they rejected me for their internship scheme :'(
What's the best Shakespeare publisher?
>>7421079
Such nice covers...
>>7426085
Dover thrift are objectively based
>>7421212
>Reclam
If you're a casual, maybe. Zweitausendeins is much, much better.
>>7421125
By the time Stoner's hype wave breaks, I can guarantee there won't be a single major publishing house that hasn't been hit by it. I loved the book, and so does everyone else I've talked to. You're in the minority, friend, and if the majority wants it, just about every house is gonna print it.
>>7421076
Vintage looks fantastic until you open it and the spine fucking explodes
NYRB for me unless I've already read it and am just buying it for my shelf
>>7427264
Very nice.
Too expensive desu. Penguin Classics is better
>>7421076
Easton Press niggahs
those beautiful books...
>>7427239
The paper and print quality are terrible. My Epictetus copy feels like it was printed in 1940.
>>7427935
No, seriously.
Is this a meme?
what about Folio Society? worth the price?
>>7428527
For special occasions; in my opinion, yes.
I have a Folio Society edition of The Picture of Dorian Gray. Feels nice to have a special, nice looking book to commemorate something special.
>>7428342
>desu
I come from /a/ and know the board history and literal Japanese meaning of "desu" but I wonder, what is its significance on /lit/?
Just a random meme?
>>7421125
:)I agree
>>7428624
Word filter
>>7421438
Dat green
>>7428651
Oh... what word becomes desu?
>>7428700
baka desu senpai
>can get as much as 4 (four) Wordsworth books for the price of 1 (one) any other popular publisher
Look at all these rich kiddies convincing themselves that they're living the literary lifestyle.
>>7428700
t.b.h desu
>>7428700
I am shaking my head at your lack of knowledge to be honest family.
>>7428700
desu
>>7421212
>>7422589
>can't justify spending the money for the quality supplementary material a Norton Critical provides
>could buy used on amazon
It's like you dislike learning.
>>7423531
Amen. What they're doing is a public service.
>>7428357
Lots of Barnes and Noble tier stuff there. Some good, but a lot of Barnes and Noble.
>>7428826
Orgasmic.
Folio/Picquier Poche
>>7428963
Until you actually grab one of them and find out they're made from the cheapest paper and feel like shit in your hands.
Also, they're fucking small.
>>7421076
Did you just got rejected?
>>7429198
>they're fucking small
But that's great. Who wouldn't want to carry a book around in their pocket? True patrician publisher.
