Are Norton Critical Editions worth getting or looking into? Such as the one for Faust, I'm curious as i've never had one before, I usually buy oxford, and i'm wondering how in depth they go.
>>8091527
fast was p. good. when mepistro came up and was all "hey yo bitch, i'm takin gretsin" and fast was like "iongivafuck"
They have some really weird choices of translations. I think all of them are actually done in house.
They're good for stuff in English, but shop around when it comes to translation.
>>8091569
Alright, I appreciate the insight. they looked really comprehensive, I was worried about the translations cause I heard different things on them.
I'll look into them for english.
If you want to really know a work and would actually read through the extra material, they're good. For Joyce, I found their Dubliners and Portrait really helpful. Broadview has similar books and they are also very good.
Yeah, they're good. You can't really generalize about the quality of translations when it comes to Penguin, Oxford, and Norton. They have some good ones, some bad ones. They work with what they have, but they don't just go with what's in the public domain. For example, the Norton Critical Edition of Don Quixote is Burton Raffel's, an excellent translation. Their Notes From Underground, by Michael R. Katz is really good. Ditto for that Arndt translation of Faust.
Oxford publishes the Avsey translation of The Brothers Karamazov, which is good, but when it comes to translations of House of the Dead, Crime and Punishment, and The Village of Stepanchikovo, I'd go Penguin (McDuff, McDuff, Avsey).
Point is, it's hard to generalize about any of these publishers. Cheaper publishers, they usually go with a public domain Victorian translation that you probably don't want. But otherwise, sometimes Penguin has the best translation, sometimes Oxford, sometimes Norton, sometimes somebody else. I've seen people say, "Penguin has bad translations," and I don't know what they're talking about. You just have to do your research.
>>8091636
Please tell us why we should avoid Victorian translations.
Eager to see how hard you'll meme.
>>8091527
all the covers are gross
>>8091686
Unless it's a famously good translation -like I think Garnett is respected for her Chekov translations - why read a translation in an older, unfamiliar English idiom (older doesn't mean better or classier, keep in mind) rather than a newer one, in a modern idiom, done by someone who has the benefit over the Victorians of more than a century of academic scholarship?
>>8091636
I appreciate the feedback i'll check out the quixote translation and see how it goes.
>>8091703
OH GREAT, GREAT
GREAT CRITIQUE
"THE COVERS ARE GROSS"
Fuck summerfags.
>>8091921
you are upset right now and i'd like to know why
How's there Blake?
Does it have illustrations?
>>8091527
Nah and don't get em used either. Always have faggy undergrad markings
A nice thing about Norton Critical Editions is that the notes are footnotes, not endnotes, as in Penguin and Oxford. Also the supplementary material, if you're into that. Even if you're not into reading academic literary criticism, the historical material they include is interesting.
>>8092423
It's good. It doesn't quite have everything, but it has all or most of everything you might likely want, with good information. Some pages (pic related) have simplified illustrations, and then there are 16 color plates included.
>>8092423
Here's a comparison with the complete. The latter has only a few black and white pictures. Either way, you'd want to use the Blake Archive:
http://www.blakearchive.org/blake/indexworks.htm
Even if you shell out for a wholly illustrated copy of, say, Songs of Innocence & Experience, you only get one variation, but Blake was constantly coloring in new versions as people ordered them over decades, so you get a lot of variation.
>>8092423
