Are these hardcover books from Barnes and Noble worth it?
Im thinking about getting the Hemingway one with 4 of his novels and also the one with The Iliad and The Odyssey (although Im hesitant, I don't know which translations they are)
Don't buy books from Barnes and Noble, buy them online
This thread pops up every couple weeks. Is this some stealth marketing hustle from B&N?
why don't you use a magical site called google and find out
Everyman's Library.
They are gaudy as fuck.
>>7717179
This. I have one and I hate it.
They look like Reddit in book form.
>>7717225
>worth it?
>good translations
Yeah, I can see that.
Did you have a snow day at school or something?
>>7717225
So you really just wanted people to tell you how awesome the book looked. You're a major fag.
>the point of this thread really was to ask if the Greek translations are good
No, you asked are the books worth it, a very vague and very stupid question and it looks like you already made up your mind based on this response.
>its not like Im gonna be reading it in public
Wouldn't want this abomination on my bookshelf, famiglia.
>>7717245
>>good translations
wtf is your point
>>7717249
I sort of made up my mind that it was worth it halfway through the thread
I don't get why youre so upset. Are you on the spectrum, lad?
>>7717256
stop making worthless threads.
>>7717249
Easy there sperg
>>7717076
I got the Fitzgerald one with two novels and all his stories. I keep it in my library and like reading the short stories sometimes. If you want to read novels, get the book, not the anthology.
>>7717076
They are alright. Pretty good quality for the price IMO. I did the buy one get half price off another deal.
I'm thinking about getting the new Shakespeare collection they released.
>>7718125
Also I personally liked the leatherback design.
The Hemingway one is very good but the paper is very thin to the point of being able to see the text on the page after it. If that doesn't bother you then it's a great buy.
>>7717076
I have this specific one, it's fine but I wouldn't buy another.
>>7718125
Its so reddit it hurts my eyes
>>7717076
Yeah. I have Neil Gaiman and Poe's, and they're beautiful.
>>7718184
Haha I love these tryhard posts. What does that even mean?
If he likes the books, let him buy the goddamn books.
>>7717076
I have the Chronicles of Narnia and Lovecraft. They're nice, but I agree with the posts saying a lot of them, most even, look gaudy as fuck. Also most of the pictures on the front like Hitchhiker's Guide and Lovecraft are stickers.
The Canterbury Classics are pretty nice. I think they look a bit better than the Barnes and Noble ones.
>>7718184
Yeah, books are serious business, and should always just have black covers, or be leather bound.
>>7719795
The gaudiness is the trouble. If you want colour on your shelves, there are much more elegant designs than the mass-series like B&N’s.
>>7719822
I disagree, there's nothing necessarily wrong with a cover that isn't minimalistic or elegant. Acting like gaudiness is necessarily bad is just a ridiculous way to look at things.
As I was saying, books aren't serious business, and if the content's good, who gives a fuck about the colour of the cover.
>>7718253
I love the mythology one
Anyway, I wish I had the spare money to buy all these books. I own the complete works of sherlock Holmes and that's it
The problem with BN hardcovers is that the material is on the chintzy side. You're better off with the more sturdy Modern Library hardcovers.
I got their Complete Works of William Shakespeare. The pages are thinner than toilet paper, the text is microscopic, and the pages have gilded edges that feel terrible and make the pages stick to one another; I frequently have to "peel" pages off one another to separate them (which is bad enough in itself, but the flimsy paper makes it even worse).
Still worth it because it was the price of a low-end paperback. It looks decent, too, which can't be said for most of their other hardcovers.
>>7719843
are you some sort of papist?
The HP Lovecraft and Dickens collections are the only ones which don't look tacky as fuck.
>>7718125
The Jurassic Park one looks great, Lovecraft and Adams on the other hand...
>>7719913
I don't see how that's even slightly relevant to the debate.
Also
>implying any sort of christianity apart from roman catholicism is worth shit
>>7717076
Don't get the one with The Iliad and The Odyssey. The translations suck and some fucking brilliant mother fucker decided to only include the first half of The Iliad not the complete book.
>>7719928
>i'm a gaudy gold worshipping papist
>but how is that relevant?
>>7719955
I hope you realise that this is literally no better than /pol/ saying everyone who disagrees is a jew.
>>7719959
i'm just saying catholics have shit aesthetics
i'm not saying there's a cultural papist conspiracy to force us all to pray to painted statues of a bloody jesus and thus implicitly renounce our commitment to the austere thereby accelerating society's atomisation
>>7719993
Yeah, and I'm saying there's no correlation between religious beliefs and taste in fucking book covers. There's also Catholics that believe that materialism, and by virtue of that the gaudiness you're talking about, is a path to sin and therefore something to avoid.
You're acting like a /pol/ poster by picking a religious or racial group and attributing blame on them for what you consider to be a negative, with little to no knowledge to the topic. And that's ignoring how irrelevant even mentioning it is.
Drop the unnecessarily convoluted language as well, it doesn't make you sound smarter. Atomisation in particular just sounds out of place and stupid.
To bulky to read.
>>7717159
No. Theyre relatively cheap with the fake appearance of what some people might believe is a nice book.
Its perfect for people who are cheap, want to appear well read without actually reading and have questionable taste.
Its the perfect storm for /lit/
>>7718253
These are alright.
>>7718125
Looks like someone took a few Bibles and placed cardboard book covers over them.
>>7721807
i own the hemingway one in pic related. I took it to pizza hut so i could read during my lunch break, and this middle-aged woman approached me and asked, with such kindness in her voice, "first time reading God's word?". Me, being the fedora-wearing pseudo-intellectual that i used to be, thinking that Hemingway was the pinnacle of literary genius, scoffed at her and said "Um... it's Hemingway", with subtle pride in my voice. I used to be a fucking douche
>>7722005
this is a completely true story btw, with a bit of sarcasm at the end as i didn't literally scoff at her but did so in a mental manner
>>7717076
No they're not.
They reddit tier gaudy, known for having spelling errors, printed on cheap paper, and known for falling apart.
You can go on amazon, search for a hardcover of Ernest Hemingway, and probably find a used oldy from the 50s or 60s for a buck.
Bingo: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Short-Stories-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/B009JIHTVC/
$3 for his complete works, hardcover, and from a non-shit publisher. Damn I'm good.
>>7722066
I have never found ANY spelling error on them, and they're definitely far from falling apart. Also
>Find a used oldy from the 50s or 60s.
Yeah, like THAT one won't fall apart. Keep your thoughts to yourself, pleb.
>>7722005
Admittedly, even if you took the fedora superiority part out of the way, there's no way out of that situation that isn't at least a little awkward.
I wouldn't feel too bad about that one anon.
>>7722066
>They reddit tier gaudy
What the fuck does that even mean? Is reddit tier just everything bad? Try to actually describe how it's bad instead of muh reddit boogieman.
>printed on cheap paper
Fair enough, thin paper is fucking shit.
>known for falling apart.
Never really had any issues with modern type collections, and you're arguing that you should buy a 50+ year old book instead, as if they're not flimsy as fuck at this point.
Books aren't serious business, this cover is fine, you're just acting like a fedora retard trying to only buy books that look serious, because lets be honest, you want people to think you're much smarter and more elegant for reading them.
They are ugly, faggy and you should kill yourself if you buy one
>>7722066
>$3 for his complete works
>complete short stories
>complete works
Im amazed that people on /lit/ - literature don't know how to read
What do you all think of this version of Ulysses? It's the border's leatherbound edition and I picked it up for about $6 at a used bookstore. Gaudy? Also the largest picture of it I could find.
>>7722648
It's not gaudy at all, and that meme is fucking terrible, you don't need your books to look grim and serious. If it's a good translation, and you like it, then it's a good buy.
>>7722678
I mean it's not like I'm gonna throw it out if someone tells me it looks like shit, I'm reading for the content anyway. But a book does derive a small part of it's worth from how well it does when not being read. Otherwise, I would just read .epubs all day. I personally think it looks nice, if slightly biblical.
>>7717076
All I know is that their 1001 night is a sham. It's fairly expensive, has nice pictures, but old and one of the most censured translations around. Go for it only if it's a gift to a child.
For that novel got with modern penguin translation, or dig up the old one from that pervert. It's naughty bits are extensively exaggerated and build upon, but it may be the more amusing of the two. Harder to read too. Modern is simple, coherent but may be drab at times.
>>7722693
Yeah, I can agree that the look of a book is important, but gaudiness isn't necessarily bad. A book can not be super serious, and still look good on a book shelf.
But yeah, that book looks great, it's probably my favourite style for most older texts, and if you like it, that's all that really matters. Enjoy your book anon.
>I'm thinking about getting the new Shakespeare collection they released.
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. For Shakespeare you have two places to go to, and only two. Oxford and Cambridge annotated editions, and scans of folios and quartos. And I'm not talking about those gaudy complete works editions.
>>7717076
I can see someone buying one or two of these but a shelf full of them likes like complete shit.
I prefer 50's and 60's editions of most books anyway they tend to have a better book feel and use better paper.
fuck barnes and noble
>>7717076
oh my, what an eyesore
>>7721624
Hit the nail on the head
