For Christ's sake. What are we doing? Why is showing everyone the books that you own important to you people?
"Here in my garage, just bought Heart of Darkness. I read a different book everyday."
Have you nothing to discuss?
Go and buy some Pokemon cards if collecting shit is all you want to do.
If you had only posted this one, I'd have assumed you were a pleb (Adams, Nix, Bradbury, Eggers, Cline, Wolfe) but overall it's pretty good.
I cant treat seriously peoples with muh bookshelves. I imagine they are just rats, wagecucks scums, and they are paying money for books they do not read later. I am neet and dont buy any books, but i at least read everyone i borrow and pirate
It's divided up ok, I wish I could have a space only for books but archery and magic need love too
How triggered do you get when you see an automobile?
>those rats, wagecuck scum, they could be taking the bus! Or getting a ride in mom's minivan like me! how dare they spend money they earned on things I can't have!
This threads are the only oportunity that /lit/ people have to show their dicks to the world with the hope that will impress somebody
One of the most Reddit shelves that I've ever seen.
Upboated, my kind kinsman. The Narwahl bacons at midnight.
Have you read all those translations? Also, Tell me about orlanda furioso and remove TLOTIAT from that shelf.
>all that mann
Mann triggers me because I know a guy named Mann that used to bone my gf. Probably blew big german loads all over her face.
Me being a liberal hippy douche
I don't like to hoard shit because it goes against my ideology. Showing how many beautiful books may make you look smart, but whats the use if you choke up every time someones asks an opinion?
Thats why the library is my best friend. Forever.
Like, share and subscribe for more blogposts.
They lose all the humanity of the writing. They translate things very literally and don't seem to understand the original work like Google Translate. Things like humor, sarcasm, spitefulness, playful word choice, don't come through.
Check out comparisons in text between P&V and the Garnett translation revised by Matlaw.
The Garnett is shit m8, don't do it. Almost anybody who is anybody will tell you those are almost the worst available.
Nabokov, Brodsky, and plenty of critics thought her translations ruined good works.
>Though her translations of Turgenev and Chekhov are generally considered virtuosic, her versions of Dostoevsky, Gogol, and Tolstoy have drawn criticism for Victorian elision. Her Gogol translations are “dry and flat, and always unbearably demure,” complained Nabokov. “The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren’t reading the prose of either one,” grumbled Joseph Brodsky. The critic Korney Chukovsky summed it up best and most brutally when he wrote, “Who does not feel the convulsions, the nervous trembling of Dostoevsky’s style? ... But with Constance Garnett it becomes a safe bland script: not a volcano, but a smooth lawn mowed in the English manner—which is to say a complete distortion of the original.” Garnett once wrote, “Dostoievsky is so obscure and so careless a writer that one can scarcely help clarifying him.”
>clarifying for Dostoevsky
Are you from Reddit? Trashing the western canon for the expense of Richard Dawkins is the most Reddit comment on this board atm.
It should really be noted that P&V aren't consistently horrible.
I haven't read their translations of Dostoevsky, but I've only heard bad things about them. However, I do have their translations of several of Gogol's works, and they're brilliant.
Your points of contention definitely do not apply to their Gogol translations.
Don't h8 m8, appreci8. Ain't nothing wrong with some middle school reading now and then :>
I sense a lot of anger within you anon.
I've had plenty of nice conversations with people about my books.
I didn't really know of the nuances in translation and differences when I first read Dostoevsky. My first dostoevsky was PV Crime and Punishment, and I later went and read the Garnett version. I honestly preferred the PV version.
Collected works of Jin Yong/Louis Cha
>Have you read all those translations
Yep. I made the Dante chart that you may or may not have seen floating around, if it wasn't obvious.
Underappreciated and underread. Fantastic imagery and scope. Very important to read as part of the canon considering its influence on guys like Milton and Spenser among others.
>If the book is about an 1.5" thick, it's going to be impossible to read it without bending the spine.
That's just not true. For poorly bound stuff like a 1k page Penguin or something I'll grant you that, but hardcovers and sturdier paperbacks can definitely be read without noticeable creases and cracks on the spine.
I had it off the shelf and I took the pictures at separate times.
>They don't look that Reddit
>Ready Player One
Go back to high school.
I can't speak for her Gogol or Tolstoy, I haven't read her versions of those. There are just as many critics that will tell you her Dostoevsky is good, though. Opinions vary so much from scholar to scholar.
I haven't read any P&V Gogol, but have a few friends who have read their Dead Souls. Heard bad things. The Guerney/Fusso version I read, I loved. I've compared some passages using a friends copy, and P&V was so stale.
Haven't read Garnett's C&P, I read the Coulson translation, which was great. Garnett does get a lot of flak and some of it is certainly justified. In fact, all the Garnett work I've read has been revised by one scholar or another decades later, using her original as a base, but improved upon. The Matlaw versions of BK and Notes were really good.
Ready Player One was a gift from a friend. I read it on a plane ride over the course of a couple of hours. It was enjoyable for what it was and I don't regret reading it. It's not high literature but I'm not going to sperg out about it.
I'll probably go watch the movie with said friend when it comes out too :)
>being a hipster with garnett
I literally just said I've only read her works as revised by others as well as said there is justified criticism of her. I've intentionally skipped translations shes done in favor of others depending on the work. You're being a retard.
Just a couple of examples, do your own research.
One thing I remember about P&V that I actually appreciate was them keeping the original French in their version of War and Peace. Their philosophy of trying to keep as close to the Russian as possible, I agree with. The biggest problem I have is that their prose seems like it loses the subtleties from the original, like they didn't understand the context of what they were reading.
I'm genuinely confused why people dislike fine press editions of books. At a certain number of books, your shelves become the focal point of any room they're in. Why keep a room looking like public library when fine press editions are available on the cheap? Also, I get much more enjoyment reading a fine press book with thick, archival quality paper and a sewn spine. Call me a book binding douche, I don't care.
Undamaged spines don't mean unread. Invest in a book cradle.
My shelf is this neat little pile- don't read too too much just whatever interests me
As a Swede there's should be no reason to not have read it, since it's in the intended language. Just make sure to read it with a study companion or take notes if the political message interests you.
My condolences about it being out of print.
Bottom shelf reserved for memes and library-sale purchases
It's a huge waste of money, that's for sure. Maybe you're rich and people come over to your house all the time and you think they might wanna pilfer through your massive library, but somehow I don't think that's the case.
>being a cuck to earthly possessions
Listen here, kiddo(s)
All the fuckin' books you need are available at the various libraries over the country. I bet none of you have even read a tenth of what you display on your shelves.
You make me sick.
>those fat, pale fingers
>that fake, haughty attitude
You share this objectively incorrect preference with my father (who has a wall full of non-fiction); he also maintains the spines flush to the front plane of the shelf.
This is clearly an incorrect practice, however, and I have explained why before, with reference to same. My shelf is logical. When books are pushed to the back, this creates the possibility for front-shelf space to set bits and bobs when the need arises - loose change, empty bottles, a piece of fruit. Also, this arrangement is more congruent with a library of material that is actually read and replaced, instead of an impenetrable "display wall".
Furthermore, the slighest disturbance can shatter this front-plane facade-just push a book in a little bit! The alternative, meanwhile (which is how material is actually organized in most book stores and libraries), is harder to disrupt. Once you push it in all the way (so to speak), there's only so far it can go if your setup has a back, or a wall (it should).
It's really easy to re-align your books to the front. I don't even think about doing it anymore, just something that happens when I'm replacing/taking something out.
You should have a hall/entryway shelf for loose change/misc. garbage, imo. That doesn't go on your bookshelf. Actual knick-knacks, sure, they can accent bookshelves nicely. But not pieces of food.
that sure was a lot of cropping for the sake of a potato-quality image of textbooks and illegible >genre fiction, I hope it brings someone mirth
I love eroticism, death, and religion. One book, well, play that perfectly marries the three is Peter Shaffer’s Equus. It’s written from the perspective of a psychoanalyst, who is dealing with a young kid that stabbed out the eyes of six horses. And it turns out that his state and way of thinking was molded by having a religious mother and an atheist father. The kid turned his religious way of thinking to horses, and the psychoanalyst slowly starts doubting whether the kid is actually right and the school of psychology is wrong.
Yes. I'd say Story of the Eye by Georges Bataille is an influence. The book appealed to me in a way that nothing I ever read before had, and it really sparked my interest for both reading and writing. Bataille's writing is so vivid, and no matter how bizarre the scenarios in the novel might be, it's still soaked in this vision of beauty and ecstasy. Ever since I read that, it seems like all the right books end up in my hands: Equus, Heart of Darkness, The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With the Sea, Thief's Journal, and Torture Garden have been very inspiring reads this year.