What is the best edition of Ulysses out there now? I was th

>>8245523
Pretty sure the words in 'em are the same.

>>8245523
I am currently reading the 1922 text. It's my first time reading Ulysses though so I have nothing to compare it to. I've enjoyed it so far though, if that helps a little bit. There are plenty of footnotes.

>>8245523

Gabler or bust.

>>8245529
Shows what you know.

>>8246495
Gargler is for memelords.

>>8245529
lol

>>8246623
you're retarded

it's no secret that the original 1922 edition contained a plethora of errors, which joyce then worked with random house to emend for the 1934 us edition, that was later reprinted in 1961 by the modern library and forms the "standard" text

the highly unusual styling of ulysses meant there was copious room for error, esp from the copywriters/typesetters, and it showed aubndantly in 1922. though thousands of errors were corrected by joyce himself in 1934, there were still many more he worked on, and often incldued as errata for later editions before being incorporated into the text. it's not unreasonable at all to think there were still more to come.

general academic consensus today states gabler likely overstepped a bit in his corrections, but it is not at all unreasonable for him to have done what he did. the controversy around the edition is, anyway, largely academic and completely irrelevant to the lay reader, and certainly not to pseuds on /lit/

kindly never post about this topic again.

>>8245523
>reading a translation
TOP

KEK

i'd seriously recommend the Vintage International edition, 1990 print. uses the "standard" text and the book itself feels so nice on the hands, like butter, you'll see if you get one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-International-Ulysses-by-James-Joyce-1990-Paperback-/222161783374?hash=item33b9dfca4e:g:RYEAAOSwEOxXQf1-

>>8247488
uugh cover is so ugly though

>>8247500
much better than either of OP's imo. Gabler is maybe my favorite cover, but also still shitty.

>>8247504
the oxford world classics one is alright, pretty average but not ugly. the one with the enda duffy introduction is the best cover by far but has the 1922 text im pretty sure

>>8247504
>>8247517
wait lol I think the oxford one has the 1922 text as well, fuck sake

File: Ulysses.jpg (33KB, 400x430px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x430px

Anyone got any feedback on this one? I don't hear much talk about it but it looks promising.

>>8247520
ooohhh i saw this at a bookstore once, looks nice, t b h I don't like annotations but if you don't mind them go for it I guess

File: 1462232607898.png (110KB, 650x151px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 650x151px

not what you're asking, but check out this sweet edition of fw the folio society has right now http://www.foliosociety.com/book/FNG/finnegans-wake-joyce

>>8247540
this is amazing, i cant believe i've never heard of this site before

>>8247590
they're gorgeous right? i have a few, secondhand lol

>>8245523
1 9 6 1
9
6
1

File: 6874781301_96db7e98fa_o.jpg (69KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 480x640px

>>8247519
It does, I'm reading the Oxford edition and while there are errors they are pointed out in the endnotes and if you are anything like me the endnotes are extremely helpful as they give you all sorts of historically relevant information as well as all sorts of translations (gaelic, Latin, etc.), As well as all literary references. I am happy with the Oxford edition but I can understand the appeal of a corrected edition.

>>8247520
Someone on /lit/ recommended this. I told the advice and found it pretty good. Kinda heavy on hands though.

>>8246853
>look mom, I posted it again!
Fuck off, shillfag.

>>8247927
What's good about it? Sorry, but considering buying it new and it's a bit expensive if it turns out to be shit. Could you give a small overview of what's good about it?

>>8247724
hahaha ha heh lol!

>>8247928
It's a pasta and it's also completely correct.

Or are you implying Hans Gabler is lurking /lit/ shilling his book whenever the chance comes up?

>>8247724
>>8247540

terrible choice. it does not maintain original pagination (which is very important for FW) and I'm willing to bet they did not use the text that embodies Joyce's corrections, which are arguably more crucial for FW than for Ulysses.

>>8245523
Get a reprint of the 1927 issue.

I've got the random house 1946 edition. It's got a few punctuation errors but nothing that detracts from the book.

I'm pining after the 1934 edition.

f a m, what's the best annotated 1960/61 edition?
thanks

File: 71JH4hxUG2L.jpg (217KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x1200px

anyone got this edition of portrait yet? looks quite nice, even has an introduction from karl ove

my edition is a completely shit, cheap collins classic which started coming apart after reading it once, so I might be looking to upgrade

>>8248294
That has to be the most tumblry cover I have ever fucking seen, why do books need to have such flashy covers?

>>8248984
increases sales, obviously
I also think it's not that bad, quite pretty
the comparison with wanderer above the sea of fog is somewhat justified and I suppose the colorfulness matches joyce's descriptions somewhat

I think it's alright, would probably buy if I saw it, mostly because, again, my edition is so shit

just checked and the oxford classics is probably the best version, don't like penguin modern classics versions of Joyce

>>8248294

>so I might be looking to upgrade

If that's your idea of upgrading you should upgrade your ass back to tumblr, faggot.

>>8249016
honestly you're the one that should be called names here

>>8246495
This. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have. Though wasn't some professor working on a "definitive" version, however impossible that might be?

>>8249040
Kidd. For some reason it hasn't come out
also, 1960/61 is the best version we have. it's not just being printed for copyright reasons

>>8249008
I just think it looks like the cover of a children's book, bright colors, cartoon style, and soft casual looking font

>>8249090
that's not necessarily a bad thing

>>8245523
Man, just buy a book you will read instead.
Don't fall for the meme

>>8245529
It's funny cause they're actually not.

>>8249129
This. I read Ulysses from a Wordsworth and then only because I didn't have access to a library. It was 100% fine. Typographical and other errors will make zero difference to a first-time lay reader struggling to follow the events of novel, let alone find artistic meaning in spelling choices.

If you end up really fucking loving Ulysses, then you'll do some actual research and buy an edition based on that.

>>8249050
I got an old hardcover of the 1960 Bodley Head version. It's really fucking cool.