Does anyone have this edition of V. (Vintage Classics)? I want

File: pynchonvus.jpg (24KB, 332x499px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 332x499px

>>8247706
this is the Perennial Classics edition that apparently has the uncorrected version of the novel

>>8247706
The perennial one is better in terms of everything but the text not being the revised edition, those "where's Waldo" cover vintage editions have notoriously shoddy print quality.

But no one's actually done a comparison of the uncorrected text to the "authorized" version, so it's hard to say if the final version is significantly different from the one that got published in 'Murrica or not.

>>8247722
I've read a few diferences in an article and it seems like it's just minor details, but I'd still prefer very much having the corrected version. It just feels like the right thing to do. Damn, now I'm stuck

I have that. It's pretty messy quality.

>>8247708
lame

I have this edition and I think it's great feeling and looking. What's 'uncorrected' about it? Why does Pynchon keep letting this happen?

File: 1434738315706.jpg (58KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x600px

>>8248021

>>8248026
I want an annotated GR and M&D with footnotes, nice font and solid binding.

FOOTNOTES, NOT THOSE FAGGOT ENDNOTES PIECES OF SHIT!

>>8247706
I have the vintage one and I heavily suggest you buy another edition. The cover is shit and on top of that its full of errors and misprints.

>>8248413
Damn. So it's not that easy to get a hold of the 'corrected' final version of the novel in a decent edition. Wow, I never would have thought it

>>8248021
https://www.pynchon.net/articles/10.7766/orbit.v1.1.33/

Nothing to worry about, just a few details. But still... I'm struggling because it doesn't feel right buying that one

>>8248413
pretty sure the vintage text is fine, just the cover art is shit, the print can be smudged and imo the feel of the book is bad
rest is alright
someone post the image