are books good?

Nope.

Its literally not possible to meme any more than this.

>>8347587
I can beat that meme stack

>>8347587
I have a whole meme shelf, think again

>>8347520
those P&V translations aren't

>>8347598
All books are memes

/thread

>>8347520
Yeah man. Books are good.

>>8347598
Here's the thing, if you've read every /lit/ meme you are actually probably pretty well read and have other books as well. Therefore, you aren't memed at all. Being truly memed required you to be like OP: having just a handful of books and all of them memes that are probably above his reading level.

>>8347869
I agree

>>8347869
learn to read idiot. I said I have a shelf I didn't say I read any of them.

>>8347617
i-i thought they were supposed to be the best

File: 20160725_184438.jpg (1018KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 3264x1836px

>he didn't get the og Gabler cover of Ulysses

>>8347587
But where the tunnel?

>>8348452
>reading the gabler edition
>ever
u dum

>>8348571
that's the best version retard

File: 1469525828424.png (220KB, 347x440px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 347x440px

>>8348625
>numerous corrections that are wrong
>new mistakes and type issues added
>panned by entire academic community
>best version

>>8347520
One of those books is horrible. The rest are bretty gud.

File: dfw o baby.png (128KB, 274x297px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 274x297px

>>8347520
>mfw someone actually saved my photo

File: 1470008578067.jpg (39KB, 640x363px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x363px

>>8348675

The truth is exactly the opposite of everything you just said.

>Most thoroughly error-free version of the text.

>Used by pretty much every major reference and guide to Ulysses. Line numbers, etc.

>Celebrated and adored by the academic community and the suggested, standard edition used by universities.

why are errors in ulysses still a thing? a hundred fucking years later and they still cant get it right? why do you call joyce such a great writer if he published a book with so many fucking errors?

>>8348798
Why are errors in different editions of the same book a thing? Is it that hard to just copy the first edition word for word?

>>8348798

It's an inevitable part of writing a 600 page book and when you compound with that Ulysess' strange publishing history and the complexity of the book, it makes sense. Do you think the edition of Shakespeare on your shelf is a one-for-one facsimile of the original quarto?

Don't be so shallow and pedantic, not to mention completely ignorant of the writing and publishing process.

>>8348827

The first edition of Ulysses was rushed to the press and is full of typographical errors and discrepancies with what Joyce intended. Joyce wrote detailed letters and left behind pages of corrections reflecting this. Replicating the original edition would be a mistake since the original edition is one of the most flawed.

>>8348860
So why not just account for Joyce's edits and make that the definitive version?

>>8348868

That's what the Gabler edition is.

>thread going in circles

>>8348708
retake it, let's see if you've actually read any of them

>>8348876
this is why gabler is the shit.

>>8348835
>shallow and pedantic
stopped reading right there

>>8348884
i haven't

File: image.jpg (50KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 720x480px

>>8348835
I agree, shallow and pedantic.

>>8348835
>shallow and pedantic

>>8348452
hideous cover

>>8348757
even wikipedia says you're a fucking idiot

>>8348827
fyi, this is a thing already. when you see 'the 1922 text' like with the oxford world classics edition, it's an exact replica of the 'original'