>finish ulysses >nothing else interests me anymore >order

File: 51U6dDk6-HL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (19KB, 227x346px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 227x346px

Oxford worlds classics. It looks the best as well.

>>8632914
Thanks. I didn't want to get it because, ironically, their edition of Ulysses is a reproduction of the incorrect first edition. What a confusing situation. I also don't like how bloated the Oxford versions are and how flimsy the binding is.

File: 0lBXFeW.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>See classic
>Good price
>Seems like a good edition, pretty cover and whatnot
>About to pick it up
>See ''the text has been revised for modern readers''
>Mfw

>>8632914
That's such a fantastic cover

>>8632914
I have this version. Holy crap, with the errors fixed, it's just a normal story in plain English. Incredible.

File: IMG_1966.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>8633274

>>8633248
What book ?

>>8633328

Not any book in particular, it's happened a few times.

Viking Compass 1959 edition embodying all the author's corrections is literally the only way to go, OP

>>8633384
From what I've read, the Oxford University Press edition is the same as that one except that it's still being printed.

>>8632914
That cover is awful. Clown vomit.

File: IMG_9891.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Anything wrong with this one? Dirt cheap so I ain't complaining

>>8633286
Where did you get that picture of my wife's son?

>>8632825

please post ur interpretation/feels when done.

>>8634793
It has the same problem as the one in the OP. It's the first edition, so typographical errors on pretty much every page.

>>8632825

>get the first historical version of the book, as made clear by the opening note

>wah

I vaguely get that the complaint is supposed to be that this version is not the "best/real" version, but on some level this complaint just doesn't register with me. The thing has been presented in its earliest honest complete form, at some point you might as well complain about it to the ghost of Joyce himself.

I also defy you, OP, to tell me that you have /actually read/ any two distinct versions of Finnegans Wake, compared them closely, and come away with a substantive personal understanding of why the one is better than the other, rather than getting a second-hand idea. Short of this you are a disingenuous poseur. Charade you are!

>>8634949
Why do you insist on posting this without reading the thread or having any background on Joyce's works ? Nowhere did the Penguin edition advertise that it was the first edition. I had no way of knowing that until I got my copy in the mail and looked at the title page. Furthermore, I suggest you take a look at this page of corrections THAT WERE WRITTEN BY JOYCE HIMSELF regarding the first edition : http://www.rosenlake.net/fw/Corrections-Misprints-Finnegans-Wake-1945.pdf

Yes, those corrections take up 16 pages and list errors on nearly every page. You are trying to tell me that Joyce was wrong about his own book and that the people at Faber & Faber who misprinted his manuscript knew it better than the man who actually wrote it.

>>8634949
Are you legitimately retarded?

>>8633274
lold