Can we settle this once and for all? Penguin vs. Oxford

>>8636089
oxford is gay

File: Dracula-(Wordsworth-Classics).jpg (30KB, 313x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 313x500px

Not Wordsworth?

>>8636089
They have the same or close to the same quality. Oxford usually has better content (essays and notes), but Penguin has the bigger catalog.
There's not much else to say really.

>>8636089
I use both, and make my choices book by book judging by the intro, translation, etc. Why are you guys so obsessed with swearing off certain publishers?

Oxford I think generally has better notes, introduction and translation.

Nortons are better than either for extra material, but I stick to their English works because I don't like their choice of translations much.

The binding on both is terrible but Penguin is noticeably worse. I only get Oxford nowadays.

File: 1280473806589.jpg (59KB, 377x561px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 377x561px

Reclam

penguins paper quality is complete trash. I usually always stay away from them.

>>8636089
what pointless banal /lit/ fag conversation. come to /sci/ and talk about things that really matter.

File: 1437570937002.png (23KB, 377x561px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 377x561px

>>8636200
This

>>8636249
They have their own version of shit posting. An example is a thread on natural selection and why there are small penises

>>8636249
>meme drive
>Flat Earth/TEC trolls
>Could you guys do my homework for me?
>gorilla.jpg
Thanks but i'm trying to quit

>>8636089
hackett for philosophy

File: of_sorts.gif (219KB, 899x455px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 899x455px

>>8636249
Things that really matter, like cohesive refinements of homotopy type theory for prequantum geometry

File: 516TxnO2w0L._SX314_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (50KB, 316x499px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 316x499px

>>8636284

Pointless question.

The translations and any extra supplementary material changes quality in each individual book.

They're both decent, but again, the quality can vary wildly, so you can't judge them against each other on such a massive basis.

Now, if you mean in terms of book production like binding, then i don't really like either and both are fairly poor, but what else do you expect from cheap paperbacks?

Oxford always has the full package: annotation, intro, chronology, bibliography, further reading, etc

But lately I've compared some editions with penguin equivalents and found that oxford typeset just hurt my eyes too much. On old classics, the pages look as if they are meant for mass market edition printing: line spacing too tight, font too small and light, etc.

Pic related is Oxford I'm reading. How the hell can you be so lazy with the typeset? Shit is impossible to read.

File: IMG_1949.jpg (466KB, 775x1037px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 775x1037px

>>8636345
this one

>>8636353
Just so you know, the Norton Critical Edition of C&P is the same translation, so you can swap if you want.

Anyone else's Oxfords get dirty? I swear I'm not a dirtbag, but every Oxford I have it didn't take long for the white back cover to get all scuffed up.

Oxford a shit. Their books fall apart

>>8636345
What's wrong with the typeset anon?

>>8636089
It depends on the book.

>>8636153
this is completely false... I have many of both.. The oxfords are warped after a few readings and the Penguins remain in good condition.
but
>>8636146
is right about the introductions and notes

>>8636452
Unsurprisingly this. Recently bought the Penguin of Hobbes's Leviathan and it's in the original English with the original descriptions in the margin. It doesn't come with annotations or notes but I plan on getting a companion anyway. Also the introduction is impressive from what I've heard.

>>8636089
How do you guys decide which version of book to buy in general? I usually just pick the one whose cover I like best (I'm new to reading), but I recently read Conrad's Heart of Darkness Oxford edition and Joyce's A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man Penguin Modern Classics edition, and I find the notes extremely helpful.

oxford uses single quotes, which are garbage

both use shitty paper

Oxford

Black on a book ruins it

File: image.png (708KB, 1024x435px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1024x435px

>the pages are printed at a slight angle

>>8636146
from my experience the essays in norton critical editions are usually a bunch of crit theory gender & class nonsense

>>8636117
>no mustaches
dropped

File: collins classics.png (375KB, 627x499px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 627x499px

Collins Classics are the absolute worst. These covers should be illegal

>>8636751
What color do you like you text to be, then?

>>8636751
we're reaching dangerous levels of autism

>>8636748
For translations I search about the different versions and buy the one I like more based on the opinions around. For the rest, I buy whatever is durable.

>>8636790
CIA?

File: 1415862875946.jpg (979KB, 1704x2272px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 1704x2272px

>>8636754
From my experience, they're not.

What gives?

>>8636808
From A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man:

"Gender and Narrative Voice in *Jacob's Room* and *A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man*" by Karen Lawrence
"The Artist and Gendered Discourse" by Bonnie Kime Scott
"Homosexual Panic and the Will to Artistry in *A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man*" by Joseph Valente

granted there's also an umberto eco essay in there, so i'm probably being overly picky

>>8636808
same guy as >>8636823

i've had better luck with broadview literary texts, which have a lot of great primary sources like letters and newspaper reviews, and less of the fluff commentary

>>8636808
>donate your body to science
>it gets preserved as an example of how you were a gigantic fat-ass

>>8636838
lmao

File: IMG_20161019_152601378.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

>>8636823
From Goethe's Faust NCE. In A Portrait...'s edition, which I also have, are other 9 essays about different topics, and all of them seem, at least, thought-provoking. You are just being picky.

I don't see why people here are so put off by "gender and class" criticism. I don't particularly like it either, but I don't dislike it, and I think it gives a broader perspective on a work than some people would like to think. It's not like they are making you think only in that way. The essays in each volume are more a suggestion and an example of recent or important literary criticism on the work. And if a "gender and class" analysis can shed more light on how a novel, short story or poem can be analysed fruitfully, then I welcome and encourage it.

File: IMG_20161019_153744290.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>8636832
NCE also has a lot of that.

From the second edition of Moby Dick.

Again, what gives?

File: IMG_20161019_153912.jpg (775KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

775KB, 3264x1836px

>>8636861
Fuck, sorry for its being upside down.

>>8636868
alright you're right, that is a solid collection of material

File: 1476851454941.jpg (40KB, 486x346px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 486x346px

>>8636877
And there's more than that.

What I'm trying to say is, although NCE are not perfect (I prefer Longman Annotated Poets on some works), they are still some of the most solid critical editions you can find, and disagreeing with some of the material in the edition does not demerit its overall worth.

File: lit compass.png (149KB, 1200x593px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1200x593px

>>8636861
While it is true that the other anon is picky because the essays in Norton editions vary widely from book to book and from one time of publishing to another, I do not see how you can pretend to enjoy literary essays and still not dislike gender and class criticism. In my experience, such essays are just interpretations of the given work where every bit of analysis and appreciation of the craft is completely left out of the picture in favour of some philistine interpretation of vaguely defined themes. It's all politics whether they acknowledge it or not and there's rarely much 'literary' about such essays, so really I dislike them because I think they're a waste of space that slight the artist's work as art. I read plenty of gender/class theory, I just don't want it in my literary analysis.
Pic sort of related, a recent edition of an allegedly literary periodical that I follow which I found sort of symptomatic.

>>8636914
>In my experience

Stop reading shitty essays, then. No need to sound pedantic either.

I could say that, in my experience, I have read very good essays on, say, The Merchant of Venice from a gender/class perspective that have made me think about the work from another perspective, and they do so by analyzing the craft.and artistry of the work.

It's just one way of looking at a work of art, another interpretation, another method.

>>8636992
>Stop reading shitty essays, then
What are you even going on about now? I was sharing my opinion of and experience with gender/class essays and the reason I would not want to ever find them in a book I'd paid money for.
Go shift the focus again and hedge your post with more relativism, but all the relativism in the world wouldn't make you not a faggot.

>>8637049
If your complaint is about gender/class criticism in the essays you have read not being good, then perhaps you should consider not reading bad (shitty) essays on that subject, wouldn't you agree?

I just enjoy reading thought-provoking essays, regardless of their approach. Of course, that means that I don't enjoy reading terrible essays that do not contribute anything to the discussion. It doesn't matter if they are about craftsmanship or power relations, if the writer doesn't know how to handle the method they are using or the subject, it's going to be shitty and uninteresting.

Then again, not even pure objectivity could save you from being a pedantic faggot.

>>8636089
Oxford almost always.

>>8636089
Porrúa.

>>8636089
Oxford

Oxford. Better notes and the intros aren't worthless.

>>8638262
Esto.
>Los Anglofags nunca leerán a Tolstoi en doble columna

File: 1466465676133.jpg (4KB, 212x218px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 212x218px

>>8636752
>one line is smaller than all the rest