Sterne

>>9213008
haven't read it yet, what's the best edition?

>>9213026
>what's the best edition?
Not OP, but I don't know.

I am unfamiliar with this work.

>>9213061
cool thanks. me neither.

>>9213061
well why the hell do you respond then?

Oxford World Classics version is probably good.

>>9213008
But what abou--

He's right.

>>9213061
same. i hope somebody could recommend one

>>9213026
I would recommend the translation by Sterne.

>>9213088
not that anon, but I don't know

Too bad Sterne died before he could write more. He was one of the greatest English novelists.

>>9213026
as long as it's well annotated you're fine. most copies will be, but i'd suggest norton critical (always)

>>9213008
maybe it is. i can't get past the digressions.

Maaaaan fuck Tristram Shandy.

File: guillemot 2.jpg (207KB, 1067x1600px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1067x1600px

>>9216210
>>9216268

confirmed stupid bitches

>>9216390
well that may be, how would i be able to penetrate the difficulties i find in reading tristram shandy? it's as if the digressions aggravate my already tenuous grasp on the arrow of time, it is difficult for me to change gears with such suddenness, or gather the rich allusions made in the work from what i have seen. what do you, genuinely, suggest i should do? is there an acceptable guide or some sort of skeleton key to appreciating this work more than i have been able? do help me, i earnestly prithee.

no help? ah ok.

Sterne incorporated into Tristram Shandy many passages taken almost word for word from Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy, Francis Bacon's Of Death, Rabelais and many more, and rearranged them to serve the new meaning intended in Tristram Shandy.[4] Tristram Shandy was highly praised for its originality, and nobody noticed until years after Sterne's death. The first to note them was physician and poet John Ferriar, who did not see them negatively and commented:[4][5]

i aint gonna read a plagiarist of rabelais and burton when i could just read them. rabelais is great.

>>9216477
>using wikipedia

>>9216477
>i aint gonna read a plagiarist of rabelais and burton when i could just read them. rabelais is great.

Not disagreeing with you on that, everyone should read Burton, Rabelais and Bacon; but maybe you could try reading some Pierre Menard to appreciate appropriation as a form of interpretation.

>>9213061
>/lit/ in a nutshell