What does /lit/ think about Barnes&Noble Classics? See pic related.
>Not those retarded try-hard plastic/leather bound editions but those in pic related.
I avoid buying them because they say Barnes and Noble on the spine. Call me petty but that to me is like having Walmart or a Target logo on the spine.
I love them because they're economical. They're not the most sturdy, but they get the job done. The designs are a bit hideous, though, but you get what you pay for; these aren't for display.
>>9732167
They sell them for $5 at my local branch. That's hard to beat for books that usually run in the $10-$12 range.
>>9732147
I appreciate the extra effort the publishers put in by including annotations and footnotes to the text.
>>9732211
My public library has a bin of these for a buck each.
They're good for getting canonical works out of the way, so that I could have money to save for the more esoteric literature that only some publishers sell.
>>9732165
Are you one of those pseuds that matches the color of the book's cover that he carries in his hand to his French-knotted, cashmere scarf?
>>9732147
I've heard bad things about them on /lit/ but I've personally had nothing but good experiences with them. I own a decent amount and they're all in great shape. Sometimes you'll get a random blotchy spot on page. Either than that, they're great. Especially considering what you pay for.
>>9732281
>French-knotting cashmere scarves
ishygddt
color coordination doesn't even enter the equation, you were already dead in the water
>>9732167
I wouldn't say they're hideous in most cases, but that's obviously an issue in personal taste.
In any event you're totally right about the cost-benefit analysis. They get you the information you need. Additionally they usually have a halfway decent introduction, not to mention footnotes that can be helpful for context. Pretty solid way to read a classic.
>>9732147
They're pretty solidly made for the money. More durable than anything from Penguin. As long as it's in English it's fine. Translated works are iffy.
>>9732147
>Not those retarded try-hard plastic/leather bound editions but those in pic related.
There are those in-between. Hardcovers not in the Leatherbound type that run about $8. I prefer those.
>>9732147
Leatherbound cucks