/lit/ - Literature

For comparison's sake, here are the Subterranean Press editions. They're also beautiful and portray the high fantasy aspect of the books with their cover art whereas I feel the FS editions capture the elegance of the work.

>>13448897
Youre much better of than with sub press and their kitchy drawings.
I see theyre using the same binding material as the Lovecraft stories, its cool. Have fun OP

>>13448897

Found my first Folio yesterday, really love it. It was The Diary of Thomas Turner, never read it before but it sounds cozy.

And the spine binding of SP's AGoT and ACoK.

>>13448897
Folio is very hit and miss. My NOVA VITA is one of the most beautiful books I own, but then they’ll put out something like this that looks so cheap and childish. Naturally it seems to happen mostly with the genretard shit, and just as naturally a wild genretard appears to express his satisfaction, so I guess they know the market. As long as it doesn’t become the norm.

>>13448924
Thanks, anon. I'd love to own all of them. There's a third limited run that I'm forgetting the name of, but some claim it's the best of the bunch.

Speaking of Lovecraft, I look forward to reading him. I'm currently reading Stoker's Dracula, which is great fun, so cosmic horror seems like the natural next stop. How do you like Lovecraft? Should I read his entire catalogue? I own the full collection.

Also, I love the Folio LE for Lovecraft. One of the most aesthetic books I've ever seen and it seems to capture the Lovecraftian ethos perfectly.

>>13448926
That's awesome, man. Folio is an excellent publisher; many consider them to be the gold standard for fine press. I haven't read Thomas Turner, either, but it does sound comfy. Enjoy the read, my friend.

>>13448897
This looks like it’s meant to come with a toy sword and guide for capturing real life dragons.

>>13448961

I was pretty surprised to find it for £2. I've been buying books in used bookshops for as long as I can remember but I've never found a Folio in the wild like this. So I'm very happy with it. Even came with the slip case which I did not expect.

>>13448950
No need to be be abrasive. I love ASOIAF, but the last two books I read are The Sound and the Fury and The Master and Margarita. There's nothing wrong with quality genre fiction, though, and it isn't a poor reflection of a person if they like it.

>>13448964
Really? I feel the fantasy aspect is quite understated compared to the SP editions.

>>13448982
Excellent find, mate. I love frequenting used bookshops; you never know what you might come across. I was able to get 4 books of Folio's Joseph Conrad collection for about $30. I look forward to diving into them.

>>13448897
This looks like some collectors edition video game pitch

Nice snag OP. I'd love to have it one day

Why would you spend that kind of money on lowbrow derivative pop lit

>>13449013
I'd say it's one of Folio's more lustrous publications. They have more elegant, understated designs as well, such as their 1971 edition of War and Peace with the P&V translation. The blue leather is sumptuous.

>>13449020
Probably because I don't feel the same way about it as you.

>>13449015
Thanks, anon. I hope it comes into your possession one day as well. :)

>>13448961
Listen kid, dont splurge out on folio. Fine press magic wears off and, whilw some folios are nice looking, they often FUCK UP hard in the edition field. Bad or translation antique translations, short story collections not including famous or classical stories and not including essential footnotes plus the growing, ridiculous prices and the ( like >>13448950 says ) hit or missness of their quality and the copy/paste sameness of so many books make them a much worse choice than penguin classics trade paperbacks, who are the KINGS of classic literature output. All in all, you're after the texts. A nice edition looks nice and will feel more legit than, say, print by demand books, but it doesnt enhance the reading you shouldnt spend all your literature money on just nice bindings. Norton Critical Editions are where its at for the best editions of the texts, next comes Penguin Classics and Oxdord. All three are aesthetically pleasing, more so than a shelf full of folios.

>>13448897

>>13449053
I buy Folio sparingly. I like fine press in general, though, and it's my luxury spending of choice. I have the money, so why not? I have plenty of Penguins, Nortons, and Oxfords, but I enjoy the beautiful curation of select fine press.

Also, here's a pic of Folio's 2014 War and Peace, in contrast to the 1971 version. More bombastic, perhaps more of an eye-catcher, but I believe it loses the classical elegance of the initial printing.

#EastonPressGang
Just sayin

>>13449064
You don't like genre fiction or one of fantasy, Martin or ASOIAF in particular? Or is it an issue with the publisher or with the purpose of the thread (it's not exactly critical discussion, I know)?

It looks a bit tacky compared to a lot of Folio's stuff to be honest, and it's expensive even by Folio standards.

I've got a few of their books and they're generally pretty understated. I like them because they're not super gaudy, the binding is really good quality, and you can pick them up really cheap second hand. Got most of these for about the same price you'd pay for a new copy of the paperback.

>>13449083
>>13449083
They have some beautiful DLEs. I also recently acquired their edition of Moby Dick (pic related) for $15, factory-sealed. Great bargain.

Do you have a favorite publication by them?

>>13449067
Its uses the shit P&V translation. The limited edirion from 2006 is the best, gorgeous ans uses Rosemary's GOAT text

>>13449098
>Do you have a favorite publication by them?
Not really, but that’s why I like them so much, their reliable quality and aesthetic uniformity. Whereas Folio is more whimsical and unpredictable.

>>13449095
Beautiful collection, anon. I was considering picking up Kim during their summer sale, but I figured I'd wait. How is the Claudius series? It's pretty high on my to-read list.

Yeah, the AGoT publication is definitely "louder" than most of their stuff, especially given they rarely do full-cover illustrations. However, I think it captures the spirit of the series. Of course, I can understand and appreciate preferring more minimalist designs; I very often do myself.

>>13449114
Yeah, I've heard that criticism before regarding the P&V translation: some consider it stiltedly literal. Apparently Rosemary's translation does a better job at capturing the spirit of the text while allowing for a much smoother read. The only edition I've read is the Maude translation, which was quality in the eyes of a reader who doesn't speak Russian.

>>13449127
True, EPs are generally easier to recognize in terms of aesthetic and binding. I suppose you also like Franklin Library for similar reasons, then? They might be the MOST consistent in that regard.

>>13449138
What a delicious fucking stack

>>13449114
>>13449136
dont listen to the rosemary cuck hes a pseud. p&v is the most faithful translation. tolstoy has an awkward, repetitive writing style in russian and they 100% made that clear in the english translation. if you want to read tolstoy, go with p&v. if u want the smoothest but least faithful reading go with maude. if u want an in between go with edmonds. but p&v imitate tolstoy to the closest degree by far.

>>13449136
>Beautiful collection, anon. I was considering picking up Kim during their summer sale, but I figured I'd wait. How is the Claudius series? It's pretty high on my to-read list.

Kim's one of my favourite releases from them actually, well worth grabbing. I want to get all their Kipling eventually, and need to replace Twenty One Tales which has some pretty bad water damage in places (got it for free in the end, seller refunded and said to just keep it).

I really like the Claudius books, but they're not high art or anything. As far as popular historical fiction goes they're at the top end, there's more to them than there is to your average Bernard Cornwell book say, but not by a huge margin.

>>13449184
I'm sure. The artwork for Kim is delightful. Perhaps you'll appreciate the Kipling Folios I have. I got them for $10 off ebay in "fine" condition (the slipcase has minor scuffing, but the books are pristine) from a public library in California.

Have you read The Egyptian by Mika Waltari, by any chance? As far as historical fiction goes, I hear that's the cream of the crop. It's not very well-known as it was originally written in Finnish and never became a hit in English-speaking countries, but by all accounts from other anons on /lit/, it's a great read. I've been trying to find a "new" or "fine" copy of it for ages, but to no avail.

>>13448924
Do you own the folio edition of Lovecraft? Thoughts on it? I've been debating on getting it to add to the archives but it'd largely be a decorative item in my home given the sheer number of Lovecraft reprints I own.

>>13448961
>seems to capture the Lovecraftian ethos perfectly
Read more before you splurge on expensive novelties. It's clear you are still developing your senses, spend your money and energy growing your mental library so you know what's worth the investment.

If you enjoy horror, then Lovecraft is worth reading in his entirety. His fiction carries great range in the genre and they are very easy reads. One of my all-time favorite short stories is actually one of his less popular ones! You never know what gems you'll discover until you try it yourself.

>>13449098
I love this version of Moby Dick, I finally retired my other copies after snatching this one locally.

>>13449258
Thanks for the advice, anon. I was sorely tempted to buy the LE Call of C'thulhu, but it would've been foolish as I've yet to even read Lovecraft. That said, I really do think the design is gorgeous.

But you're absolutely right - there's no point in spending hundreds of dollars on a pricey novelty if I couldn't be sure I'd love it for more than the look. The reason I bought Folio's AGoT is because I do deeply love the series; I've been invested in the world for over 10 years.

I also love the EP Moby Dick, but look at this beautiful rendition from Folio; it's absolutely gorgeous.

>>13449218

Nice, but I don't think my autism could handle Just So Stories and The Jungle Book in one set and a separate Second Jungle Book.

Never heard of The Egyptian but I'll give it a look.

>lit
>literature
sigh

>>13448897
Please fuck off. This is some embarrassing pleb shit.

>>13449505
seconded

>>13449505
>>13449498
>>13449531
Pointless elitism. It fits the purpose of the board whether you like it or not. My favorite professor in college is a Pulitzer Prize winner you'd all recognize and he always made fun of people like you that try so hard to pretend you're above genre fiction or pop literature.
>>13449362
I'm not sure if the Second Jungle Book comes as a set, but good luck completing your collection.

>>13448982
folio society books are pretty easy to find second hand. a lot of the standard ones don't hold their value so you can usually pick them up pretty cheaply.
in my town there's an antiquarian bookshop that has a bargain shelf, everything £3, they usually have a few FS on there. i think the cheapest i ever bought one was 50p.
or try your local oxfam bookshop. they usually have a bunch of them

>>13449053
>Bad or translation antique translations
this has been repeated several times on here but i've never seen an actual example

>>13449083
those are not common outside the USA

>>13450008
also, search for "folio society job lot" on ebay if you want to buy a bunch of them cheaply

>>13450008
to add to this, it's interesting how secondhand standard Folios generally have less market value than EPs, Franklins, LoAs, even "collector" B&Ns even though the Folios by FAR are made of the best quality (acid-free paper and a sturdy spine due to multiple-block stitchings are standard).

it honestly makes standard Folios, much like some original LECs, a fabulous deal on the aftermarket.

>>13450017
War and Peace
Don quixote
Candide
Master And Margarita

>>13450393
I have 3 editions of M&M; Folio's is by far the best.

W&P is subjective. the classic P&V translation most matches Tolstoy's own tendencies (awkward, stilted, inelegantly repetitive). they also have every semi-brainlet hipster's favorite translation done by Rosemary Edmonds.

haven't read Folio's Quixote or Candide, but I can confirm that you're talking shit for what I can only surmise is a desperate need for attention.

>>13448915
>capture the elegance
>of gurrm
?????
?
???

>>13450433
scorching hot take bro. I prefer "Germ" myself, however

>>13449064
this

>>13449053
literally no one should be buying translation in the first place

>>13449053
>a classic translation is necessarily worse than some fuckup by a product of the modern academy
>Burton is inferior to Pevear
Did you work hard to become this good at saying cretinous bullshit or does it just come naturally?

>>13448897
How are the illustrations and also the page/binding quality compared to the Bantam edition?

>>13448932
>When you are asked to draw a wolf from memory but you don;t know what a wolf is

>>13449271
Instantly superior because they didn't fuck up the title, unlike >>13449098.

>>13450458
way better quality in terms of paper and binding. the pages are acid-free, so they will always stay white, and the spine won't deteriorate because pages are bound in small blocks so the book can be kept open on any page without causing damage to the spine. YMMV on illustrations; they're different styles and each is exclusively commissioned.

Folio books are made to last and be handed down through generations. it's of the highest quality for non-letterpress fine press.

>>13450393
>>13450417
Which translation of Master and Margarita does the Folio edition use?

>>13450483
P&V. I can provide images of the book if you're interested. it's one of the favorites in my collection. it's exceedingly rare to find on the secondary market. most that I've seen that are still sealed go for no less than $400; I got mine for $150 as I'm a member of a forum that specializes in fine press.

>>13450472
here's a first printing. now shatap blud

>>13450499
Okay well in that case the other anon is hardly wrong, is he? I thought he was complaining because they *didn't* use Pevear but his is by far the worst of the lot. The P&V Master and Margarita is a dead book.

>>13450506
>Blatantly new solander box also fucks up the title
>actual spine clearly says MOBY-DICK
Do you have a mental defect, Anon?

>>13450509
absolutely not, anon. P&V is universally recognized as the best translating duo of Russian literature due to how faithful they are to the author's voice, regardless of how it reads. just because it's a bit clumsy or stilted doesn't mean that the translation is bad; they're just exceedingly accurate, to a literal degree.

I have two other translations--Glenny and another--and they're far worse in terms of flow and fidelity. I have three friends, a Dutch friend and a German friend who learned fluent Russian, and a British-Russian friend who grew up speaking Russian (his family still runs a large business in Russia) and based on the passages I've sent to all 3, they've all agreed P&V is the superior choice in all areas other than sacrificing strict prose for elegance.

tl;dr: authorities on Russian translation and native speakers disagree with you.

>>13450514
your frail ego is unbecoming. no more (You)s, bucko.

>>13450530
...I tell you what, I can't even be bothered to slog through this whole argument again. This is bait; hopefully some other anon will bite it. TL;DR is that you're a fag and a retard, though.

>>13450536
>MOBY-DICK:
>or
>THE WHALE

>>13450542
irrelevant opinion, G. serious readers and academics disagree with you. just eat that fact and read whichever translation suits your sensibilities.

>>13450545
so EP got closer than FS. the fact you can't see this is concerning.

>>13450530
>>13450548
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down

>>13450555
No, this: >>13449271 is the Folio, where you can clearly see the hyphen.
This: >>13449098 is the Easton and it says "Moby Dick", no hyphen.

Are you trying to insinuate that I should care about the subtitle? Oh, that's definitely what's going on here, isn't it.

>>13450565
wow what an iconoclast. such courage by some twitter SJW who admits she can't speak Russian.

>>13450530
All thekr books read like the prose is dead. So many describe them as "wooden", because you do get a wooden sense while reading their garbage. They are turnibg people off from russian literature.

>>13450575
>not caring about the subtitle
shiggy dig. The Modern Prometheus reflects the heart of Frankenstein. Shakespeare had a few subtitles, too, to convey the spirit of his plays.

wording is more important than a hyphen you massive autist

>>13450586
They're turning you and other casuals off. I have it on several good authorities that Tolstoy and Bulgakov and Dostoyevsky read as drily in Russian as P&V make it seem. it's just not a very poetic or sleek language.

if you want something that smooths out the edges, go for it - just know that it loses some fidelity in the process.

again, academics and people who actually know the Russian language unanimously agree that P&V are accurate to the most literal degree.

>>13450607
>academics and people who actually know the Russian language unanimously agree that P&V are accurate to the most literal degree.
...And? Pure literalism is far from the most important trait of a translation. Nobody sane cares about this.

>>13450674
hey, it's all good as long as you know what your priorities are.

Are there any more examples of the illustrations online? Very few are posted on the website.

https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/a-game-of-thrones.html

>>13450607
Good to know if I ever get around to reading Russian literature.

>>13451405
My book is expected to arrive tomorrow. I'll post the illustrations in this thread if it's still up or otherwise create a new one with a relevant title.