itt we post based publishers

Loyalists and Confederates were Americans too, moron.

>It's Library of America, not Library of the Confederacy
That's obvious. They have Sherman's and Grant's memoirs, but not Lee's and Longstreet's, Lincoln's speeches but not Judah Benjamin's or Alexander Stephen's, Stowe but not Mary Chestnut, antislavery compilations but not proslavery theorists and divines. Even Marxists like Gene Genovese could praise George Fitzhugh, but to LoA Fitzhugh is the Invisible Man. Even Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, incredibly, doesn't appear on their list!
Call it retroactive cancellation. Or maybe just call it pitiful.

What, no plans for an F Gardner Kabalah of the Crocodile edition?

>history is written by the victors
And literary history is written by the ideologues? Maybe we might want to try to rise above that.

Not him, but you're really missing the point. The goal of Library of America is to maintai—in print—works that have had a lasting impact in the United States. To say pro-slavery sentiment, or at the very least anti-union and pro-confederacy sentiment, didn't have a lasting impact is astoundingly asinine. Nearly every black author Library of America publishes would agree that those writings had a lasting impact, but they would've said it was a negative impact. The only people who would have a legitimate reason to disagree would be the people who are willing to do mental gymnastics like

It's Library of America, not Library of the Confederacy or Library of Britain

and say loyalists and confederates weren't actual Americans. Very few people would agree with that statement outside of an argument like this.

>their legacy is shit like The Turner Diaries
Their legacy is the entirety of southern gothic literature, which Library of America is a huge fan of.

You clearly haven't read much Faulkner.

>he is not advocating for slavery nor is he the entirety of southern gothic.
I'm not saying he was. Faulkner's works largely deal with the cultural ramifications of the ideas propagated within the aforementioned ideological writings of the south. Other writers like Flannery O'Connor approached southern culture similarly. Hell, one of O'Connor's short stories in her Library of America volume was written in response to the glorification of the antebellum southern socio-political order in Gone With the Wind. Remember, we're discussing impact here. We're not discussing political opinions of authors. We're discussing cultural impact. That cultural impact doesn't need to be positive, nor does it need to be negative. It just needs to be impactful.

Don't resort to reductio ad absurdum. It's embarrassing.
You cannot separate literature from its cultural context, and you cannot separate a culture from the dominant ideologies within said culture. Take 'The Scarlet Letter,' for example. The immediate context is 19th century sentiment toward the puritans of the 17th century. The deeper context is the actual lived history of 17th century puritanism that still impacts how Americans relate to religion today. Just the same, a book like 'Absalom, Absalom!' deals with early 20th century southern sentiment toward the antebellum south, but the deeper context is the actual lived reality of the antebellum south that still impacts the entirety of America today.

So just to get this straight. If you were in charge of LOA you’d publish pro slavery books and not worry about it blowing up in your face?

I would be happy with one volume of American loyalist anti-revolutionary writings and a two volume set of Jefferson Davis' The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Neither of those are edgy. I'm not asking for a 10 volume set on the detailed intricacies of buckbreaking.

So just to get this straight. If you were in charge of LOA you’d publish pro slavery books and not worry about it blowing up in your face?

> To say pro-slavery sentiment, or at the very least anti-union and pro-confederacy sentiment, didn't have a lasting impact is astoundingly asinine.
They lost, chuddie. They are irrelevant now. So instead of trying to weasel in your chud literature with these obvious deceitful tricks, maybe try not losing wars if you want your books published lmao
> loyalists and confederates weren't actual Americans.
They weren't.

Who are the edgy publishers?

Who and why?

The best antebellum period novelist barring Melville and Hawthorne. Edgar Allan Poe's favorite American novelist, too.

>>the best antebellum novelist
I won't, because I never said that. Melville and Hawthorne are clearly better than him. But go ahead, read.
https://archive.org/details/partisanromance00simmiala/page/64/mode/2up

>general tone of your post suggests you are not yet 18
Filtered.

>t. autistic

They don't publish the reddit shit that folio publishers nor are they premium collectibles. Folio is funko pop. Get over it.

I don't mean classics, I mean reddit shit. Show me the NYRB edition of Dune, Spider-Man, The Handmaid's Tale, Game of Thrones, Stephen King's novels, and all the other soi shit Folio publishes.

>Penguin Classics literally publishes superhero comics.
You said NYRB was funk pop, though. That was the topic to which I was replying. Explain how NYRB is funko pop.
> It’s a much better analogy, like I said.
No, it's not, because funk pop are collectables, just like folio. Penguin and Oxford aren't.
>You can think theyre tacky but compared with all the other mass produced garbage like Penguin, Oxford, and NYRB you people happily purchase, it’s in fact a high quality product
A kitschy phony collectable. Again, like folio.

Ignoring the reddit phrasing, folios are quite literally designed to be collectibles. No one seriously thinks Penguins are collection worthy. Folios are rare because they're meant to be collectible.

It’s sour grapes. If he saw a folio while browsing in the wild his eyes would light up and he’d sprint to the counter with it. Poorgays on this board instinctively react against expensive books as a point of pride

I would buy expensive books and comics. Just not folio pops. It's an aesthetic question. Sorry you have the sensibility of a funk pop collector.

Nice try, redditboy.

Penguin, Oxford, and Nyrb, use bad paper (for most volumes), and cheap bindings.
They may publish decent works, that in some cases are otherwise hard to find, but the books will fall apart due yo the cheap bindings and materials.
I’ve had it happen.
Original Penguin books were better quality in terms of binding and paper.

>I've just started buying Penguin Classics a year ago, how long does a typical black jacket's binding last according to your experience?
It varies by how you treat the book, but at least ten years without abuse might be reasonable.

>at least ten years
I don’t understand this answer. If undisturbed on the shelf, it will keep its shape until the heat death of the universe. Why would anyone affect it at all if it isn’t being touched?

Here’s the real answer. Books don’t expire after X amount of time; books are not fruit. A book will last as long as you treat it well. Those penguins can potentially look like shit after a single read. Or they can never look like that. It depends HOW you read them and has nothing whatsoever to do with “10 years” unless this is supposed to be some indicator of rereading the same book over and again, but then: why would you read the same book repeatedly within 10 years and; why wouldn’t you still be able to read it properly and not abuse it? Reading a book properly once is the same action as reading a book properly twice.

Honestly even this thread is giving it away. When discussing publishers, especially when there is so much crossover, you would expect the number one subject to be that of materials: the physical construction of the book. Certainly this is the only reason Folio was mentioned: there is nothing Folio publishes that Penguin doesn’t; the difference is the physical construction.

However, many people ITT are discussing publishes the way that teenagers would discuss clothing brands. A white t-shirt with a Gucci logo was a very exciting thing to a teenager when compared to a white t-shirt without a Gucci logo. All the same, we are dealing with the same shirt. What has changed? What has made one shirt “cool” and another “uncool”? The logo, in this case that of the book publisher. I’m really more interested in the FABRIC of the shirt than the brand name attached. So I look at some of the names of publishers mentioned all at once in this thread and I wonder: does anyone here actually handle books?

Sitting on the shelf? I know penguins are made cheaply but this is just not the case. Glue doesn’t just evaporate into the air. The kind of process you’re describing takes many decades: go crack open a book from the 40s or 50s and you’ll understand. Even then, those things are readable. Anyway, I’VE never had pages come out of a penguin, and many of my penguins are from the fricking 70s and 80s, so again I really have no idea what you’re going on about.

British books I’ve noticed are absolutely low quality in construction, especially when you can compare them to their respective US edition.

I’ve had multiple penguin books fall apart on me, although most might have been a couple decades old at that point. The books were usually books my father let me appropriate from his collection of books.
As for glued bindings, I’ve literally had books less than a month old fail because the glue failed.

You are an idiot.
Acidic paper is inherently transitory.
If a book with acidic paper is stored somewhere warm, or hot, or in the sun, or in an area were the temperature fluctuates, that paper will start yellowing, then become brittle, and start falling apart and disintegrating.
Glue varies. Animal hide glue, which may have been used in book binding by major publishers up into the 1970s or 1970s, would seem bad for paper, and bindings.
The hide glue can become brittle and start yo fall apart, but I have also seen decades old hide glue glued bindings that were intact.
Basically though, hide glue can fail over time, although it is not guaranteed to.

Various other modern “plastic” type glues, can and will fail, especially with certain types of bindings, and certain types of paper.
This is true even with decently bound modern books with sewn bindings.
Sewn bindings however give you the option of rebinding the page signatures, which is practically impossible with cheap books that were “Perfect Bound” with a flat glued binding.

Supposedly the most durable book making technique, may have been that used in the late 1400s into the 1500s, by Gutenberg and publishers like Aldis Manutius.
Hand laid paper, made from cotton and linen rags, possibly with dome animal sizing.
A sewn “Venician” style binding.
Animal vellum covers.

The cloth used by LoA and Everyman’s library isn’t even the type of cloth used for archival bookbinding.
It’s fine, but the cloth used for archival record keeping tends to be sized Buckram cloth, in a much heavier weight, usually closer yo what Carhatt uses for their American made Cotton Duck cloth pants.

>YOU'RE the idiot, talking to me like I haven't handled thousands of books of different sorts. Yeah, I guess books don't literally last forever, great tip, thanks for that. As long as it lasts a human lifetime I think that's reasonable, how about you?
Is ten years “a human lifetime”?
My mother bought a “Deluxe” 4 volume edition of Paul Scott’s Raj Quartet shortly after the last novel in the series was published.
She tried to read it within the past year, and the books started falling apart, because the cheap frick publisher in the 1970s used a glued binding rather than a sewn binding.
It would be cgeaper to purchase a new Folio or Everyman’s library edition of the books, than to have a bookbinder try to fix one or two of the volumes, let alone all four.
The set wasn’t cheap when it came out in the 1970s either.
That wasn’t a “lifetime”, that was “half a lifetime”.
Meanwhile, cheap “railroad” editions of books published in the late 1800s are still intact, as are plenty of other cheap books.
Frick shitty bookbinding and publishing standards.

So your issue is with Penguin and NYRB? Two publishers in which one makes a wide amount of classics available for dirt cheap and another that mostly publishes out of print or not widely available books for dirt cheap…because they can be displayed? Every book is le funko if that’s the case

Penguin and Nyrb aren’t “dirt cheap”
Wordsworth Editions at $4 for an 800 page book is “dirt cheap”. (Don Quixote, The Three Musketeers, etc. )

>Wordsworth is get your life together tier. $10-25 for a books isn’t a lot of money
Wordsworth is, “I don’t care if the book gets rained on, or accidentally lost tier”.
Wordsworth is also good for making notes in for schoolwork, since the books cost frick all.
If I’m spending the money for a Penguin or Nyrb, I’d rather spend the extra $10-$30 on an Everyman’s Library or LoA edition.

If you adjust for inflation then the first edition of Tom Sawyer was sold for around $22. We are spoiled with cheap books nowadays.

Honestly if you can’t afford a $120 book you shouldn’t be reading. You should be working or working on getting a better job

You have a good point, but that book isn’t the one I was referring to. That’s an official first edition. The 75¢ edition($22 today) was the cheapest of a pirated edition sold in the United States before Twain had authorized it. It also came in a $1 edition($29 today) and a $2.50 edition($73 today). The same publisher had sold cheap newspaper editions for 20¢($6 today). I don’t know how much an officially licensed and authorized edition like that sold for.
source: https://twain.lib.virginia.edu/tomsawye/tomcomp.html

This. Penguins and Oxford are between 10-20 bucks, that’s cheap as frick. Is this represents a major purchase then you have deeply fricked up

I got it off amazon, beside it been more than year. I will get new copy eventually.

They are more expensive than Penguins in almost every case