Vintage Classics -- WTF?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Knowing the sociolological make-up of ILXors I figured this post might have more effect than an actual letter of complaint.

WHY ARE THE BINDINGS SO SHIT ON VINTAGE CLASSICS? I CAN BARELY READ ONE WITHOUT PAGES FALLING OUT AS A RESULT OF THEIR UNBENDING SPINES. SORT IT OUT YOU BASTARDS.

There. Also there are far too many typos, and the paper is a bit rough. I'm initiating a one-man boycott.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Hi. I'm the editor of Vintage Classics and I'd like to fucking offer you outside, son. Let's settle this man to man, or man to pussy in your case.

(what's a vintage classic, other than a tautology?)

― Mark C (Mark C), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Is it tautology? It could be vintage dud.

― Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:14 (twenty-two years ago)

On the internet already, Luyc?

― Mark C (Mark C), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought so! You Vintage bitches can taste my pain!

PS Vintage = old, Classic = Erm, opposite of Dud.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, I see! Vintage duds!! Very strong.

― Mark C (Mark C), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Why not? They could do a series of unloved authors, who would then be 'ironically' reappropriated by awful young hipsters, who would simultaneously wear awful hair and listen to awful music.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:19 (twenty-two years ago)

(sorry enrique, I was assuming Lucy had made a clever pun using the "clothes" meaning of the word "duds". Then I realised this was just in my head)

― Mark C (Mark C), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:22 (twenty-two years ago)

'Duds' mean 'Clothes'? Uh?

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:32 (twenty-two years ago)

For the record, I meant that it could be a classic and also shite (cf Robinson Crusoe, Moby Dick, Wuthering Heights).

― Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Ga-DANG! Dunno, shamingly havn't read any of em. I've been attempting 'Living' by Henry Green. In a fit of bibliomadness I actually stopped reading 'Party Going' in the VC edition and bought and read it in an old Harvill version. How mad is that? But as yet I haven't found a Harvill of 'Living' so I'm stuck with this pitiful little piece o crap. And for 7 quid, with the author long dead and no royalties to pay, or advertising, or even much editorial, this ain't right.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Wuthering Heights rox0rs!! U R all 21st century revisionists

― Mark C (Mark C), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe you don't know your own strength.

― NA (Nick A.), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, possibly, but also I'm a crease fetishist, but this time I really tried not to fuck it up, and it's tearing me apart.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 29 October 2003 09:26 (twenty-two years ago)

This'll be UK Vintage, yes? Therefore bound "against the grain" of the glue on the spine, ie. doesn't fall open easily, is inflexible, and falls apart halfway through first reading.

US Vintage = bound "with the grain", as with UK Oxford World's Classics (until they went larger format), ie. appropriately smooth and creaseless reading experience mmmmm.

― Neil Willett (Neil Willett), Wednesday, 29 October 2003 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

you are all mentalists

― thom west (thom w), Wednesday, 29 October 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Neil -- you da man. Something should be done. The nice silver Pinguin Modern Classix seem to have it going on.

― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 30 October 2003 09:12 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.