REEEEEEE

Why are more and more books starting to be made like this? It is annoying to read with all the pages being different lengths or uneven and it looks retarded; like someone just took a pair of scissors to a perfectly good book and thought it looked better.

what was once a way of cutting corners now can be thought to add dignity to a book.

its a stupid fashion, if you don't like it buy a shear and quit being a pussy.

I have that same copy of Broom. I like it. But that's also the largest/longest book I'd like it for. Anything 600+ should be standard pages. Also found this one for cheap recently. I think it's worth more than the average paperback copy of it

>tfw I just ordered Broom of the System 2 days ago

Dammit OP. You should have posted this sooner.

Yeah I saw Infinite Jest in the same style for the 20th anniversary. Couldn't imagine reading an 1000+ page book like this.

Penguins Deluxe edition of Crime And Punishment is also like that. I hate it.

>20th

Dad, it's been 50...

Got that edition at a library sale once

All penguin deluxe editions use deckle edges I'm pretty sure.

The new edition of the Crying of Lot 49 has it too. Don't know why publisher's like deckled edges. Most read always find it to be quite annoying. Even as a kid when I read the series of unfortunate events, the edges pissed me off.

When did DFW write a sequel?

I wish I could be bothered by something like this. I hear you people have super powers.

I have the ability to not sound like a condescending asshole and to talk to women. Pretty super.

It's to stop you getting paper cuts - a straight edge will slice, a rough one just rubs.

>Starting to be made like this?

Deckled edges, the literary miniskirt. Or are these pages uncut? Is this some discrete revolt against the Jewry?

Old books you had to cut the pages which made them look like that, now it's a status thing or something I guess.

>tfw you get a book from the 1840s out of the uni library and the pages still haven't been cut and you get to cut them yourself

>tfw you use a fucking letter opener and basically ruin the book

I love when books are like this. Here's one from 1930something

What's the oldest book you own, Veeky Forums?

whoops

Real readers have moved on to e-readers for pragmatic readers.

Paper books have now gone the way of vinyl and fountain pens, wow so authentic man and so on.

This is old timey, the kind of people who still care for physical copies are exactly the type of people to eat this shit up.

>I have the ability to not sound like a condescending asshole
You holding some kryptonite there, sperg?

E-readers are shit, I am so used to flipping through pages that I'll never be able to convert and I doubt they're even superior. No technology will simulate a book.

The codex is a perfect form.

Every person I have ever known or seen to use an e-reader has been a hipster or a wiki-dilettante.

Not one of my professors ever used them because my professors were serious readers.

Shut up baka

It feels nice and soft though, like a women's labia.

>e-readers are shit because I have 15th century babyduck syndrome

enjoy being left behind when we enter literary post-scarcity

I bet you write with a pen.

>"when we enter"
>not "we have already entered"

We need Tao to upload his mind first femme

Tfw I haven't used a pen in so long that I've forgotten how to write in cursive, all I can do is sign my name lol

To back up your argument studies have been done that prove your retention and comprehension levels reading on paper are far beyond that when read on a screen.

I don't give a shit about the whole argument tbqh but to e-reader's defense they have an e-ink display which resembles paper enough, pretty much perfectly for me

Perfect for your preference, still less comprehension and retention.

So because you read about nebulous "studies" in some pop sci article, I'm expected to give up something I've found useful?

Who did the study? What was their experimental method? What was their sample size? How did they measure "reading comprehension"? What did they mean by "reading comprehension"?

You can't answer even one of my questions. It's some vague bullshit you half-remember reading and if you looked into the study it would probably be junk.

>perfect for your preference
Yes
>"pretty much perfectly for me"
>"for me"
Me and others, yes, not everyone. I'm a little confused as to why you seem so insistent on forcing this little fun fact of yours though, the study you're referencing refers to lcd screens

Calm down, no ones asking you to give up your device. Defensive faggot.

That study has been posted here for years, and has a sample size of fifty. Most of them were not familiar with e-readers before the study.
I use a physical book for anything that I need to flip back and forth in, eReaders haven't really managed to do that properly yet, so I kind of agree with you. You sound like a faggot when you bring up that bullshit study though.

[citation needed[

Am I the only one who likes this ? It makes it a bit easier to flip the pages and I just think it feels and looks nicer. It goes well with the Penguin Deluxe edition of Gravity's Rainbow for some reason.

I have a book from 1925 that has it as well. Must have been popular around that time. The oldest one I have is from around 1835 and it's a big anthology of various poets' complete works.

Not your personal teacher. Fucking google a simple phrase and find it.

Also: >That study has been posted here for years

The study I'm referencing was published this June. Why would you assume I was talking about outdated research?

I haven't even been on this website for years. Perhaps it's time to move on.

>Not your personal teacher. Fucking google a simple phrase and find it.
this means 'shit i cant find anything besides buzzfeed shitposting'

I would experience tangible pleasure if you committed suicide.

>posted from my typewriter

They like it because it's an excuse to tack another couple of dollars onto the price of a standard paperback.

Why would you buy such a shit edition of that book?

>Buying any editions but these.

>being this assertive with such shit taste

Which study? The one on Norwegian pupils? I agree that studies on language teaching and tablets are both few and that the researchers involved are still trying to wrap their heads around the problem, and while it's reasonable to be very critical of FLA and their proposed but poorly defined terms like 'comprehension', 'retention', or basically all their terms, studies have indicated a benefit from coupling the textile, physical sensation of turning a page with whatever cognitive processes which may or me not be at work when reading, comparable to the coupling you probably got back in the little 'learning is fun' games you'd play earlier, like in 2nd grade L2 teaching, if you know what I'm talking about.

>thinking Pevear is any good

Oh dear.

>P+V
You know not what you do, user.

With the appearance of smooth edges in the 19th century, the deckle edge slowly emerged as a status symbol. Many 19th-century presses advertised two versions of the same book: one with edgestrimmed smooth and a higher-priced deckle version, which suggested the book was made with higher-quality paper, or with more refined methods. This tradition carried forward into the 20th and 21st centuries. As of 2016 modern deckle is produced by a purpose-built machine to give the appearance of a true deckle edge by cutting a smooth edge into patterns.

>P&V

Turbopleb

Who the fuck get's papercuts reading? Never in my life has that happened you have to be an absolute retard.

Oldest I own is a Luther Bible

But that's a gift for my girlfriend who can read German, I can't. The oldest book that is mine—and not a gift—is this copy of Bacon's Essays.

>Pevear and Volobitcshky
Is this a joke user?

Uh no, it's not. Why do you post when you obviously don't know what you're talking about?

all the "studies" I saw were pretty shitty, either done on multi-purpose tablets (which obviously may hurt attention span plus the screens aren't paper-like) or with small sample size and dubious results (and maybe dubious everything)

the one that was done on Kindles in particular, it was done on something like 50 people most of whom had no prior experience with e-readers
and even the result - reading comprehension was otherwise largely identical, but the e-reader folks were worse at arranging plot points in the correct order

tl;dr the studies we have so far are shit and everyone can decide for themselves anyway (if it really makes your reading comprehension shittier and you're an active reader of both forms, you'll probably notice)

I have that edition and it's a non-issue.