The introduction and editor's notes are longer than the actual text

>the introduction and editor's notes are longer than the actual text

name 1 book that does this

All my classic french plays are like this. The play is like 10 pages long but the books are like 60 pages. That's an exaggeration but still

Here is my copy of Marcus Aurelius' meditations. The middle group is the actual meditations. The outer groups are editor's notes and introductory drivel.

*grabs knife from the table*

*slices your books using a whirling shintotsu-bukai*

"kchh.. why don't you go 'meditate' on that 1..."

the Norton edition of The Wasteland has the poem and a bunch of critical analysis that are significantly more than the text itself.

it seems like any norton critical editions are like this. margot norris' "dubliners" is huge.

I've always wondered: shouldn't the actual poem only fill ten pages (at most)? You could add another 5 for Eliot's "Notes." The rest is just drivel, right? Shouldn't the poem and Eliot's supplements be enough to make your own decisions?

I've got a collection of Aeschylus plays. 380 pages and only about 130 of those are the actual texts. It intimidates me...

What? To know that some people have spent their entire lives obsessed with a single author, a single work? Does it seem like it was easier to lose oneself before? Before the rise of technology and globalization. Does it seem like everything is too connected, too dependent on the previous moment? I tried to live off the grid for a while, but mortal life seduced me away.

I actually wouldn't mind a copy of meditations with that many notes. The meat of the text is kind of all over the place since they're basically his notes, having somebody give a more in-depth analysis on stoic thought and/or Roman history would be quite nice.

the communist manifesto

If you think you're that well versed on Eliot's themes, style and worries at the time of the play, then go ahead, but these people writing notes usually devote quite some time to an author or period and are arguably better suited than the average Joe in contextualizing a lot of the text.

And before you come with some mumbo jumbo about muh beauty or whatever, be aware it is absolutely pointless to absorb a work without having at least some knowledge on the society and times of the author.

Jesus Christ talk about romancizing shit.

No, these authors are no more the academics "obsessions" than building bridges is the engineer's. It's fucking work, and it's great that they are so passionate about their work and everything, but a lot of what comes off as extremely xibbolethic knowledge in notes is just common ground in the area of study of that particular work.

Is that Fagles' translation of the Oresteia? The introductory essay is ~100 pages but it's well worth it.

my copy of keats collected poems

anything written by Harlan Ellison. "The Essential Ellison" has THREE introductions, all written by Harlan; every story has an introduction and a postscript, written by Harlan, and there is a massive bibliography at the end that lists every single thing he's ever written, or intends to write, with the exception of "The Last Dangerous Visions" which, as we all know, is never going to appear.

Pale fire :^)

I think user was joking, user...

the entire thing is just an intro to Das Kapital 2bh

Most editions of Jekyll and Hyde accompanied by an essay.

Your fucking a white male!

I can't tell if your leg is fat or really well defined, post pics pls

I have a copy of Ivanhoe that starts with

>Introduction
>Author's timeline
>Historical notes
>Preface
Then the story, followed by 200 pages of references.