/lit/ - Literature

no, some presume to spoil the plot

Yes

>>18837153
they nearly always spoil it.
>you will notice that character ?? who dies after the conclusion of the drama mirrors ??? in the authors own life
etc

NEVER read the introduction

>>18837149
If you don't read every word of a book, you can't honestly say you read it

>>18837149
If its a world-historic classic, then yes, but usually after I read the rest of the book so it can't spoil it. Unless its a philosophy book obviously.

>>18837153
>>18837191
yeah lmao. The version of Moby Dick I had spoiled the end in the first paragraph

>>18837200
Introductions done other than the authors usually come off as some circle jerk psude shit.
Just like reviews on goodreads where the person reviewing the book is actually just trying to impress people with their own writing and not really reviewing shit.

>>18837149
not unless it was written by the author, I am so fucking disgusted with the absolute hubris every time I see a one hundred page introduction by some random person. Who does this fucker think he is? Does he really think what he has to say is important? Does he think his reading of the work was so informed that he just has to enlighten all the plebs? What makes him more able to understand the book than me, such that I in any way need his assistance?

The only introduction I remember that I like is the one by Edith Grossman for Don Quixote that goes over the trials of translation rather than anything else. Doesn't sound retarded and actually has a point, doesn't spoil the plot and just tells you to enjoy the book.

I read it when I’m done the book

>>18837200
isnt the story of moby dick pretty well known?

>>18837194
You WILL suck my massive dick and drink EVERY last drop of cum. Sqeuzz me dry completionist cuck.

>>18837481
mmmmmm

>>18837149
I read it all, even the page number

>>18837149
Depends on how long it is. A short introduction is a sign that the writer knows the book can speak for itself.

I almost always read it but sometimes I will read it after reading the book. It's more text about a work I presumably enjoyed, why wouldn't I read it?

>>18837499
It's actually usually a sign that the publisher didn't want to pay the author to write a long introduction. A lot of short introductions are bad because they're done by an author whose name may increase sales slightly without any real thought for if they will add to the book. They often write tons and tons of these too and if you read an author's "essay" collection (which usually includes any random short prose they wrote for publication somewhere) you can see that phoning it home is super common.

>>18837153
>The plot
If the book is good it really doesn't seem to matter. Actually kind of helps to have a framework so I get the general idea of it and can focus on the ideas conveyed instead.

>>18837149
I used to read it at the end after being spoiled by them but then I just stopped all together cause it’s usually like “this book is soooo relevant here’s the context” or some random anecdote about writing it or the inspiration behind it. I stopped reading them because they consistently added nothing.

a lot of the time after I finish the novel I'll read through the introduction if its decent.

Depends on the book. Recently read The Iliad and read the introduction for historical context and information surrounding the authorship and history.

>>18837523
The first reading is for the plot, the second for the meaning
or both in one, if you're very good