/lit/ - Literature

>Attempting to have a nice time in /lit

>"narcissistic tripfag calling for attention"
>"caps lock engaged in all his posts"
>"The strange case of Dr Sage and Mr Hide"

saved from page 10

gtfo narcissistic fag

>FORWARD
Normally written by a "Guest" author, trying to hype up the book. You're SUPPOSED to read this in the Book Store when you're trying to decide if you want to buy the book.

Can be skipped if you already own the book.

>PREFACE

Written by the Author, telling you how the book came about.

Can be skipped unless you're interested in the history of the book itself.

>INTRODUCTION
An integral part of the book, set's the tone and mood for the rest of the book as well as establishing any facts that you should know before getting into the flesh of the book.

NOT TO BE SKIPPED

>>3336727
I'm with you on this one
Fuck all that shit at the beginning
Don't tell me how I should perceive the book

>>3338920
Penguin classics has introductions in like every book and it is more akin to your definition of a forward.

>>3338933

Penguin Books is a British publishing company.

Of course they do things incorrectly.

>>3338939
>hating on Brits
>and on literature at that

>>3338943

If they're going to do things differently just to be fucking different from the French, then they need to be understanding when I tell them to Fuck Off.

>The introduction spoils the story

>>3338983

than read it afterwards you fucking retard

>>3338983
The Introduction is always, particularly if it's a Penguin or OWC edition, for study purposes.

White people problems?

You guys know that it takes about 8 seconds to thumb forward to the text proper, right?

>>3338983

Fucking this.

this post is intentionally left blank

>>3339004
Well fuck dude, why is it not put in as an afterword then? It would serve the exact same purpose.

>>3339057
bingo

>introduction has spoilers

Think I need to go lie down.

>INTRODUCTION
>WHO THIS BOOK IS FOR
>HOW TO GET THE MOST OUT OF THIS BOOK

>>3339079
>inb4 ">reading for plot" joyce/dfw/pynchon dicksuckers

>>3339079
they actually flagged the introduction for spoilers in the beginning of my Penguin copy of Sentimental Education. I was completely confounded regarding the point at even calling it an "introduction" when it was so clearly intended to be read after the work which followed. I guess logic is too much to ask for.

that feel when the forward contains spoilers

>>3339013
>8 seconds

>>3339086
yeah but how is that not ultimate pleb "reading for plot"?

>>3339079
>>3338983
I have a Dover Thrift edition of Crime and Punishment. On the back of it there's basically a short summary of the entire book, spoiling all major plots. I just wanted to see what the book was about before I started to read it, but instead I get to know how the book ends, what the fuck?

>>3339087
>>3339086
Believe it or not, within the study of literature, it's actually preferable that the reader knows what happens so that they can pay more attention to HOW it happens.

TV culture has so rotted all your brains that you care more about who dies or not rather than the mastery of the text.

>>3339124
That is a rule with all dover thrift's man, NEVER EVER EVEN REMOTELY CONSIDER READING THE BACK. They spoil the plot almost invariably, and it is enormously frustrating. Mercifully I've never bought anything longer than 100 pages in a dover thrift edition.

>>3339099

How about the FUCKING FLAP?

OC

>>3339133
Implying we all read literature to study it.

I read for pleasure, so fuck you.

>>3338920
>introduction which is typically written by some try-hard academic
>not to be skipped

You masochist, you.

>>3339143
The unexamined book is not worth reading.

So fuck you back!

>>3339086
But reading for plot genuinely is fucking silly.

>>3339148
I'm sorry, I didn't want to get on wrong terms with you.

What books are you currently reading, anon?

>>3339148

I'm sorry but I'm the one who decides that, so fuck you too.

//other anon

ITT: stupid anons.

The introduction, by some critic, is meant to be read after the book. AFTER! Penguin classics has the decency, sometimes, to warn about spoilers, but usually nobody does.

This is an essay about the book, never read that shit before you've read the book. It'll spoil you and it'll go into depths you can't make sense of until you've read the damn thing to begin with.

>worst intro ever:
>Freud's introduction to the Karamazov Brothers

I fucking hate Freud like the scam artist he was.

Many books build on changing the way you think about people or concepts, so why the fuck do you want to know what happens beforehand? That's like buying detective novels after you find out who the murderer was.

>>3339133
I studied literature academically once. It was shit. No fun allowed at all, everything must be analysed to death. Beautiful women should be pinned down, killed and autopsied until there's nothing left but a bunch of messy parts and you realise the beauty was a result of the whole, not one of the parts. Professor can't into art. They destroy everything they touch. They're in it for the pots of gold and can't appreciate a rainbow.

>>3339172
>It was shit. No fun allowed at all

On the contrary, studying literature in depth is a lot more rewarding and fun than breezing through it like a child.

Are you American? What's with all the anti-intellectualism on this board?

>>3339170

I love you.

Could you tell /lit/ autists that spoilers are fucking shit? I can't believe the amount of times I had to explain why spoilers were shit.

>"You shouldn't read books just to know what happens in the end."

I've been told such inanities. I have. Same for movies on /tv/. Some fucks come along and spoil the novel/movie and act like it's nothing, like you're a retard for even caring about the fucking story.

The autism...

>>3339166
You're a dumbass. Freud was a genius, he's just outdated. If you're not clever enough to still be able to apply some of his ideas to modern life, that's more your fault than his.

Also

>spoilers
>mah plot

Fucking plebs all around.

>>3339170
>build on changing the way you think

I assume you're speaking about fiction when you say 'books', but not all literature is aimed at changing the way you think. It offers concepts for thought. It does not shove ideology down your throat (plz don't deconstruct me Marxists).

I also believe that fiction should be read in a way which appreciates it as art: every part of its competition, including the plot progression.

>>3339166
Why not call it an afterword then? That is the main problem her; calling it an introduction and then having it spoil major plot points is ridiculous and counter intuitive.

>>3339184

Are you implying that fiction is sub-par, or what? I'm just trying to feel your position here.

1984 is a good book to demonstrate my claim; the last third completely deconstructs but also emphasizes the first two thirds. If you knew what would happen it would not cause you to think as much about the implications.

>>3339178
I'm not anti-intellectual, I'm against horribly dry, pretentious and useless arbitrarily systematic parasitism of the arts. Critics are truly the worst of people.

>>3339178
>breezing through it like a child.

You're the anti-intellectual if you think the only way to read a book is by studying it at university. I have done that, I got an MA and wrote a thesis and everything.

Because of the academy and its narrow vision of literature, literature ceased to be about life (what else is there) and started being about itself.

It's cannibalism, it's text about text, it's dickheads discussing shit nobody gives a fuck about. It's forgetting what makes books important and loved.

It's being a fucking moron with emperor's clothes all over the fucking place.

I love to study novels, I always read these introductions (after I've read the book), but don't you dare think anyone who doesn't is some child "reading for fun". If you don't enjoy reading, brother, don't fucking read.

Books aren't your badges of pain, don't show off how much you've suffered while reading. That's not what it's about. It's not a piss contest.

If you don't like it, fucking quit. Do something you like instead.

>>3339183
Plot is not necessarily important but not having it spoiled beforehand does often make the first reading a more pleasant experience, at least in my opinion.

>>3339183
>Freud was a genius

Freud was a fraud. Learn a thing or two. Psychoanalysis is devoid of any sense. It's on the same level as astrology nowadays. There are enough books on how it was always a scam and had no merit to itself.

>pleb

The last resort of the truly mediocre. I shit on you.

>>3339181

Anyone want to tell me how to go about filtering roachguy?

>>3339190
Because publishers know that "spoiling plot points" is, in the long run, beneficial.

For example, everyone knows that Anna Karenina commits suicide, and knowing that from the beginning enhances all the events that lead up to it.

You guys are pleby as fuck, whining because you want to be surprised and razzle dazzled. I'm starting to think you're all just pretenders and that nobody here even actually likes literature.

>>3339170
You do not specify in your argument how"build[ing] on changing the way you think about people or concepts" relates to the plot or knowing the plot beforehand. Though I'm kind of glad you brought up detective novels, as they're exactly the stiff model plot the nouveau roman had a field day with.

Emotional manipulation (ie, I can't believe that happened!) is what TV does for you, like another anon implied. It's a shitty way to read books and any literature written specifically for that purpose (most commercial lit) has missed the point.

>>3339190

I agree with that, but usually, the stuff that doesn't belong in the book per se is placed before: publisher comments, etc, that's why it's there. You just have to know it.

>>3339196

This anon has a point.

If art was forced to stand on its own feet, it'd be in a better shape, because post-modernist shit wouldn't go very far.

You'd not see monochromes in galleries if artists depended on their quality rather than subsidies (paid by your taxes).

>>3339201
Right and we should all stop reading Kierkegaard because nobody believes in God anymore.

Learn to think, dipshit. Freud broke ground and changed the lexicon for psychology and literature in a positive way. Psychoanalysis is bullshit, but there is plenty to work with in his concepts, but like I said you actually have to be a little clever like any worthwhile reading of a theologian.

>>3339194

Exactly. I was spoilt a major plot point with the flap of that thing. It weakened the effect of the novel, sadly. Not much, but I was robbed of a surprise.

Yes, I care about plot. There's no reason to think one aspect of literature is less important than others when having all of them on high standards isn't mutually exclusive.

>great style
>great themes
>shit plot?

Why not have a great plot on top of all this?

>because it's not that easy
>because writers who studied literature were told plots were for "plebs" just like art students are told "narratives" in paintings are for "plebs

Fucking sheep everywhere.

>>3339203
>For example, everyone knows that Anna Karenina commits suicide

I didn't know, but now I'll never read the fucking book, asshole. I fuck your whore mother. Enjoy your ban.

>>3339213
Why are you conflating the entire field of criticism with postmodernism?

>>3339226

Because the former sucks the latter's dick with the strength, passion, and gusto of a Communist whore.

A literary critic who enjoys postmodernism walks into a bar while one patron is telling a joke to another. Before the man can finish the joke, the critic blurts out the punchline, ruining the effect intended by the one telling the joke.
"Fuck you," the patrons say simultaneously.
"listening to jokes for the punchline two thousand and thirteen i sure hope" the critic says.

>>3339213
>You'd not see monochromes in galleries if artists depended on their quality rather than subsidies (paid by your taxes).

I'm sorry, but this is completely idiotic. Plenty of beautiful paintings have been made that were monochromatic. Artistic quality doesn't solely depend on how colorful a painting is, just as a work of literature shouldn't be graded on how much action is in it.

>>3339229
Nobody smart in this thread.

>>3339197
Amen, brother.

>>3339220

Plot is less important because it is so incredibly limited. There are only so many plots and they're often arbitrary. Nobody needs to see that A led to B led to C or whatever variation of that which occurs over and over again in literature. I don't see how you don't find it banal after a while.

>>3339229

>great literature works like a joke
>it's all about suspense-building

Go read Stephen King. Let the rest of us keep to real shit.

>>3339229

>>3339213
>because post-modernist shit wouldn't go very far.
Meanwhile Tao Lin $50.000 dollar advance on novel

>>3339232
>monochromatic

>monochrome

Learn the fucking difference you mongoloid cephalopod.

>>3339203
Fuck you I didn't know that.

>>3339228
No, the criticism isn't monolithic and it's just plain ignorant to consider the two attached at the hip.

>>3339197
The point is that studying a book is more enjoyable than reading its plot and adoring it. that you don't understand this speaks volumes about your supposedly MA education.

>>3339241

I'm actually quite convinced that both cephalopods and mongloids actually possess higher intellectual abilities than certain posters on this board.

>>3339197
Holy shit does this read like a Reddit post. No offense, man, and I'm not the guy you're arguing with nor am I the type to call somebody a Redditfag or whatever, but I could virtually imagine the little upvote arrow next to this post. All emotional and shit.

ITT: Star Wars isn't worth watching if you know who Luke's father is.

>>3339256

>strawman

>>3339237

Thanks.

Why does everyone mention this roachslayer person when I'm on this board? Would I like him? Should I get a tripfag badge of dishonour.

>>3339197
Funny how you got an MA and studied literature and supposedly read a lot of criticism and your point is that "it's cannibalism, it's text about text" yet somehow you missed the gigantic fucking field of literature and criticism that acknowledges this problem (hint, it starts with an 'M' and rhymes with 'FODERNISM').

>>3339241

I see now. Still, this is a beautiful blue. I think I like it more now that I know it's art and is in a museum.

>>3339260
I don't think you know what a "straw man" is.

>>3339243
>plot and suspense are can in no way be relevant to great works of literature

Go analyse a grocery list.

>>3339223
>>3339247
No offense, but if you didn't know Anna commits suicide, you obviously don't know every much about literature at all. It's basically the one 'spoiler' anyone even remotely interested in literature knows, despite never having read Tolstoy.

You think you're being cool by responding ignorance, but you're really just showing how much of a dilettante you are.

>>3339240

>50,000
>thinking that's a lot

Dude, that's not a lot at all. Considering the market, quality books should be paid far more than this.

Point being, it's not quality.

You guys are desperately hanging on the idea that "plebs" can't appreciate great art, whereas in truth, most of these fucks can't create great art and there's nothing to enjoy about their shit except emperor's clothes and faggotry. So you fall back on "people are dumb."

People aren't dumb, they know shit when they see it, and they don't give two fucks about what your kind has to say.

Fucking love visiting modern galleries with my uncultured parents. They tell it like it is, and I respect them for that.

>art that needs to be labelled as art to be art isn't art

>>3339243

>Stephen King

>implying he's always a shit writer

You've obviously never read him. Go read "The Last Run on the Ladder," come back and dare tell me it's shit writing, you retarded piece of cunt.

He may have written some shit novels, but acting like reading King means you're "pleb" is like calling yourself an autistic fuckcunt.

>>3339275
>no knowledge of this single work means you are incapable of having knowledge of literature

Lelelele

>>3339276
cool story

Why are you guys always so antagonistic?

By the way, not reading for plot != studying literature academically in the one way that dude with the MA did.

But let's all hold hands and embrace each other. No need for insults. :)

>>3339242
>because it is so incredibly limited.

Know what else is limited? Sex. Was that ever a reason to be disliked and abandoned? No. You masturbate, it's always the same shit, always the same ending, you still fucking love, so give me a break you pretentious moron.

>>3339273

I didn't say that, kid.

>>3339280

Why are readers of trash always so defensive about their choices? What do you have to prove?

>>3339276
You're so pedestrian it hurts.

>>3339275
>You think you're being cool by responding ignorance

I don't think I was trying to be cool at all, but alright. Still, that post kind of makes me now feel like the one guy in Western Civilization who still doesn't know that Darth Vader was Luke's father.

>>3339252
>The point is that studying a book is more enjoyable than reading its plot and adoring it

Did you not finish reading my sentence, you fool? It doesn't speak volumes if you don't finish reading sentences, assfag.

I always loved studying books in depths. If you want my fucking thesis, you cunt, just ask.

>>3339285
I'll hold your hand :3

>>3339256

Never been on Reddit, no fucking clue what you're talking about. Also, here's my cock: suck it.

>>3339276
>romanticising the working class

>>3339258

It's still worth, but I would have paid high price not to have known this twist when I first watched that movie. Fact.

>>3339299
>It doesn't speak volumes if you don't finish reading sentences, assfag.

Make way, intelligent graduate student speaking intelligently.

>>3339256
>All emotional and shit.

On purpose. I'm all "emotional and shit" because fuck your mother. My posts are more entertaining than yours, and since nobody gets convinced of anything here, they might as well get amused.

I certainly hope you didn't miss the irony of all this, you fucking whore.

>>3339268

I didn't miss it, retard. But cannibalising cannibalism is still cannibalism.

It changes nothing to the problem.

Also, fuck you and your dog.

>>3339299
Welp, might as well show us your thesis at this point, sure.

>>3339311

>>>/whateveredgypopulistsiteyoucameinfrom/

>>3339302
And so it goes.

Edge: Fuck these plebs we're above that
Counter-Edge: Y'all pretentious the common man is profound
Counter-Counter-Edge: Politically correct bullshit egaliterianism is shit lol let's be honest again a pleb is a pleb
Counter-Counter-Counter-Edge: >being this edgy lol stay 13 grown ups appreciate everything quietly and tolerantly
Counter-Counter-Counter-Counter-Edge: Lol so bourgeois that's what they actually want you to think stop being a hypocrite and judge and be hierarchical

ad infinitum

>>3339275
>you obviously don't know every much about literature at al

There are millions of volumes out there; there will always be a few millions you haven't read, let alone ONE, so does that mean everyone doesn't know much about literature?

Or does it mean you're fucking stupid?

It means you're fucking stupid.

>>3339311
>my posts are more entertaining than yours
>nobody gets convinced of anything here, they might as well be amused

Heheh. I'm sorry we aren't like the weak minded plebeian posse you have that follows you around taking your opinions as gold.

Also, I don't read /lit/ posts for the entertainment. That's just a bonus on the side. Congrats, you failed at entertainment and your posts held no intellectually stimulating material. Instead they read like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Both qualities are redolent of our Lord and Savior Tao Lin.

>>3339293

I'm defending King, not my choices. If you want to know the truth, and if you don't, I'll fuck your mother, I didn't much like the only novel I read by King, but I enjoy his shorts, usually, and thought some of his non-horror works is brilliant.

I really don't care if you look down on me for reading King occasionally. Most of what I read is classic literature by dead people, from Dante to Melville, including a lot of French faggotry in French. Nothing to prove, I just want the truth to be told, and saying King has zero literary merit is blatantly wrong and the easy way out for "pleb-callers".

It's difficult not to sound "defensive" when you respond to attacks, think about it.

>>3339326
>tao lin
>not entertaining and stimulating
>throwing tantrum

Shiggy diggy. Tao Lin writes like the diamond sword of truth.

>>3339305

>implying you deserve to be talked to like a gentleman and not a two-pence whore

>>3339326
>plebeian

You lost right there.

>>3339330

That's shit writing.

>hold'em
>a kind of poker

LEL

>>3339311

Dude, it's okay. Just go to r/books. Nobody will ever know.

>>3339330
That was, strangely good. It sucked me in. But I doubt I could read 150 pages of that style.

So what?

maybe the foreword is not really necessary, but the rest is basic.

>Psychoanalysis is devoid of any sense

>>3339341

Is that your best shot? Faggot? You want to cock-duel me at sunset one of these evenings?

You wouldn't dare, you are an hero.

>>3339330
>or, rather, the past of some future's future

Wait, this is Tao Lin's writing? I've never read anything of his before. Is he really like this all the time?

>>3339351

Yeah, it's pretty fucking shit. I wrote that way when I was 15.

>>3339349

It absolutely is. Freud took his personal problems and made them universal, inventing myths along the way, applying them to everyone.

Freud's psychoanalysis is a long list of logical fallacies and dumbassery.

>every problem
>you wanna fuck your mom

>>3339349

>believes in psychoanalysis

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Good one, anon, 12/10, would fuck again.

>>3339356
>implying psychoanalysis stopped at Freud.

>>3339351
>Is he really like this all the time?
About half the time. As in, two of his prose books are stringy wordy like this, the other two are minimalist.

>>3339349

Read that book.

http://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/onfrays-freud-twilight-of-an-idol/

>>3339335

>Texas hold 'em (also known as hold 'em or holdem) is a variation of the standard card game of poker.

>>3339361

The subject was Freud, not psychoanalysis. But yes, it pretty much stopped at Freud. Those after him did things very differently, like Jung. Jung never did psychoanalysis.

>>3339362

Well, mister, that is teenage writing at its shittest. 50 grands for this sort of crap is a great salary. Once again, proving that scam artists can make money through emperor's clothes and faggotry and blind-faith fools such as yourself.

You are a whore, a dumbass, and you should feel bad.

>>3339366

Are you as retarded as this guy? Do you seriously assume people don't know what the fuck hold'em is?

Jesus Christ... If the reader doesn't know, they'll look for the term and find out for themselves; if they don't care to do that, then they won't care to be told what it fucking is.

I hate authors who bend the knee for shit readers. I thought this guy was supposed to be a good writer. He's just an asslicker and a whore.

>>3338896

>saved from page 10 with 0 replies
>get 120 replies

i dont even

>>3339385

You have me to thank for. I should get a tripfag.

>>3339375
>doesn't realize the tendency to explain is a deliberate part of the narrative

2deep4u

>>3339375
The only retards are people who think he's actually trying to inform the reader what hold em is. As you say, everyone knows what it is, he's obviously writing in the manner of his protagonist, being the kind of guy who draws whales in MS paint for no reason, and examines his smile in the mirror. Don't take this as an endorsement of the quality of his writing, that passage is the first thing I've ever read by him, but it's clear what he's trying to achieve.

>>3339203
>everyone knows that Anna Karenina commits suicide
go damn it I didn't know that. what a cunt