/lit/ - Literature

Why are you reading the introduction if you haven't read the book before? You're reading the book all out of order.

Proper Reading:
>Preface
>Prologue
>Main Body
>Epilogue
>Introduction
>Afterword

>>4168892
I had that exact experience with that exact book a few weeks ago. Are you >>4168827? Because if not things just got weird

>>4168903
I am not. Just another college pleb who's been hearing about for so long that finally had to get it after seeing it on David Bowie's favorite books list.

because you're not reading genre fiction or TWEEST shit, so it doesn't matter. keeping in mind certain themes and subtext whilst reading parts will greatly enhance your understanding and enjoyment.

I thought that way years ago but then I realized it was dumb.

fuck off you retard. have you never read a book before?

>>4168901
But doesn't an introduction imply having never read the book? And the first thing you would read? I don't mind if they would mention reasons why it's considered important as long as it wasn't explicitly explaining the meanings of excerpts and motifs, but why put the entire plot of the book in the introduction?

>read introduction before the book
>book completely ruined by the praise from the scholar/critic who wrote the introduction

I usually skip the intros, then maybe skim them later to see if there is any cool information about the book in them.

>>4168892
>actually reading the introduction first

>>4168913
>>4168915

These. A work of literature -- novels and tragedies/comedies especially -- are far more than what they're "about." And a good work of fiction doesn't rely on twists and turns in its plot to make itself worthwhile.

>>4168988
I agree completely, but will say as a caveat that one of the pleasures of reading White Noise for the first time was not knowing what was going to happen—not knowing about the Airborne Toxic Event, for instance, and not knowing that the book was really about fear of death (well, sorta). It just seemed sort of funny and aimless at first but when it came together? Holy shit.

I still haven't read any other DeLillo, actually, but I've got a copy of Libra sitting on my desk right now; thinking I might start on it soon.

>>4169008
That's true. As much as I'd like to pretend that I read literature for their "sublime" qualities, the development of the plot is something that keeps me reading and enjoying a work.

Have you read "Falling Man" by the way?

Motherfucking Harold Bloom did this to me on Blood Meridian, I learned my lesson and I never read an introduction again in my whole life. They're also fucking useless, if I'm interested I'll do the research myself and read a lot of essays from a lot of different opinions instead of just reading a book through the influence of a single person's preconceptions and judgements.

>>4168892

A friend of mine had the same complaint concerning the Scarlet Letter. I guess it's annoying, but a lot of the book's worth is supposed to come from things other than its plot points.

>>4169051
>Have you read "Falling Man" by the way?

>still haven't read any other DeLillo, actually
No, not yet. If it's good, though, I'll keep my eyes open for a copy.

>>4169074
Oh, sorry. I sometimes think I'm too cool for reading comprehension.

Well, if you ever get a chance, check it out. It does a similar thing to what you were talking about with White Noise. And if you're 'murrican, I'd consider it required reading.

So have you read Libra?

>>4169080
Haven't started on Libra yet. Currently about halfway through The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, and when I'm finished I'll porbably either read Libra or Don Quixote (which I started and got about two hundred glorious pages into a year or so ago, but stopped reading when I got distracted by Lolita).

But Libra looks pretty fuckin' great—all the stuff about conspiracies in White Noise means a book about the JFK assassination (fuck, ending's spoiled!) should be something special.

And I'll definitely add Falling Man to my to-read list, then.