/lit/ - Literature

>>4313385

I've stopped reading blurbs and intros.

phhh spoilers who ever cares about spoilers obviously doesn't understand the true meaning of literature.

>>4313385
Snape kills Dumbledore

>muh spoilers

funny that the term didn't even exist until the 20th century. what do you think that means?

<spoiler>that people weren't reading for plot</html>

John McGahern's introduction to “Stoner” fits the description, I think. He brings up many of the major events throughout the book. It taught me that it's probably in my best interests to read any “enthusiast's introduction” AFTER I read the story from this point forward.

>introduction is written in more formal academic high level english than the actual text following it
>be pumped after reading introduction; expecting academia and critical theory prose
>start reading and discover it's pretty plain and cursory

>>4313418
>be pumped expecting academia and critical theory
>its a penguin classic

>chapters in the table of tontents have descriptions
>they contain spoilers

>>4313437
>totents
God DAMN IT

>>4313441
tontents*

>>4313437
You all are
Idiots
Reading for plot

>>4313443
Just kill me

>>4313444
>not reading for the plot as well as the themes, characters, philosophy and structure
Why limit your enjoyment?

Though there are plenty of books where there simply isn't much plot to enjoy, in which case, yeah, spoilers are meaningless.

I'm just not interested in reading the introduction until after I read the book

>pick up contemporary bourgie literature
>reviews from critics and magazines raving on the cover
>get interested as one of the reviews declares "the novel an insight into the hyperconnected society of today"
>read it
>it's terrible
>misleading me before I even started
>tfw never reading contemporary literature found in Barnes and Noble or the new releases shelf ever again

>>4313469

>get interested as one of the reviews declares "the novel an insight into the hyperconnected society of today"
>read it
>it's terrible

so it sounds like it delivered exactly what they promised you

>>4313385
The spoilers at the intro of Lolita are the best. He tells you everything that happened with all the characters after the ending and you don't even fucking know who they are yet, but you can only realise until the very end.

i don't think i've ever read an introduction in my life. i want to read the story, not what some hooplehead has to say about the story.

NO ONE CARS ABOUT SOILERS.

>>4313511

>>4313511
but but muh agricultural sciences and engineering

>>4313385
I really don't know why they do this.
Just make it an afterword instead of a preface.
they even do this shit in blurbs for fuck's sake

The only blurbs and intros I read are the ones written by the editor if he/she had to personally finish the book because the author wouldn't or couldn't. I'm looking at you, The Pale King. Otherwise I'll only read the intro upon re-reading or if it was written by the author, but then it's just a prologue or an author's preface.

>not exclusively reading first editions

it's you're own fault, really

>>4313540

wow

I dunno, I like actually like spoilers. I like knowing what's coming and being able to pick up all the foreshadowing clues as I'm reading through the book in question. I feel like I read a lot deeper when I'm not reading just to see what happens next.

>>4313600
To be honest, I've been coming around to this point of view recently, though it's causing me major cognitive dissonance since I still have such a deep-set aversion to spoilers.

>>4313540
>it is you are own fault

>>4313603
If you read spoilers, you will be free.

a visionary and a free thinker.

>read intro to the gay science
>god dies

thanks a lot faggot

>>4313625
I-I think I might actually be able to embrace this, in time.

Though it definitely only applies to literature - film and TV frankly don't have enough else going for them to be able to give up dramatic suspense.

>>4313547
>>4313611

is this your first time reading a book?

>>4313666

i was pretty pissed when i read the blurb of the stranger telling us he's kill the dude. didnt ruin the story but i knew it was coming when it happened

>>4313394
GO FUCK YOURSELF

>title spoils character death
>he doesn't even die
>not even in any symbolic way

>>4313385
oh yeah, because Lolita is ruined for that.

>>4315994
>always skip introduction to avoid spoilers
>skip Lolita's introduction
>it was actually written by Nabokov and part of the story's metanarrative

>>4316008

I did this too.
Felt hella stupid.

>>4316008
>>4316050
>These plebs

I hate when plot twists are just blatantly spelled out to the reader. I'm reading Dune for the first time ever and the whole traitor shit is really pissing me off. Baron Harkonnen shows up at the beginning and is all "I will kill The Duke for I have turned one of his inner circle!" the next fucking chapter the intro is basically "Dr Yueh betrayed The Duke, and no one ever forgave him for it - Histories of Dune" which would be fine, if they didn't then spend the next hundred pages with everyone in the Atreides household flinging accusations at each other. There was no reason to reveal that Yueh was the tratitor before he actually betrayed The Duke.

>>4316280
And to this day I don't know that people see in Dune.
It's a good book, but it's not THAT good.
Not even in my top10 SF books.

>>4313655

>ITT: what is Chronicle of a Foretold Death?

>>4313385
McCarthy in Blood Meridian.
Fuck you.I didn't want to know who dies in every fucking chapter.

>>4313655

This is what plebs really believe.

>>4313388
So have I. I read Animal Farm recently, and the jacket description is an entire plot synopsis.

caring about 'spoilers' is the mark of a big pleb

>>4313449
Laughing like a fucking fool over this.

>>4316008
It's not as if you're going to immediately put those two names together.

>>4319718
Just joined you.

>>4313600
Read it twice.

>>4319804
But knowing key information vs. knowing exactly how things unfold makes for a different reading experience. Then again everything does, that's why 'authorial intent' is such an absurd notion.

>>4319827
it's only absurd if it's the only reason you're reading an author's work.
It helps understanding what's going on and what's being said, but ultimately you're the one who has to extract what you will from it.

>>4316400
the only thing that could be spoiled in that book it is never told it

Fuck, that girl is a fucking liar

>>4313600
This. Spoilers can be good, especially for classics.

>>4313469
>"the novel an insight into the hyperconnected society of today"
made me puke