/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7910528]

>preface spoils the book

[Anonymous No.7910531]

>people complain about the preface spoiling the book
>the book's the thousandth reprint of a classic any well educated person should already be familiar with

[Anonymous No.7910540]

>>7910531
98% of Americans haven't read a book in their adult life.

[Anonymous No.7910545]

>makes a worthless shit thread

[Anonymous No.7910546]

Smelly & dumb frogposting scum.

[Anonymous No.7911282]

>>7910546
While true, and also tumblr, prefaces that assume you know the plot are really fucking annoying.

[Anonymous No.7911295]

>>7910531
We don't live for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.7911307]

>preface of a philosophy book is from some random academic who thinks his opinions are hot shit

[Anonymous No.7911379]

>>7910528
That's why you read the book before reading those you dolt.

[Anonymous No.7911389]

>>7910528
>actually reading the preface

[Anonymous No.7911396]

>>7910528

why. in. the. fuck. would. you. not. put. that. shit. in. a. fucking. epilogue.

preface to a book is a pre-face and appears previous to the main content in order to introduce it. every. fucking. time i abruptly come across a spoiler in the preface i want to fucking murder the cunt who wrote the intro.


also, kys dumb frogposter for this retarded thread.

saged.

[Anonymous No.7911409]

>he reads for plot

Stay ultrapleb.

[Anonymous No.7911434]

>>7911396
as derrida notes, prefaces are always written after the fact. it's an attempt to write about the past as if in anticipation of it

[Anonymous No.7911488]

>>7910528

But spoilers actually enhance enjoyment of the book.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/2011_08spoilers.asp


Also from a literary perspective you can pay more attention subtle cues of a character's development, instead of trying to guess how they will turn out.

[Anonymous No.7911533]

>>7911488

This is an interesting finding. It also reminds me of a more general phenomenon, related to "spoiling". Which is, when someone actually points out, with evidence (as you've done) that an unpopular view or counterintuitive result is actually the case. People will happily reject this evidence-based conclusion in favor of their own biases and opinions, or what could in this case be called "general principles": to consume a work of fiction afresh for its plot, a la Harry Potter or Star Wars, is to "deflower" it for one's own self. When this deflowering is spoiled, it defeats the purpose of the plot-driven reader, from their perspective. To present them with a chart demonstrating that the opposite is the case will be instantly pooh poohed, the retort being perhaps a confused salvaging of their own biases along the lines of "enjoying fiction isn't scientific, anon" (wrong, in this case).

[Anonymous No.7911537]

>>7911488

It also goes directly to the

>reading for the plot

swipe that /lit/ knows to do, but I didn't notice it in this thread until this >>7911409 post, after I wrote out the above autism.

[Anonymous No.7911549]

>>7911533

> It also reminds me of a more general phenomenon, related to "spoiling"

I think this is the word you're looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[Anonymous No.7911553]

This is the publisher looking up at you through the top of his glasses sneering 'Oh, you haven't read this already?'

[Anonymous No.7911554]

>>7911488
I would say statistics don't mean shit in this case. If an unspoiled book will increase your heart rate at certain parts, than I would say that experience is more valuable than being able to see subtle cues in the first read.

[Anonymous No.7912612]

>>7910540
False

[Anonymous No.7912728]

>>7911554
This, the first run is always supposed to be done blind if you can help it

[Anonymous No.7912751]

>>7910528
The spoiling of a book shouldn't really matter that much, it's just a plot of the story. There are other things to pay attention to.