He reads the introduction

>he reads the introduction

No I don't

>he doesn't read Nabokov's introductions and notes on the translator

This. Always get to the pussy

>he reads any nabokov besides his satirical literary lectures

>he doesn't read Nabokov to the end
dude, read his notes on the translators. about half way through you'll realize who the genius in question is fuck you for reminding me how old i am with that cartoon

Introductions are for last.

They just spoil everything in the book. It's like watching a review of a movie before you watch the movie. What's the fucking point?

Personally, I'm immune to spoilers, so I don't mind. I enjoy the journey regardless of my foreknowledge of the destination. Thank immunity dog, perhaps.

Also, I think you misunderstand the concept behind reviews. They're very much so intended for people who haven't seen the work.

>read the introduction
>It's just some guy taking the opportunity to present his full exegesis of the entire book and not only spoil most of the plot to you but also discuss the book's themes before you even read the fucking book

Usually the first few paragraphs of the introduction are the ones that give an ACTUAL FUCKING INTRODUCTION and context to the work at hand, the rest usually has no value for something who hasn't even read the thing yet.

>he reads the translator's notes
>he reads the author's biography
>he reads

>I don't read the introduction because it spoils the plot!
The true mark of a brainlet. Who let these people live, and should they be allowed to reproduce?

>caring about "spoilers"

I stopped with introductions years ago after reading one in Fitzgerald's 'Tender is the Night'. This fucking asshole spent like 40 pages discussing Victorian era economics vs American capitalism and used the most reaching quotes to justify his bullshit - it was like a college paper you shit out in one night knowing full well you're lying through your teeth.

The novel itself was fantastic though and much more personal and moving than anything the idiot was blabbering about - things you just KNOW Fitzgerald didn't give a shit about

>read the author's introduction
>"you see the character dying at the end means this"

>he reads the intro, translator's notes, the text, the table of contents, the appendix, the ads sometimes at the back of "x also wrote"
my sides

You all have to kill yourselves because your existence is garbage.

Also, this post will get dubs.

>"préface"

You ain't dubbing shit kill yourself retard

What's this, the premature ejaculation general?

I'd piss on your face and shit in your mouth if I ever met you irl

>He reads books

Fucking fight me nigger, if I see you irl I'll fucking shoot you in the face and fuck your skull while you'll choke to death you bitchass cunt

You will never meet me irl facking pathetic turd, because I'm the voice of your conscience and I'm telling you right now that your life awfully sucks shit

ok then

shut your mouth piece of shit

>translator whines about how hard his job is

NO U

gotta read that shit after you finish the main text, bro (if at all)

>reading for the story

Explain to me in two sentences or less why reading for the story is a bd thing.

/thread

Complex structures don't matter anymore. Aesthetics is the only object we should strive to comprehend and admire in our life

Introductions can be gold. Here's a snippet of a footnote from the introduction of a dictionary of Gypsy language from the 50s I recently read (yes, I read dictionaries):
"Also I was easily thought to be a Gypsy by a young Italian Gypsy woman with two little children that I met in Forli in 1957, after I adressed her in Romani. When she noticed that my wife accompanying me didn't understand Romani, she grimmly glanced at her and shamed me for having forgotten myself that much and marrying a non-Gypsy!"

Aristotle solved stories in Poetics

Pretentious little shit. Betcha just got your bachelor's degree in English, huh?

Postmodernists like you need to bite a bullet by your own hands.

thats quite a fine opinion youve got there
come back with some facts

It amuses me however, if the person who writes it has a bias, be it negative or positive, towards the author: my copy of demons has sommerset maugham shitting on dosto's bio, and my copy of the idiot has some rosa maria phillips licking his balls without having actually understood his work

>implying aestheticism = postmodernism

???

take your buzzwords off this board

Learn to write properly you fucking BA of the arts.

>You will never meet me irl facking pathetic turd, because I'm the voice of your conscience and I'm telling you right now that your life awfully sucks shit

imagine how dumb this sentence would be if he wasnt being ironic.

I really hate it when the person writing the intro just goes off on their personal analysis of the book, I want someone writing an intro to provide me with info and context that help me form a better understanding of the book, not feed their own understanding of it to me.

>book has a preface, introduction, foreword, prologue, and prolegomenon, 3 of which are from college professors and literary critics, one from the translator, and one from the author himself
just kill me desu