Editor's introduction spoils the plot

it really isn't. that's your modernist mind speaking. stories originally were passed down from generation to generation yet told anyway even though you knew how they would end up. they retain their significance because they mean something even though one possesses knowledge of "the plot".

the use of "plot points" is greatest in tv dramas for the absolute plebbest of plebs because they revel in their own ignorance and actively take pleasure in staying ignorant just so they won't get spoiled by "the plot" even though it's a predictable trope that they already know the ending to. they're literally adult children who pretend to be hearing timeless myths for the first time.

spoiling yourself on purpose = literally mimicking perspective of god to man while loving man nevertheless even though one has absolute knowledge. literally divine patrician tier.

MUH SPOILERS = fucking pleb

I read all of Lolita thinking it was a retelling of real events as told by a person who received Humbert's confession.

Being engaged in the plot of a good novel is not much different than being engaged in the events of a television drama, that's true, but I'm not bothered by that at all.

Why deliberately rid yourself of the simple pleasure of entertainment, especially when it can go along with great philosophical insight? I don't see any benefit to spoiling yourself on purpose.

How is that even possible.

>The intro is 40+ pages
>The intro pages are numbered in roman numerals, which makes the table of contents useless for finding where the book actually starts
>The intro is written by a literally who
>The writer of the intro smears the author or the subject matter therein

In the version I read, there was a fake introduction by a journalist who received Humbert's confession.

i don't think it adds or subtracts from entertainment value, but i don't purposely spoil things for myself. on the other hand, i'm not bothered by things getting spoiled, which happens more often for older stories. if something is "spoiled" and fails to entice me it means i didn't want to watch it anyway. saved me a bunch of time. there is only so much media one can "consume" in a lifetime after all.

>philosophical insight

it's not always about that. sometimes it's pure aesthetic awe.

>it's not always about that. sometimes it's pure aesthetic awe.
Sure, I just used that as an example.

And what you're saying makes sense and I believe I agree. But when the plot of a book does have a twist to it, I find myself annoyed when it's spoiled.
It won't necessarily subtract much pleasure from the overall reading experience, but it makes it less complete.

It's not even as big of an issue as I make it out to be by defending it so much, but I think it's definitely worth an annoyed greentext line on Veeky Forums:

>editor's introduction spoils the plot

It's like having cat hair on your shirt. It doesn't ruin the shirt but it annoys me nonetheless.

My copy of Demons has Sommerset Maugham dissing dostoievsky after a quick rundown on dosto's bio

...

This happened to me when I first read Lord of the Rings.

After that, I stopped reading introductions.

>Introduction states that the narrator is unreliable

fucking this fuck

i don't go spoiling stuff for other people out of politesse but i find their avoidance of "spoilers" nonsensical regardless. especially if the "spoiler" is a predictable matter of whether someone will die or not, or even who dies. it's worse if it's an event that bears no relation to what has happened before such that you could not possibly guess it would happen like it's some kind of secular deus ex machina.

and the lack of foreknowledge about the plot is an incompleteness in itself. it's a subtraction from what you know, unless you're claiming that the lack of knowing is an "addition" somehow (of what?).

i suppose a metaphysical worldview that denies that there is meaning in the face of the inevitable plays a role in that. so stories have to simulate open possibilities when there are in fact none. but that is the magic of ancient greek tragedy with their treatment of fate.

so i think what you mean is that there is no "freedom" in a "spoiled" story, and that is the "subtraction". but in that case, if we want to explore the possibilities of freedom, it is better to explore it in a story that is nonlinear, with flashforwards and/or heavy emphasis on desires and decision-making. relegating it to simple ignorance is the wrong way to achieve that effect.

That's part of the novel, yes. But the introduction ends.

>The table of contents is AFTER the introduction

>the table of contents have spoilers
>the cover art has spoilers
>the title has spoilers

>introduction is 40 pages of some nobody fellating the author, but nothing actually relevant to the book
I don't need to hear how great or important or inspiring the author is/was. I've clearly already decided to pick up the book. I can figure out on my own whether I like it or not.

>There is no introduction

FUCK this shit

>read The Iliad
>Zeus spoils the ending within the first third of the book
Why the fuck would I even continue reading?

Jesus Christ, is this post ironic? I hope it is.

t. Brainlet

The intro to House of the Dead I read basically dissed Dostoevsky as a masochist, overly religious maniac and and says no one should agree with his view on suffering being a way to better yourself.

do you know that when this photo was taken Nietzsche was already completely retarded and he was propped up by his nazi sister and shown around to the guests?

>>The intro is written by a literally who

>intro is written by an inane pop writer rather than a real scholar

Everyone in Greece knew what was going to happen anyways. The Iliad and Odyssey weren't enjoyed for the novelty of their plots.

What's the point of reading a detective novel if someone spoils you how the crime mystery gets solved? The "surprise" is the point of these kind of books.

You can use wikipedia for the historical context

no introduction in the barnes & noble meme cover collections

yes but b4 or after. has anyone ever jumped into a book without knowing anything? i used to do that in childhood

t. Newreader

Happened to me with Stoner, I was fucking pissed

>the version I read
That's the version everyone read. Nabokov wrote that introduction as a cute metafictional trick. I'm actually laughing right now, thanks. This reminds me of Nabokov casually mentioning in an interview something like "some oaf in a magazine who thought Kinbote was an actual commentator"

>Virginia Woolf kills herself by walking into the ocean
>Character is based on Woolf
>this is somehow surprising

/lit

>>Virginia Woolf kills herself by walking into the ocean
>>Character is based on Woolf

Yeah and of course everyone who ever reads The Waves ever at all is already aware of these facts before going into the novel.

Fucking shitstain, kill yourself. Idiotic super faggot.

also what the FUCK are you even talking about.

She drowned herself in a river and she had not planned doing that at the time of writing The Waves.

Asshole.

It seems you have have fallen for my trickery

love will tear us apart, again

it's obviously not the only neat thing in literature, but it is still a nice thing and it's a silly pleasure to deprive yourself. if you've never experienced the pleasure of a plot twisting underneath your feet and something unexpected happening then you are missing out on a rewarding aspect of literature