>book spoils other book

You can't really "spoil" literature, so you must be talking about genre fiction.

In which case: grow up.

>book spoils the ending of an unrelated earlier book by the same author

>>8356935
I see this repeated now and then on this board and have yet to see any argument why. It seems that people put a lot of imaginary baggage on the word "spoil"

File: rent.png (237KB, 451x423px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 451x423px

>back cover spoils the end of the book

>>8356924
spoiler is the most stupid thing that exists

Lolita tells the end of the book in the page 2.

>>8356941
>book spoils the ending of an unrelated later book by the same author

>>8356976
thanks fagget, just marathoned the first page and was gonna do next two tomorrow but no point now

>>8356976
Yes, so telling someone how Lolita ends is not a spoiler as you're supposed to know it. Some people like reading spoilers. "Spoiler" has long since turned into a neutral and purely utilitarian term due to how common it became.

>Not reading the entire western canon I'm chronological order

it's like you're asking for it plebbo

>>8357000
Don't ever call me that again

>>8356999
spoilers just are important in bad stories.

Like some S. King's book

>>8356924
Spoilers? What are you reading, fight club? This is /lit/ you know

>>8356998
still got your 300 word essay in for tomorrow? tough break, fella

>>8357019
It doesn't matter whether they are important or not to the story. Some people just don't like them, almost as many people don't mind them and a few almost always "spoil" themselves to decide if it's worth reading something. It may be petty and pointless but so are a lot of other things, /lit/ just likes circlejerking about this one in particular.

>>8356924
>he didn't start with the greeks

>>8357004
plebbo