>some faggot college academic gets to write an intro to a

>>9243637
What else is an introduction supposed to tell you? It's your own fault for reading them before the book.

>>9243666
If you're supposed to read it after the book then it should be in the back of the book, no?

You don't need to spoil the plot to tell me the author's and book's background along with some important themes of the book.

>>9243637
>>9243637
>reading for plot

>>9243637
Just don't read introductions.
They're usually written under the pretense that the reader already has read the novel anyway.

>tfw the unbearable lightness of being spoiled me anna karenina

>reading for the plot
>reading the introduction to some ancient piece of shit and being surprised it spoils the ending
>giving a shit about spoilers in any medium

.

>reading for the plot

If I told you Macbeth dies, would you be mad? Would you hate me for spoiling the ending? Would you no longer read Shakespeare even though all of his plays are thoroughly embedded within our culture and most of his endings are well-known? Does knowing the general plot of Macbeth make you appreciate his genius any less?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, just fucking kill yourself already you worthless pleb

>>9243637

>reading for plot

Please just go back to playing video games.

You can't *spoil* literature lmao

>>9243637
Not as bad as notes that spoil key things that are OBVIOUSLY supposed to be slowly decoded

File: IMG-471637442.jpg (26KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 413x395px

>>9243637
>reading for plot

>disdain for academics

Chip-on-your-shoulder much?

>not as bad as cuck writer that spoils his entire play in the prologue

>>9243637

>tfw living in western culture and being raised in a non-pleb home has inadvertently spoiled every single piece of great literature for me

I feel nothing, because plot is for plebs, aesthetics is for aristocrats.

>>9243637
I always skip intros to classic books because they assume you've read them before. I go back and read them when I'm finished, though.

>reading the introduction first
You a dumb nigger.

>>9243799
If the literature is good then knowing the ending won't spoil the book, but it's entirely unnecessary to spoil the ending in the *intro* of a book, it's pretentious. Suspense is fun.

>>9243637
>hey bro, can we commission you to write a brief analysis of this work under the assumption that the reader hasnt read the book but without spoiling anything at all? Thanks!
yeah, that's not how it works

>>9243677
you read the back cover (or the inside of the dust jacket) before the book, and the 'introduction' afterward, dumbass.

>>9243851
OP is an idiot but this is actually heinous, especially if its a footnote and not an endnote

>>9243799
What? Macbeth dies? REEEEEE thanks for spoiling it.

>>9243755
>They're usually written under the pretense that the reader already has read the novel anyway.

No they aren't, shut the fuck up.

>>9244010
reading the back cover is plebeian behaviour.

>>9243885
Goethe is not a cuck desu

>>9243799
Honestly fuck you for spoiling macbeth

I havent read shakespear yet, you are a terrible person kill yourself

hes right you know

>>9244026
Yes they are? They normally only appear in super classic literature that it wouldn't be surprising if the majority of readers are visiting it for the 2nd+ time.

>>9243637
thats fuckin gay

spoiler tags exist for a reason

>>9245308
Practically every titular tragic character dies at the end, anon.

>>9243637
Tbh all of my favourite books were thoroughly spoiled to me.

File: 1464331270876.png (244KB, 429x367px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 429x367px

>reading the introduction

File: 1462458277364.jpg (233KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 500x357px

>>9245787
this

can't believe you fuckers actually do this