>he skips the introduction
>>7430710
The introduction to mein kampf was about 30 pages of the guy going on about how bad a writer hitler was and how hard it was to translate something written so poorly.
I didn't even fucking read the book.
>>7430734
Which translation was that?
I can never remember which one was the contemporary Englishman (Murphy?) and which is the generally recommended one (well, by right wing dudes).
I'm not reading some fag not related to actual writers, probably a lit posting non steam fag
I'd read them but I'm afraid of them containing spoilers. It's happened.
>>7430710
>he hasn't already learnt of the plot prior to even reading the book due to literary discussion with patrician friends
>he doesn't then read the book and THEN the introduction in order to formulate his own ideas on the book rather than latching on to the academic's views
>he doesn't then finish off his University of Oxford* essays
*Harvard also acceptable, Cambridge no
Often times the introduction for works of fiction have spoilers, and damage the freshness of the work with analysis.
I only read introduction to non-fiction books.
>>7430805
>>7430770
this. I read intros for nonfix, but I'd rather not constantly be waiting for what I know will happen next because the introduction gave a very thurough outline. also like to reach my own conclusions before I hear those of others. If I liked the book, I generally read the intro after I finish it.
>>7430734
I never understood all the hate for Hitler
he seemed pretty reasonable to me
>>7430784
cambridge no?
>>7430742
>Implying Hitler was right wing. Shaking my head family.
Most introductions are complete shit. If anything, read them after you finish the book. Half the time they write it as if you've already read the book once.
>>7430742
The big red one I got off the shelf a decade ago in highschool.
I don't remember.
>not reading the introductions until after
This is the way to go. If you care about spoilers, you will avoid them this way. Lots of intros tend to be analytical too so I prefer to read the work as is first and form my own opinions instead of going in with someone else's preconceptions.
>>7431354
If you care about spoilers, you're a pleb
If an academic is writting an introduction to a work, their views are not preconceptions. They're obviously already familiar with the work. If you can't still form your own opinions after reading criticism from about a work you must be weak-minded.
I skip the part about the text and read it after
>>7430784
>implying Oxford english students actually read the primary texts
Shaking my head
>>7431373
yeah this is very true if you're an english major, but I read because I enjoy it, not because it's academic
>>7431373
>you shouldn't be enjoying literature
>>7432097
>enjoys something by not enjoying it
>>7432108
>literally unable to conceive of someone enjoying something in a way you don't
this is honestly not even pure ideology tier, you've literally didn't experience individuation as a child
>>7432123
>you've literally didn't experience
>>7432147
>doesn't know about english aorist tense
pleb
>>7432123
How does individuation have to with this in the slightest?
Spotted the pseud
>>7432123
>tfw u r reminded many ppl on 4chan have poor mental hygiene
>>7432157
the unindividuated literally cannot conceive of people different from themselves, try harder.
>>7432123
>you've literally didn't experience individuation as a child
yeah and you've literally want to fuck your mom
>>7432166
Everyone is individuated
Kill yourself
>>7432166
Please be bait
>>7432174
>>7432171
>>7432168
you people are such plebs s m d h
>>7432183
>too stupid/too much of a pussy to read a book unless he can read the intro because new ideas are hard/scary
>calls others pleb
