Thread 24624940

>reading intro
>It causally mentions Anna an heroes under a fucking train
wtf is wrong with people?

Based intro smacking plotfags
Based OP doubling down on it by just throwing that out on the front page of /lit/

>>24624940 (OP)
the introductions to classical literature always spoils the plot, which is the reason why I only read them after finishing the book

>reading intro
>it lists your full birth name and recounts the incident when at the age or two your uncle put his cock into your mouth, an incident you remembered only in the vaguest strokes until this very moment, and whose remembrance completely changes the remainder of your life.

>>24624940 (OP)
storyfags BTFO'd

>>24624940 (OP)
The intro is not for new readers

>>24624940 (OP)
>wtf is wrong with people?
You don't know how a literary introduction works.
The problem, shit cunt, is you.

>>24624940 (OP)
>he has not yet learned to skip the introduction
How many novels have you read in your life, like five? Introductions are invarianbly written by pretentious midwits who want to smear their own shit all over a classic.

>>24624940 (OP)
I only read intros for non-fiction books. You should never read intros for works of fiction because it's just the ramblings of pseud who wants to make their English Lit PhD relevant.

>>24625076
Why the fuck are you here if you think interpreting books is midwittery?

>>24624940 (OP)
Basé. Death to plotfags.

>>24624940 (OP)
WTF I hate plots now!

>>24625005
that's a retarded thing to say

>>24624955
I still haven't forgiven Pynchon for this.

>>24625108
>pick up a non-fiction history of Rome
>the intro spoils that Caesar dies
Et tu, Beard?

>>24625385
How? It just isn't. These are world famous classics that intros assume the reader has some familiarity with already. It's your fault not expecting spoilers

>>24625552
You know what they say about assuming?

>>24625560
Assume this. *unzips*

>>24624940 (OP)
>got the brook zyphorion translation of The Zhuangzi
>everything brook says is convoluted pretentious nonsense
>it's making me mad and confused
>but the translation is good
>skip his notes entirely
>enjoy the book quite a bit
>actually learn something
>try reading the notes again
>it's exactly as insane and pedantic as when I first read them
What sorcery is this?

>>24624957
>>24625266
>>24625552
Because it isn't a 'plot thing' you idiots, it's a Character thing.

>>24624940 (OP)
Look on the bright side, now that it's been spoiled for you you don't need to read one of the most overrated novels of all time.

>>24625578
kek

>>24624940 (OP)
that aside, what's the best translation for this?

>>24625683
Maude

>>24625683
Impossible to answer because nobody here has read it twice or more (in a different translation each time).

>>24625693
that's very impractical, no wonder

>>24625026
My edition of Shakespeare's sonnets is unironically like this

>>24625691
reddit says p&v is better, i read c&p p&v and it's really good should i go with them again?

>>24625726
Tolstoy himself signed off on Maude. Listen to him over the PandV dickriders on reddit. They say that for upvotes.

>>24625716
Katherine Duncan-Jones is the exception, I actually seek out the editions of Shakespeare with her introductions lol

>>24625726
>reddit says
So then you know what you need to do… the exact opposite

>>24625726
P&V are a literal meme.

Introcuction authors know that no one will read their shit in Appendix B, so putting it in the front is the only reasonable choice. By having it before the text they also have the unique ability to guide the readers towards a proper interpretation.

Ukrainian edition of Prometheus Bound from 1949
>100 pages of introduction
>90 pages of Prometheus + comments
The intro is a decent essay, talks about drama, Aeschylus, some Athenian history, Themistocles in particular. It's fine to read intros once in a while.

>>24624940 (OP)
well now you ruined the book for others you faggot, spoiler threads should result in a ban. use spoilers damn it!

I will now delay my reading of the book by a few more years

>>24626069
they will remind you again in some thread in a few months or years

>>24624940 (OP)
FUCKING SPOILERS FAGGOT

>>24624950
>so averse to plot, he doesn't even know what the word means
Epic pseudery, anon. Upvoted.

To be fair, it is a century old book. You should already know the ending by word of mouth.

>>24626289
Where would you possibly ever risk running into a spoiler about the ending for Anna Karenina outside of literature boards?

>>24626369
It was made into a MAJOR MOTION PICTURE, most people know the plot

>>24626633
I didn't see that one, I was too busy watching Avengers Kangenina.

>>24625726
I looked into various Russian translations and the gist is that P&V's translations from Rus to Eng with regards to word-for-word is on-point. However, translation is also about looking the content at a higher level (paragraph, section, etc) and to get a feel for it and then translating that. This is where the P&V don't do a good job.

Personally, I read Garnett's version of Crime and Punishment which I liked, so I read her version for Karenina as well. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Anna's stream of consciousness is hypnotic. I might check out Maude's translation of something.

>>24624940 (OP)
>>It causally mentions Anna an heroes under a fucking train
FUCK YOU. Now you've ruined it for me OP. I hope a train runs over you

>>24626734
>Personally, I read Garnett's version of Crime and Punishment which I liked
Garnet is *chefs kiss*. I really loved her C&P as well. Not sure about her tolstoy ones though.

>>24626642
>Avengers Kangenina

fuck it i'll give it up, that was pretty good.

>>24624950
>>24625266
retroactively refuted by aristotle

>>24627005
Retroactivity does not work forward in time, my man

>>24626737
Death to plotfags

>>24625266
>>24627398
When I see a plotfag plodding along, I mock them mercilessly.
"If you like plots so much then why don't you get buried in one?"

plot is the last thing you should care about when reading a novel. It's like thinking a painting would be spoiled for you if someone told you it was a painting of a sunset before you saw it.

>>24626734
>>24626747
There’s a vogue for /lit/izens to sperg out when you mention Garnett because they know Nabokov took issue with her and also she’s a woman, so then she must be SHIT. But the best book I’ve ever read is her translation of AK.

>>24627412
lmao

pic related also spoils the ending of anna karenina. nabakov was so full of himself i guess he had ti punish people for not reading tolstoy to prepare for him.

>>24625026
>>24625716
I know of an edition of Phaedo that is unironically 874 pages long

>>24627683
That's absurd. Phaedo or Phaedrus?

>>24627557
Isn't Volokhonsky also a woman? Seems like even if you were gonna get mad it would be a tossup which was worse out of woman and woman + simp.

>>24624953
>the introductions to classical literature always spoils the plot, which is the reason why I only read them after finishing the book
This isn’t always actually the case, but it does happen, and there aren’t spoiler alerts on most introductions.
Some intros just hive basics to how the book or translation are laid out, or advice on how to read the book.
Others are just praise for the book or author.

Right, you got the ending spoiled so you had to make a thread spoiling it for everyone else
Fucking faggot

>>24627845
Seems like that should tell you that this argument that people dislike the Garnett translations is only because she's a woman is made up bullshit. Women are often great translators. Garnett (and Emily Wilson) are not.

>>24628749
It goes without saying that there literally being a male involved in a translation is different than a lone woman. The guy who posted that got ignored by everyone for a reason, but you’re such a retard that you thought he had a point and expanded on it.

>>24628753
Not really though. In my opinion, the best translation of Master and Margarita in english was done by a team of 2 women. The best (or arguably second best) translation of Don Quixote was done by a woman. My point simply is that losers like you need to stop crying whenever someone criticises a bad translation if it's done by a woman and immediately assume they only dislike it because they're chuds and hate women.

>>24628763
Nah I won’t, because it’s a safe assumption and perfectly valid.
You are on 4chan, retard. The chud hub. And guess who chuds hate? Hmm.
Now it’s supposed to be a stretch, according to the spokesperson of Totally Not a Chud Club, for the chuds here to hate someone… on the basis of being a woman.
Totally dude. Great point. I will take it into consideration. Sikezs

>>24628763
Nta but go to any Emily Wilson thread and it’s clearly apparent that people here don’t like her translations because she’s a female. I engaged with someone recently who even said this
>>24625348
Literally admitting he hasn’t even read her to form his opinion. She’s a woman, so it’s just a nonstarter. It’s disengenuous to pretend blind misogyny isn’t ubiquitous here and the main reason behind Wilson being maligned. You’re acting like people just don’t like a praised translation because that’s a sensible and subjective opinion, but this is actually the only place where the majority opinion is negative. And it’s not because of the translation.