You know what pisses me off?

People who spoil the entire story of a book in the intro of a wikipedia article. Fuck you, I just wanted to see if there was an interesting premise. I didn't want to know that Tartuffe gets imprisoned by the king.

if a book is able to be ruined by spoiler then it's probably a terrible book in the first place

>>2

How do you figure? Some people just mind spoilers more than others. I used to know a guy who would look up the endings to movies before seeing them. While I, on the other hand, hate knowing any major plot points at all(in any media).

I don't think it says anything about the book, movie, etc.

>>2
This. Indeed this.

OP should stop reading cheap thrillers. Or stop reading about them on Wikipedia. Don't you know the best way to get pulp? Get something from authors that get most prize / authors you personally enjoyed previously.

>>3
You don't "spoil" a good movie by giving away its ending. If anything, knowledge aboutt he ending improves anything but the cheap shit that's only interesting - and not very much so either - because you just wanna know how that crap ends and get out of the theatre.

Best books often "spoil", so to say, their endings multiple times themselves.
"Here's the bad guy, here's the good guy, here's what happened between them. Wanna see how it went?" is a formula for a good story.
"Here's something out f nothing, wanna see if it means something or not?" is a premise for cheap-ass pulp thriller and such.

Wikipedians decided to get rid of spoiler tags just to be dicks. True story.

>>7
Nooooo. Now my animes and prime time TV dramas are ruined :'(

>>1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8#Template:Spoiler

>>1
Butthurt fag, you mad?

>>almost everyone in this thread
being pretentious

There are many works of fiction that can effectively combine interesting philosophical concepts with enjoyable dialogue and a plot that keeps you on the edge of your seat. The first two components can be appreciated even if someone tells you beforehand that "Book X takes the concept of cultural identity and turns it on it's head." or "The stark contrast between Character A and Character B's personalities result in many an entertaining discussion." On the other hand, you can remove all of the suspense from a story by telling someone that "Character C kills Character B, Character E gets away with it."

Why would I want to purposefully remove a third of my possible enjoyment from a book before I've even finished it? That's like saying "I won't eat cake with frosting." Sure, you can eat a cake without frosting, and it would probably taste good, but the icing would make it taste much better. Some of you may say that the icing is just covering up a shitty cake, but it doesn't have to be that way. Good icing can make a cake made from rotten flour palatable; indeed, much of fiction produced these days eschews the first and sometimes second components of a good story in favor of a gripping plot that you "can't wait to see what happens next." On the other hand, a cake made from the finest ingredients is essentially a piece of sweet bread without the icing; it's not a cake (or a story) until you put it on.

Before I run this simile any further into the ground, just think of it like this:
If I want to ponder some kind of new idea, I'll listen to a lecture or read a paper.
If I want to witness an enjoyable conversation, I'll find someone to hang out with myself.
If I'm interested in seeing a series of events unfold, I'll read the news.
If I want all of these things at once, with better presentation and a higher likelihood of it the result being actually enjoyable, I'll read a book.

tldr you all should die in a fire.