/lit/ - Literature

>outdated
Well when were they needed?

postfeces are good

I never read them unless I have to read it for an essay or something.

Posthumous intros > personal intros

So they're like your trip.

>>1648311
So... Are you gonna explain why, are you just trying to troll someone or...?

>>1648314
>>1648314
i don't think they were ever totally needed but i say they served a purpose.

e.g Mary Shelly's Frankenstein has both an introduction and a preface, from 2 different releases of the novel and they explain to her audience why she was able to write this story. To make excuses as it were, for her being a teenage girl who had the idea for this novel about a monster

>>1648345
Still going on about that huh?

>>1648346
>>1648346
im sorry you seem to be implying i'm any less correct for my example.

got anything to contribute or does this thread require too much intelligence for you to participate?

the latter is my guess

>>1648314
Before you could find the same information on the internet if you actually wanted to read it.
>>1648346
You seem mad that Brownbear contributes to this board.

>>1648348
>>1648352
Oh wow, look at the samefaggotry.

>>1648348
You're such a pseudo, Brownbore.

Not that guy, but laughing at your self-aggrandising and half-assed intellect.

>>1648355
>>1648355
>2 people have the same opinion
>LOOOOL I CALL U SAMEFAGS XDDDD

no.

>>1648348
Do you even know how they differentiated between Preface and Introduction back then? Things like:
>they explain to her audience why she was able to write this story. To make excuses as it were, for her being a teenage girl who had the idea for this novel about a monster
Would only have been part of the preface.

>>1648360
>>1648360
yes the preface was written by her husband and not her, it basically said that the events in the story CAN happen because scientist x,y and z said so and also is a general stroy of how the novel came about.

However when Frankenstein was released it was released anonymously, no one knew the gender of the author with the 1818 edition and it was just entitled:
Frankenstein; or, the modern prometheus.
in three volumes
)little bit of paradise lost quote)
THE AUTHOR

only in the 1831 edition does Mary Shelly pen the introduction which gives a real excuse for her writing of the novel. She actually makes excuses for being so young and having this imagination claiming that she was possessed by a dream to write it and that the entire idea was not of her making but instead came to her in a dream.

so no, it's actually a part of the introduction.

>>1648356
>>1648356
thanks for disagreeing with me but not backing it up
feelsgoodtobemoreintelligentman

this thread is just one more example of why Anonymous is the cancer killing /lit/.

>>1648373
this is just as stupid as saying that tripfags are the cancer that's killing /lit/... Maybe more stupid, cause this started as an anonymous board.

>>1648371
>>Do you even know how they differentiated between Preface and Introduction back then?
>yes the preface was written by her husband and not her
Answering a different question to the one asked, eh?

Preface looks at the scope of the work (and as such its limitations), introduction tells you how the work was intended to be read.

>>1648371
>so no, it's actually a part of the introduction.
Which is why she immediately starts talking about her parents, the people famous for their radical social ideas. Your surface reading totally makes sense, and is not half baked.

>>1648379
>>1648379
actually i answered your question quite coherrently, i said 'yes' and then went on to prove how you were wrong when you said this statement

'>they explain to her audience why she was able to write this story. To make excuses as it were, for her being a teenage girl who had the idea for this novel about a monster
Would only have been part of the preface.'

i eagerly await your response to how i proved you wrong

>>1648380
>>1648380
he said it's a part of the preface
i said it's a part of the introduction
i think you are confused to what's going on

>>1648382
>>1648384
"To make excuses as it were, for her being a teenage girl who had the idea for this novel about a monster"
Is a statement detailing limitations of the work. Near the beginning of the introduction, she begins "It is not singular that I as the daughter of two persons of distinguished literary celebrity..."

She also specifically says towards the end that she owed none of the ideas or trains of feelings to her husband, though she must thank him for his encouragement.

So, she owes her husband nothing (beside encouragement), she owes her radical parentage everything.

>>1648396
>>1648396
she says her husband wrote the preface is the 1831 intro but this is after we are lead to believe she was the author of the preface, thus throwing the authorship of the introduction and the whole novel into doubt.

but that's another story.

however your point talks about her parentage, it does NOT address my point in the slightest, which is that in the introduction and NOT THE PREFACE she seems to make excuses for having the idea for this novel come to her.

just to clarify
that was my point, the one you ignored

>>1648406
She's not making excuses, she's explaining that it was not written about her own personal experience; that she, at the time of writing the intro, had experienced pain and tragedy, but back then was relatively untouched.

>>1648412
>>1648412
actually she does make excuses for it, and she was heavily criticised for being an 18 year old with an imagination like this.

when i placed my head on my pillow, i did not sleep, nor could i be said to think. My imagination , unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bonds of reverie'

It wasn't her who thought of the story!
it was all a dream that possessed her!
she's still an innocent 18 year old, she hasn't been corrupted and her mind is not poisoned! it was all the dreams fault!

>>1648425
She knew what "imagination" meant. You apparently do not.

Again, what a shallow reading, ignoring the clear signposting of her own childhood and parentage. Do you even know she eloped? You know where everything gets a little busy according to her?

>>1648433
>>1648433
>studied this novel for two years
>shallow reading

you dfon't understand that she is distancing herself from the creation and formation of both the novel and the ideas contained within. She says it did not come from her own thought process but rather she was 'possessed by a dream' and that's how she came to write it.

have you even read any of the 19th century responses to Frankenstein? where they discovered she was a female author and she was heavily criticised for it?

or did you just miss that part kiddo?

>>1648433
>>1648412
>>1648396
>>1648380
>>1648379
>>1648377
>>1648360
>>1648356
>>1648355
>>1648346
>>1648325
>>1648323
>>1648318
>>1648314
>>1648320

>>1648518
Reported for spam.

>>1648529
Sorry for bumping my literature based thread whilst also pointing out the stupidity of certain posters.

>>1648535
Maybe you should try bumping it with actual content next time~

Just another thread that proves the utter worthlessness of Tom Harper.. lol

safe as milk.
trips are for fags.

>>1648435
>studied this novel for two years
>shallow reading
It doesn't matter about how difficult you found it or how long you took, all that matters is the end product. Also, you're an 18 y.o. in the first year of uni, so unless those 2 years are high school, no you haven't.

You're also blissfully unaware of her fame through virtue of her parents and her relationship with her husband.

Well done.

>>1648580
>>1648580
>studied it for a year in HS
>studied it for a year in Uni
>you didn't address my points where i went Leo TOLDstoy on your ass
>implying her husband made any money from his poetry
>you mad

>>1648587
>relationship with her husband
>implying her husband made any money from his poetry
Not at all. RELATIONSHIP. You know, because they ran away together. And what a uni that you study Frankenstein for an entire year, totally not a shitty course.

She was already famous for not being your typical woman, why on earth you think she was trying to hide her act of creation when she specifically says it is her own and that no other can take credit for it is beyond me. The critical reactions are as much about her parents' reputation for their radical ideas as her own, which is partly why she mentions it. How about she wasn't distancing herself from her work as much as saying "Is it really so hard to believe that a woman can write about such a topic?" It certainly has that rhetorical element, but at no point does she wash her hands of it.

/discussion

>>1648675
>>1648675
>fame through her relationsihp with her husband
is what you originally said
this heavily implied you thought she was famous because her husband was an unsuccessful poet and only became well-known after his death.

she only says it's her own work in 1831, 23 years after she first released it with her HUSBAND WRITING THE PREFACE AS IF HE WAS HER AND THUS THROWING THE ENTIRE NOVELS AUTHORSHIP INTO DOUBT.

i've put it in capital letters to make sure you do not miss it.

She was trying to hide her act of creation and if you actually read her introduction you'll see she distances herself from any real personal involvement with the creation of the novel and instead attributes it to being possessed by a dream.

She was distancing herself from it, you obviously are a bit of a shallow reader if you couldn't pick up on that.

look i can do this too!
/discussion

seeeeeeeeeee? lolololol

I DON'T WANNA KEEL

MAH CHINA PIG

GROMP GROMP GROMP