Sheesh this take is so pretentious to me. First of all, I'm not reading Crime and Punishment or Ulysses here. I'm not even reading Cormac McCarthy. I wouldn't classify Lonesome Dove as that kind of literature.

More importantly, it seems so silly to me to act like plot isn't an important part of the reading experience. You might be different, but for me it absolutely is. Don't get me wrong, it certainly isn't the only thing and I can still very much enjoy a book if I know how it ends.

But there's a reason the author didn't just state the facts of the plot from the outset when he originally wrote the book. Part of the experience is getting immersed in the world and story of the book and being along for the ride of the characters by not always knowing what's going to happen next. I am now incapable of having the experience of asking certain questions and thinking about this book in a certain way because I know a secret of the story that I wouldn't otherwise have known yet. Does it really make me some kind of philistine to want to experience the natural progression of the story and its mysteries the first time I read it?

The idea that "people who care about plot and intrigue in a book are too stupid to be reading any kind of actual literature" is tragically reductive, and just echoes the kid I knew in elementary school who would always flip to the back of a book he was reading and read the last page, just for the feeling of superiority he got from knowing how the book was going to end.