> Now I'll move on to something that *really* bugged me: the "forward" or introduction to the
> novel. In the particular edition that I read, it was written by E.M. Forster. He pretty much
> *ruined* the book for me.

Having shown my sympathy further downthread, in this post I'm going to be irritating by insisting that this is nothing on what happened to me last year.


Background:
There is a play, a murder mystery by Agatha Christie, called _The Mousetrap_. The first production of this play premiered in 1952. Because the play is a mystery, the audiences were asked not to tell anybody the cunning ending, and the various rights (film, Broadway production, etc.) were not allowed to be taken up until six months after the first production finished its run.
Nearly fifty years later, the first production still hasn't finished its run, and doesn't look to be doing so any time soon. It's the longest-running production of any play, ever.
Audiences are still put on their honour not to give away the ending to anyone who hasn't seen it yet.
Until the day of The Incident In The Library, I was quite looking forward to maybe one day getting to see it.

The Incident In The Library:
I was idly browsing through the non-fiction section of a local library, and starting flicking through a book of essays about a certain well-known playwright. Not, I hasten to add, Agatha Christie; I'm not stupid. In fact, the essay I read was about a play I knew well; I had no fear of being spoiled.
And then, suddenly, the writer of the essay claimed that a play within the play was a parody of Agatha Christie's _The Mousetrap_. And chose to support this contention by showing that the twist at the ending of both plays was the same.[1]

They shouldn't be allowed to do that to people.


Paul


[1] And some other plot details -- in fact, I think the writer of the essay may be right about it being a parody. But that's not the point.