What struck me as most interesting in this week's readings was the fact that illustrations in Victorian books would frequently precede the textual portion of the book being depcited (this practice referred to in Leighton and Surridge's narratological framework as proleptic illustration). This, in addition to learning that such illustrations depicting crucial plot-points in the books in which they were contained were used as marketing tools to pique consumer interest, struck me as an example of what would now be referred to as a "spoiler." That this practice was so common in the Victorian era caused me to consider whether Victorians had the anti-spoiler culture we seem to have today, or whether they were fine with knowing mjor plot developments in books before they read them. The answer to this question could be revealing with respect to broader questions concernng the reative importance Victorians placed on plot, the element of surprise, etc. in literature, and when exactly readers grew to resent being tipped off to upcoming plot developments, if not during nor before the Victorian era. It seems odd to me that Victorians would be comfortable having stories partially spoiled before reading them, particularly, for example, when it comes to detective fiction (e.g., Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories we'll be reading this semester), a crucial element of which seems to be the mystery at the heart of the plot and reader's participation in solving it before it is explicitly revealed in the text.