Introductions to novels...who needs em?

[Vautrin]

I tend not to read introductions to novels written by other writers. They often contain spoilers and spoon feed you the reasons why what you're about to read is important. I can see it being something an English major might have some use for, however, for the casual reader - or even the avid one - these small essays are quite pointless. Life is too short. Just move on to the next book and appreciate that individual piece of art as it was intended to be, on its own merits. I think we become too fixated on knowing why something is important and miss the point of why it was created in the first place - to be enjoyed and digested the way a good piece of art ought to be. I understand that these introductions provide context for certain outdated or obscure works, but I have read many older texts without any assistance and have appreciated them more so, and for different reasons than those mentioned by some intro's. Also, I know marketing has a lot to do with it, which makes me even more reluctant to read them.

Introductions to novels...who needs em?

[sithkittie]

I generally find introductions annoying, whether from the editor, another author, or the author him/herself. I usually skip them. That said, there have been a few that I've appreciated. Most recently was the introduction to Ceremony by Leslie Marmon Silko. It was just interesting, having already read the novel, to read about how it came about. I've also appreciated some introductions to medieval texts. When they're well done they don't tell you how to appreciate the book but rather explain, in the case of medieval texts, the history behind whatever themes are unique to that era - say, for example, the introduction to the romances by Chretien de Troyes that I'm reading, most of it was dry, but there was information on the idea that love (at first sight) passed through the eyes to the heart. The editor explained it better than that, and it was explained in a way that I'd never heard of before. Some of the footnotes as well, when they're not so obvious you want to smack your head on something, are rather interesting and worthwhile.

In short, it really depends on how the introductions are written, I think anyway. They're, let's say, interesting more than helpful to reading, though I do skip them more often than not.

After reading the closing words by Stephen King for his Dark Tower series, I avoid "closing words" like the plague. That was the epitome of obnoxious, and yeah, those kind of intros/endings aren't even worth printing in my opinion.

[Wilde woman]

I usually enjoy introductions, but I prefer to read them after I've actually read the text itself. (Does that defeat the purpose?) As the OP said, they usually contain spoilers and critical remarks, all of which are more useful after one has taken the time to consume the text. And, like sithkittie, the stuff I read tends to be Classical or medieval, so I find the introductions most useful for providing historical context and/or giving me a glimpse of the current critical work surrounding the text.

By the way, your title reads "Introduction to novels" and I just realized that the genre of my readings are definitely not novels, but my point still holds.

[JBI]

Whose introductions? Some are actually quite good, though for books you do not know too well, it is best to read them after.
As for novels, well, depends how removed you are from the text. Some are good at giving a context, which is quite useful.

The idea of being so beyond scholarship is interesting, though it ultimately fails, the same way not looking outside of a poem into context fails at providing a full reading.

[Lokasenna]

I usually enjoy introductions, but I prefer to read them after I've actually read the text itself.

Ditto. They're particularly useful if you need to do some critical thinking about a work you don't know a huge amount about. Often they'll point you in a direction you hadn't previously considered.

[billl]

Me too. When possible, I'd prefer to get the added depth of meaning AFTER I've encountered the story and its surprises. When possible... And when there's a lot of NECESSARY info (about vocab, cultural specifics, personal biographies), there'll hopefully be a spoiler-free way of obtaining it. My experience, though, is that Introductions to classics are usually aimed more at providing "an awesome and comprehensive analysis" than they are at "setting the reader up for a spoiler-free enjoyment of the book". So I am pretty careful about reading them before reading the actual story.

[Big Dante]

I like most introductions and I will read them anyway. It's nice to get a background on the story before you read it but as has been pointed out they often contain spoilers. I would possibly be the only person ever to say this but I don't mind the odd spoiler or two, not that I would ever intentionally search for one but I don't think they take much away from the story itself.

The sonnet at the start of Romeo and Juliet is a complete spoiler to the play but it by no means ruins it.

[Lote-Tree]

Who needs them?

Those that can't be bothered to read the rest of the novel.

[Emil Miller]

I tend to read them as they are often interesting in themselves because they are usually written by people particularly well informed in the subject matter and often contain ancillary information about the author and other works connected to the book concerned.
A good example of this is the book I am currently reading i.e. Jennie Gerhardt by Theodore Dreiser. By reading the introduction, I was surprised to find that his most famous novel An American Tragedy was published in 1925, the same year as Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, two books so different stylistically that it's hard to imagine that they were written at the same time.

[Ghuyuran]

Ah, a refreshing thread.

Unless you are already familiar with the work, introductions of a literary work by a scholar usually end up being useless until you get into the book a little. Then you begin to understand what the hell this scholar is saying and you begin making connections.

Sadly, I also tend to forget them completely by the end, and I have to read them again. Introductions would be better off as conclusions, no doubt.

However, I do like introductions written by the authors themselves. I find they are often meaningful. Such an introduction establishes a first connection, outside of the story, between the author and his audience. It a hola before the train starts.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I usually enjoy introductions, but I prefer to read them after I've actually read the text itself.

Exactly what I was going to say. I never read introductions to a book I haven't read, especially the classics (Edith Grossman's translation of Don Quixote has a [approximately] forty-page intro written by Harold Bloom--no way am I reading that before the actual text). Intros seem to assume that the reader already knows the ending of the book, and therefore spoiling it is no big deal. Of course, there is the mindset that knowing the ending ahead of time allows the reader to appreciate what the author is doing more, but I find that a load of crap. I've been burned way too many times to have not learned my lesson.

[Lokasenna]

Of course, there is the mindset that knowing the ending ahead of time allows the reader to appreciate what the author is doing more, but I find that a load of crap. I've been burned way too many times to have not learned my lesson.

Well, that's what re-reading is for. With great literature, it's impossible to grasp all the subtelty and artistry on the first read through. Indeed, it can take many subsequent read throughs, on top of information from things like the Introduction.

[kelby_lake]

Most introductions suggest that you read the novel before looking at the introduction.

I like introductions- not only for explaining difficult texts and providing a bit of context, but because it's nice to get someone else's perspective on it.

[PeterL]

It depends on the particular introductions. Most are worthless. Some are integral to the novel, Lolita for example. Many should have been shuffled into the body of the text.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yep, I read them at the end as well or read them a little until a spoiler warning and then go to the start. I don't like to be given too much beforehand, not just necessarily because it could spoil the plot, but because I want to approach the work, as near as possible, with a clear mind and respond to it with my own thoughts. I will then go back and read introduction.