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 I understand that these introductions provide context for certain outdated or obscure works, but I have read many older texts without any assistance and have appreciated them more so, and for different reasons than those mentioned by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.

[Zerien]

I'm studying English Literature at degree level, and it has only recently been pointed out that prefaces and introductions are critical to our understanding of a novel. Before this I was always of the opinion that they served only to point out of the obvious or to allow a self obsessed author a few more moments of fame. One exception I have found is that of Stephen King's The Gun-slinger series in which he discusses being a young writer at a humble level which I have away related too and been moved by.

[The Comedian]

I sometimes read them. As others have pointed out, they do give added contextual clarity. This benefit is particularly important to me if I am unfamiliar with the culture or era in which the events take place or when the author wrote the book. So usually, the less I know about the context of the book, the more likely I am to read and value the book's introduction.

If I feel comfortable with my contextual knowledge, I usually skip introductions because they're usually full of spoilers. And that's such a downer! ;)

And as other have said, I really want know more about he book or times in which the book was written, I'll go back and read the introduction after I've read the whole book.

[KilgoreT]

I also tend to read them after I read the book, mostly for purposes of spoiler evasion, but I feel that they can be useful in tying everything up, too.

A couple of times, I can think of Lolita and Life of Pi off the top of my head, I missed an important part of the story labelled as "Author's Note" or something until the end. Damn that sucked!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

Yes, but the theory I mentioned says to know the ending even on the first reading.

[Vautrin]

I must agree with everyone here who has suggested reading it "after" you've completed the novel. But again, it really depends on the novel. If I hated it or wasn't that crazy about it, the chances of me going back to read the introduction are slim to none.

I know it may just be a matter of semantics, but what if they changed "Introduction" to something like "Further Reading" and placed it at the very end of the book. Wouldn't that make more sense considering people's aversion to spoilers, etc?

Also, these introductions seem to be vehicles for lesser known writers or academics to get their names out there, and who can blame them right! I just wonder how the internet and e-readers will change all that. Or will they always be included in the package?

[LuggageFan]

I don't read them either until AFTER I've finished the book. I don't like spoilers and introductions often do just that.

[bohn]

Wordsworth books that have an introduction usually state NOT to read the intro before reading the book.

[Sancho]

It’s a money thing. An intro with a copy-write protects the publisher of an older novel that is in the public domain.

So read, don’t read, read before, read after; if you have an intro at least you have a choice.

[dfloyd]

I find introductions by well-kown criitcis invaluable. As far as spoilers go, they have little meaning for classical literature. Before I read Great Expectations, I knew the srory line. Do you think a spoiler would ruin Macbeth or Hamlet?
Spoilers should only be avoided in the case of certain modern writers, especially mystery writers.

[stlukesguild]

It’s a money thing. An intro with a copy-write protects the publisher of an older novel that is in the public domain.

That would only protect the introduction. If the novel or poem or whatever text is already in the public domain slapping an intro into the book isn't going to stop another publisher from publishing their own edition with a different intro or no intro.

Personally, I tend to read the intros. A good deal of literature that I read is from a culture quite removed from my own and so introductions often provide useful context: a bit of a bio on the writer, the culture and tradition in which he or she worked, some ideas as to where his or her works expanded or broke from that tradition, etc...

[Rores28]

As many have said I prefer to read it after. I don't think reading an intro necessarily ruins texts like Macbeth or Hamlet but I certainly enjoy them more when I don't know what is going to happen