Do you ignore forewords/introductions when reading literature?

[MysticWind]

I find that all too often the forewords of classical works are about breathless clamoring over the legacy of the work, the life and times of the writer, and crucial plot elements. Am I the only person who skips the writing prior to the beginning of the story, unless it's an author's note from the original writer itself?

[kiki1982]

Oh, yes. I never read the introduction. Only read it afterwards. I don't so much mind plot details. I don't really read for the plot. If I am really puzzled about the meaning of an occurrence I even go so far as to see how it ends.

I agree that a reader should be aware of what views the author or his society held, but that is no reason to pack the whole thing in 30 pages worth. And what do people who know all this have to do? Slog thourgh the same things over and over again? Mostly I just can't contain my enthusiasm when starting on a book. And you should not be biased already before reading a book. Just think yourself, that's already good enough. If you want more explanation, you can always consult the introduction afterwards, or maybe they should call it the afterword.

[prendrelemick]

I always ignore it on the first reading.

[Panglossian]

If it's short - 2 or 3 pages - I'll read it. If it's some vast analysis I'll read it when I finish the book.

[Jeffercake]

I don't like to read introductions before I read the book, but I sometimes read them afterwards.
Some of the information about the author and where the story originates from is interesting, but I agree with the comments about not being biased or swayed before reading.

[dfloyd]

I assume the Introduction is written by knowledgable people. I read them before and sometimes after reading the book.

[breathtest]

If it's something that the writer of the piece wrote, then I will read it, because I'm always interested in what the writer has to say. But usually I find introductions are useless really, and wasting paper. The occasional introduction is good, quite informative, and I at least try to read them after the actual text.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I tend to read the both the Forwards and Introductions, especially in cases where I am reading a particular author for the first time. If the Introduction starts heading down the path of revealing too much about the text, then I will skip those parts and read afterword.

.

[AjaxAscendant]

Never, coz it most often tells me everything I want to know about in the book. In the case of a boring or prolix book, it gives a short summary of everything that's written in there, so I can just skip the reading and draw my conclusions :)

[Der Wegwerfer]

Man I hate it when they basically give spoilers in those introductions!

this has happened on many of those newly translated Dostoevsky works by Magershank and Peavar/Volshenkov(sp?)

I basically don't read them anymore until done with the book.

[Blasarius '33]

Man I hate it when they basically give spoilers in those introductions!
Yes, The Third Policeman. I couldn't quite believe the spoiler I read in the introduction; it took a while to register that it was telling me what it told me. Later I saw that the first review at Amazon is titled, "WARNING!" and said to not read the intro before reading the story.

So now I'm more careful and usually read the intro after.

[Venerable Bede]

I skip the intro for almost all books whose plots I care about. Most introductions read like an essay and directly quote the text, which really ruins the book. For books like Dante's Divine Comedy or historical works, I'll usually read the intro because the historical background is so important.

[celestialonion]

After I realized that they were full of spoilers, I stopped reading them. I do enjoy reading their analysis after the text though. However, the one notable exception is obviously in Pale Fire, considering that the introduction is a part of the work itself.

[FROADS]

I actually read the introduction and foreword after reading the book for fear of spoilers.

[JBI]

Depends what I am reading, generally all East Asian books in translation have some sort of introduction, and all Chinese editions seem to have a lexicographical/historical introduction.

[Dark Muse]

I had a teacher once who said that she thought "Introductions" should be placed at the end of the book. As a general practice I never read them. If after finishing a book there was something I was particularly curious about, or if there was something I felt I wanted/needed explained further I might take a glimpse but I usually never have the patience to read the whole thing and I will just skim through it.

[goatlips]

They are a waste of time. If I have a choice of two editions of a book to buy, one with an intro and the other without, I will now always choose the one without. When I did read them I was especially annoyed when the writer of the intro would give his opinion of how HE could have written certain parts better, or could have written a different kind of book. Blockheads!

[Big Dante]

If I read them it usually will be after reading the story itself. I don't always go back to them however.

[logophile]

Man I hate it when they basically give spoilers in those introductions!

this has happened on many of those newly translated Dostoevsky works by Magershank and Peavar/Volshenkov(sp?)

I basically don't read them anymore until done with the book.
I discovered this when reading One Hundred Years of Solitude. Luckily I read the introduction when I'd safely finished the book. As a rule, I read introductions once I've finished the book, unless the introduction is intended to help in one's understanding of the book itself or translation (my copy of Ariosto's Orlando Furioso draws attention to certain formal elements which could be missed otherwise and my copy of The First Circle includes a list of characters full names and roles and a brief explanation of the use of patronyms)

[logophile]

They are a waste of time. If I have a choice of two editions of a book to buy, one with an intro and the other without, I will now always choose the one without. When I did read them I was especially annoyed when the writer of the intro would give his opinion of how HE could have written certain parts better, or could have written a different kind of book. Blockheads!

I sometimes wonder if outlandish statements like this are made to soothe the introducer's sorrow at the knowledge that no one really cares about the introduction.

[young foht]

I had a teacher once who said that she thought "Introductions" should be placed at the end of the book.

This is such a good idea. Almost every introduction talks about the book in such a way that assumes you have already read it, i.e. talking about/giving away crucial plot details, which is pretty flabbergasting. I suppose if someone could write an introduction that would really prepare the reader for the work in some way that might be alright, but introductions are almost always just general commentary. If I want commentary on a book, I'll read some kind of criticism, and I will do it after I read the actual book. Honestly, the whole introduction thing kind of seems like a way for a scholar to get their opinion of a book a privileged position as the first and possibly only criticism readers will ever look at.

I do remember reading an old collection of Henry James short stories published in the 50s that had a good introduction that was kind of helpful without ruining anything or being excessively interpretive, but in general introductions are a waste of time.

[dwdean]

i usually read introductions and forewords, but it has proven frustrating before.
i am currently tackling "The Picture Of Dorian Gray" and in reading the foreword i stumbled into a plot summary. some jackoff thought it would be a good idea for me to know what happens in the end of the book, before i even start reading the book!

pissed...

[TheChilly]

If the introduction makes sense to the story, then I'll read it.

[Cunninglinguist]

Honestly, the whole introduction thing kind of seems like a way for a scholar to get their opinion of a book a privileged position as the first and possibly only criticism readers will ever look at.

In general, I don't think that the convention of the introduction was contracted by scholars, but by those who are either too brainless, lazy, or too intimidated to interpret a piece of literature written outside of their social context, without some sort of professional guidance or reassurance. Most introductions are simplifications and one-dimensional interpretations; they tend to follow that "3rd-grade-book-report formula," augmented with some pointless yet inexplicably requisite quotations, and we end up with a practice that should have been left alone long ago revived as some monstrous, groaning Frankenstein. In short, though, what ultimately makes them unforgivable is that they are redundancies ... I don't quite apprehend what, exactly, I am supposed to be getting--other than annoyed, of course--from an introduction that starts off by quoting the first sentence of a book (a protocol which I have encountered more than once).

Of course, there are useful introductions that, instead of interpreting for the reader, help the reader interpret. But it's grievous that the standards of introductions are so low and that introductions tend to be so trite, that we have to sift through a heap of useless bosh to get to anything useful.

[FrancoisG]

I read before the book. If I did like it then I read introductions. Sometimes, to check the analyses I must read the book again !

[inbetween]

I mostly ignore them, ecspecially when they are long and analytic... but when it's from the author himself (as from oscar wilde...) or from someone I'm interested in (as Terry Johnes... he wrote a lovely preface to the new edition of the hitchhikers guide to galaxy by the folio sociaty) then I read it.
but mostly I skipp them for I want to see for myself how I like the book .... and sometimes read them afterwards (or want to read them afterwards and when I finish the book I forget to do so.. whatsoever)

[ariella]

sometimes they SHOULD PUT THESE 'introductions' at the back of the book and call them 'OUTRODUCTIONS' instead. At least in many cases, they even recommend reading the 'intro'duction AFTER actually having read the book anyway. Depends what it is really.