Long winded introductions by someone or another in books: classic or dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

So, yeah, you pick up a book and there is this long piece giving away the story and telling you how great the book is. Is this really necessary? Same goes for transaltors notes (I don't mind if they are placed at the end of the book)

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 18 November 2002 19:13 (twenty-three years ago)

You're right, they should be placed at the end. I don't feel like reading a giant dissection of a book I've never read prior to reading the book. They always do put them at the beginning though.

― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 18 November 2002 19:20 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah its madness: i read Burroughs Junky and it had this long really boring intro by Will self.

the intro by ballard to 'naked lunch' is much better: just one page and that's it!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 18 November 2002 19:40 (twenty-three years ago)

I generally skip these types of introductions. They tend to be de rigeur for any books of "classic" literature, but I prefer to read the work first and skip the commentary. Sometimes the person writing the introduction will even recommend reading the work first, as in the edition of Plato's "Republic" that I read recently.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 18 November 2002 19:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I read the Lonely Hearts Club today, and when I finished I read the introduction, and was thinking, "huh? what's this guy on about? It's not a modern story!" (It's more some sort of beatnik pastiche, boarding rooms, drinking, odd people etc). If I'd read the introduction first I might not have read any further.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 18 November 2002 19:48 (twenty-three years ago)

dud: intros that give away the entire plot to a novel. i never read the intro first these days.

― toby (tsg20), Monday, 18 November 2002 20:09 (twenty-three years ago)

A well-written introduction to a classic piece of literature can be a delightful and valuable addition.

For me, a good introduction 'sets the scene where our story takes place'. It includes material that will enhance your understanding of the time, place and audience that the original piece of literature was written for - especially the sort of stuff that was assumed then as common knowledge, but totally opaque to a modern reader. Ideally, the author loves the subject in exhaustive depth, but tells you only the cream of what they know.

Introductions for modern fiction are usually so much bollocks, for the same reason. They only get in the way.

― Aimless, Monday, 18 November 2002 20:27 (twenty-three years ago)

i found out something kewl abt kipling in the added intro to just-so-stories so NOT dud

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 18 November 2002 20:38 (twenty-three years ago)

It includes material that will enhance your understanding of the time, place and audience that the original piece of literature was written for - especially the sort of stuff that was assumed then as common knowledge, but totally opaque to a modern reader

I think this type of material is better presented as end notes. So when you come across something that needs explanation, you have the option of turning to the back to read about it. It's hard to imagine some sort of recontextualization of a work that wouldn't have it's own agenda.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 18 November 2002 22:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Julio: I'm gonna read Naked Lunch one of these days, and I'd like to read the Ballard intro, which edition is it in?

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 00:49 (twenty-three years ago)

I love intros. their biasing me is not really a problem - in most cases I think either the bias is obvious, and thus nothing to worry about, or the bias is welcome because I need lots of help finding my way around in the book.

― Josh (Josh), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 02:19 (twenty-three years ago)

''Julio: I'm gonna read Naked Lunch one of these days, and I'd like to read the Ballard intro, which edition is it in?''

I can't rememeber exactly. It was my local library's copy (and I've given it back).

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 13:39 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't mind reading them after because sometimes they help me understand the book better, but when I pick up a book at first I'm so excited to get started that reading a lot beforehand just annoys me.

― Maria (Maria), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 15:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Not to mention that these types of intros are usually bone-dry and pedantic to boot.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, by definition, a dud introduction is a dud, innit?

― Aimless, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:49 (twenty-three years ago)

Objection, leading the witness!

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:05 (twenty-three years ago)

as often as not these things say "go and read the book first" or somesuch, and it's not like yr forced to read it and learn something extra.

so never dud

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:25 (twenty-three years ago)

It's the same with films, when they have those 5 minute introduction pieces. They annoy me.

Introductions should become Outroductions and appear at the end of the book.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:27 (twenty-three years ago)

i avoid the potential dudness by the magic of skipping

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I should have thought that "long-winded" would have been enough leading of the witness to excuse mine. I suppose the only sensible answer is: a good piece of writing is a good piece of writing, whether it shows up as an Introduction or anywhere else. If it is flawed writing (pedantic, simple-minded or whatnot) then it is dud, no matter what else you call it.

― Aimless, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 19:02 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.