January 7th, 2010 / 11:24 am
Snippets
Snippets
Sean Lovelace—
Introductions to books are akin to the inflatable dartboard. Get rid of them all.
-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
i like introductions. it depends on my mood. sometimes i will read them before, sometimes afte,r sometimes i will skip them. if youdont read them, then there is no well poissoning.
i like introductions. it depends on my mood. sometimes i will read them before, sometimes afte,r sometimes i will skip them. if youdont read them, then there is no well poissoning.
I think introductions, while certainly very much at the publisher’s behest in the interest of promoting and “explaining” the book you are about to read, are just another thing that can make a book “bookish,” like dedication pages, footnotes, preludes, prologues, copyright pages, frontispieces, all that stuff. And while I can understand the ideal of an unexplained work of art, alone, on its own terms, simply beginning with no explanation, that’s an idea borrowed from other artforms like painting and movies and the like, and even there it’s an illusion, because movies have posters and trailers, paintings have little cards on the wall explaining what the painting’s about—any artform you can think of tends to have a little introduction built in for the sake of those poor individuals who don’t want their art to be “entirely” mysterious.
I think introductions, while certainly very much at the publisher’s behest in the interest of promoting and “explaining” the book you are about to read, are just another thing that can make a book “bookish,” like dedication pages, footnotes, preludes, prologues, copyright pages, frontispieces, all that stuff. And while I can understand the ideal of an unexplained work of art, alone, on its own terms, simply beginning with no explanation, that’s an idea borrowed from other artforms like painting and movies and the like, and even there it’s an illusion, because movies have posters and trailers, paintings have little cards on the wall explaining what the painting’s about—any artform you can think of tends to have a little introduction built in for the sake of those poor individuals who don’t want their art to be “entirely” mysterious.
I’m with Ryan: I like introductions. For works of theory/philosophy I tend to read them first. For works of fiction I tend to read them last.
There have even been books that I have read in which the introduction was as good or even better than the book itself. The one that comes to mind (for some unknown reason) is Kazantzakis’s Last Temptation of Christ. It’s been years, but I remember liking the introduction more than the book itself.
I’m with Ryan: I like introductions. For works of theory/philosophy I tend to read them first. For works of fiction I tend to read them last.
There have even been books that I have read in which the introduction was as good or even better than the book itself. The one that comes to mind (for some unknown reason) is Kazantzakis’s Last Temptation of Christ. It’s been years, but I remember liking the introduction more than the book itself.
i’m not sure i would’ve gotten half as much out of babyfucker if i hadn’t first read the book, then read the introduction, then re-read the book.
what’s wrong with that?
i’m not sure i would’ve gotten half as much out of babyfucker if i hadn’t first read the book, then read the introduction, then re-read the book.
what’s wrong with that?
The introduction gets in my way. Even when I try to skip it, my eye falls on the page and I see the words “fresh voice” or some shit and then it’s like I swallowed a cockroach before I read and I’d like books to just begin. With google I can find anything out I want to know after.
Having said this, I do of course just skip them. But, for discussion…
(also I know a lot of writers get paid to write them, so that’s cool)
The introduction gets in my way. Even when I try to skip it, my eye falls on the page and I see the words “fresh voice” or some shit and then it’s like I swallowed a cockroach before I read and I’d like books to just begin. With google I can find anything out I want to know after.
Having said this, I do of course just skip them. But, for discussion…
(also I know a lot of writers get paid to write them, so that’s cool)
sometimes i read them during or after the book. rarely before the book. i’m fucking reading the book because i want to read the book.
sometimes i read them during or after the book. rarely before the book. i’m fucking reading the book because i want to read the book.
I pretty much only read introductions when written by authors I like. For example, the introduction to Barthelme’s Forty Stories written by Eggers. If it’s an intro by someone I don’t like, I give it about five lines to see if it’s worth reading. Otherwise, it gets read after the book, or never at all.
If it’s an introduction by the author of the book, I always read it because I enjoy that kind of behind-the-scenes business. I’ve wanted poet intros to collected works for a long time now (I’m not certain if they would work for single books of poetry, but I have a feeling they shouldn’t be done). gimme dat insight
I pretty much only read introductions when written by authors I like. For example, the introduction to Barthelme’s Forty Stories written by Eggers. If it’s an intro by someone I don’t like, I give it about five lines to see if it’s worth reading. Otherwise, it gets read after the book, or never at all.
If it’s an introduction by the author of the book, I always read it because I enjoy that kind of behind-the-scenes business. I’ve wanted poet intros to collected works for a long time now (I’m not certain if they would work for single books of poetry, but I have a feeling they shouldn’t be done). gimme dat insight
I also like introductions.
They often have an unexpected effect. Sometimes not though.
I also like introductions.
They often have an unexpected effect. Sometimes not though.
Slaughterhouse 5 wouldn’t be the same without the intro.
Slaughterhouse 5 wouldn’t be the same without the intro.
Agreed. The intro is the best part of Slaughterhouse 5, inspired stuff.
Agreed. The intro is the best part of Slaughterhouse 5, inspired stuff.
I like the NYRB intros, or a lot of them, which tell something about the book’s history, and the context into which it was received, how it was received, and why the introducer thinks the book is valuable enough to bring it back into print.
I like the NYRB intros, or a lot of them, which tell something about the book’s history, and the context into which it was received, how it was received, and why the introducer thinks the book is valuable enough to bring it back into print.
Yes! I was just going to say this but you beat me to it. I wouldn’t have the historical context without those intros: for example Christopher Hitchens’ intro to Handbook on Hanging.
Yes! I was just going to say this but you beat me to it. I wouldn’t have the historical context without those intros: for example Christopher Hitchens’ intro to Handbook on Hanging.
The NYRB intros, I mean. Whoops.
The NYRB intros, I mean. Whoops.
I don’t want the historical context. I don’t want context period.
I don’t want the historical context. I don’t want context period.
online would be a nice receptacle for after book curious consult.
‘what is the historical context?’
i’m more apt to do that than read the actual introduction. although some are good… still, even with my favorite afterword/intro, i wish it had just existed outside the book’s bounds (marcus in unguentine)
online would be a nice receptacle for after book curious consult.
‘what is the historical context?’
i’m more apt to do that than read the actual introduction. although some are good… still, even with my favorite afterword/intro, i wish it had just existed outside the book’s bounds (marcus in unguentine)