June 2nd, 2010 / 1:53 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Lily Hoang—
For fiction, I read the Introduction after I’ve finished the book. They should go afterwards, like an Afterword. That way, I read the book fresh. That way, my reading isn’t tainted by someone else’s interpretation.
Me too. For me it’s just because I’m so excited to read the actual thing.
I lent a friend “Pale Fire” and she got really confused because she didn’t read the introduction first. But that’s different.
I think this is a good policy.
Right now I am reading “Log of the S.S. the Mrs. Unguentine” and I am so happy there wasn’t an introduction and so excited that there is an afterword.
(“with a new afterword by Ben Marcus”)
One’s reading is always tainted and contaminated by things and people outside the text: friends who suggest it, reviews, preconceptions about an author, earlier works by same author, questions others ask you about the book, where you read, etcetera. There is no pure/fresh/individual reading of anything.
But let’s say a fresh reading WAS possible, why would it be preferable?
I got so much more from reading Kafka after reading Scholem’s letters to Benjamin on the subject. Reading through the lens of Scholem’s interpretation made already interesting stories (particularly ‘The Great Wall of China’) twice as interesting.
I’ve always felt this way, too. The only intros I usually read before the actual text are Vonnegut’s. Also, Eggers’ intro to ASWOHG.
I always read introductions after I finish the book, but for some reason I read the intro before reading The Third Policeman. It contained part of a letter from the author to a friend in which the author explains the meaning of the story. It didn’t exactly “ruin” it for me, but it did steal a conclusion that would have been fun to come to on my own. Dalkey moved the intro to the end for the new edition. I wish I would have known. Still a great book, though.
Agreed!
same for films: drives me insane when they ruin the movie on the back of the case, or some jackass talks about what he thinks of the pictures and sounds you’re about to watch and hear. i even like some of the jackasses, but that doesn’t change the fact they’re full of shit (we’re all full of shit). introductions are so rarely worth their own salt, and even when they are, should come after the fact. they should be called afterwords; that would be better.
But if you don’t read intros, does it matter? I tend to skip the intros until I finish like you, Lily, but sometimes I also read the afterwords first.
Me too. For me it’s just because I’m so excited to read the actual thing.
I lent a friend “Pale Fire” and she got really confused because she didn’t read the introduction first. But that’s different.
I think this is a good policy.
Right now I am reading “Log of the S.S. the Mrs. Unguentine” and I am so happy there wasn’t an introduction and so excited that there is an afterword.
(“with a new afterword by Ben Marcus”)
One’s reading is always tainted and contaminated by things and people outside the text: friends who suggest it, reviews, preconceptions about an author, earlier works by same author, questions others ask you about the book, where you read, etcetera. There is no pure/fresh/individual reading of anything.
But let’s say a fresh reading WAS possible, why would it be preferable?
I got so much more from reading Kafka after reading Scholem’s letters to Benjamin on the subject. Reading through the lens of Scholem’s interpretation made already interesting stories (particularly ‘The Great Wall of China’) twice as interesting.
I’ve always felt this way, too. The only intros I usually read before the actual text are Vonnegut’s. Also, Eggers’ intro to ASWOHG.
I always read introductions after I finish the book, but for some reason I read the intro before reading The Third Policeman. It contained part of a letter from the author to a friend in which the author explains the meaning of the story. It didn’t exactly “ruin” it for me, but it did steal a conclusion that would have been fun to come to on my own. Dalkey moved the intro to the end for the new edition. I wish I would have known. Still a great book, though.
Agreed!
same for films: drives me insane when they ruin the movie on the back of the case, or some jackass talks about what he thinks of the pictures and sounds you’re about to watch and hear. i even like some of the jackasses, but that doesn’t change the fact they’re full of shit (we’re all full of shit). introductions are so rarely worth their own salt, and even when they are, should come after the fact. they should be called afterwords; that would be better.
But if you don’t read intros, does it matter? I tend to skip the intros until I finish like you, Lily, but sometimes I also read the afterwords first.