Do You Read the Preface?

[TenaciousBadger]

I opted for "never" even though I very rarely do read the preface but, much like Ea, mostly in non-fiction books, and then I go through it in a diagonal fashion .

[Anke Wehner]

Most things I've seen in prefaces would make a lot more sense to me as postfaces. :P

I once got one of those books that are commonly read at school because of critics and scholars liking them from the library. The preface gave away the ending to explain its symbolic meaning, which made me very angry, and is one of the things that make me loathe the whole capital-L Literature establishment.

Introduction by someone other than the writer: Why should I care about their opinion? And even if I cared, it would make way more sense to read it after I had a chance to read the book and get my own first impression, rather than getting railroaded into the commenter's reading.

Info by the author explaining why and how they wrote the book: I don't know the book yet, so at the moment I don't care. I might be interested if I liked the book, that is, after reading it.

Page of acknowledgements: I suspect these may be more interesting to the people named than to most readers. Like any other "making of" info, the only reason I might be interested is if I read and liked the book, not before I read the book.

List of other books by the same author: Meh. If it's two or three that fit on the copyright page, OK. The complete bibliography of Terry Pratchett, more or less twice because it includes the adaptations into plays? WHY do you put that much stuff between me and the story I'm here to read?

Excerpt from the book itself: Now, that's just annoying. Particularly in ebooks, which with some publishers have very little front matter... It's happened several times to me that I thought the excerpt was the start of the book proper, only then it was followed by license notes and other not-story pages.

Endorsements: Tacky and annoying. I don't want to see what other people (purportedly) say about the story, I want to see the story itself.

I don't mind "thank you"s and dedications that are just a line or three.

[caleb72]

I said sometimes because occasionally there is something there that catches my eye. But mostly I do not.

[Prestidigitweeze]

It's important to understand the difference between a preface, an introduction, a foreword and a prologue. A preface is written by the original author, forwards and introductions are written by other people (such as friends, editors and scholars), and a prologue is not only by the author but is part of the actual work and therefore must be read.

Since a true preface is written by the author, it's definitely worth reading if you're studying a classic or difficult work. The question for me isn't if but when.

If the preface was added many years later, I might choose to read it after the rest of the book. That way, I can get some sense of how the original reader felt and then learn more about the book afterward. If the writer is difficult or recondite, as Joyce can be in Finnegan's Wake, then I'm definitely reading the preface first (and any scholarly annotations by others).

Whether or not I read the introduction is entirely a matter of who wrote it and how good or insightful they are. If I'm reading a translation of Proust, I want to read the introduction by the translator if only to learn what compromises were made and what insights the task might have afforded. There will often be structural observations as well, which can help when one is tackling a six-volume psychological novel that predates modern psychology.

As I said, a prologue should always be read. A science fiction writer friend tacked one onto his novel at the last minute and was dismayed when reviewers felt the style was slipshod. He'd invested all of his seductive craft into the beginning of the first chapter and hadn't realized the prologue replaced it as the opening.

[Prestidigitweeze]

There are also cases in which an introduction or complimentary article so changes the meaning of the book that I feel the reader should experience the story on their own first.

Chinua Achebe is one of the greatest African writers of the twentieth century, and his introduction to Conrad's Heart of Darkness is important. But Conrad's novel is important, too, even though it is predicated on a racist idea of Otherness (in Edward Said's parlance). It deserves to be experienced as a work of fiction -- about an impressionistic idea of a demagogue given free reign on a remote continent -- before the debate about Conrad's understanding of race is ever raised.

In fact, the idea that Conrad is racist is so obvious, and so anachronistic, that I might ignore such an introduction which repeatedly pointed that out if someone other than Achebe had written it.

Focusing on such a thing at the beginning of a book -- before the reader has even experienced it -- is rather like reducing Tom Jones to the idea that Fielding was sexist. The same goes for De Quincey's Confessions of an English Opium Eater: Yes, his idea of Orientalism is practically a flash card for E. Said's thesis. But his style is still beautiful and his imagery is still haunting, and they are why we still read his books.

There's anti-Semitism in Shakespeare, but that doesn't make the rest of his writing any less great. It simply makes us wince en route to King Lear.

[Sydney's Mom]

I was told to in school, and it just became a habit.

[alecE]

Always, even if it's a crap preface.I take the view that the author has taken the trouble to write it, so I should take the trouble to read it.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by alecE

Always, even if it's a crap preface.I take the view that the author has taken the trouble to write it, so I should take the trouble to read it.

That is a very popular stance.

My completest, mildly OCD, nature would usually agree, but somehow, it has never translated to individual books.

[bear4hunter]

Fiction: usually no
Non-fiction: usually yes
But don't shoot me if I do otherwise

[grumpy3b]

when I do read it, I do so almost exclusively after reading the book itself. Just a habit I picked up as a kid after reading the preface to a book had way too many spoilers. I don't care about the motivations or background details for the book as a rule. I want to read the story with "new" eyes. I like Afterwards over a Preface or Forward.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by alecE

Always, even if it's a crap preface.I take the view that the author has taken the trouble to write it, so I should take the trouble to read it.

Conversely, if I decide the author hasn't taken the trouble to write the preface well, then I might conclude they're a lazy stylist and choose not to read the book after all.

Lower East Side novelist, poet and mentor, Steve Cannon has a response to writers who intone long-winded prefaces, which I've heard him deliver during crowded events:

"Read the goddamned piece!"

If they don't hear him the first time, Steve usually follows with this: "If it's so goddamned important, stop tellin' us 'bout it and read it!"

You might think I'm describing the behavior of a crank, but Steve was professor of literature at SUNY for many years. He has also held writing workshops at his art gallery that were attended by people like Toni Morrison and Henry Louis Gates.

[captkjaneway]

Never for me - if a book needs an explanation then IMHO it isn't written well enough and I really don't care who the author wants to thank either.

I only read fiction as a rule.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by alecE

Always, even if it's a crap preface.I take the view that the author has taken the trouble to write it, so I should take the trouble to read it.

This made me chuckle, because I have to be pretty economical with my reading time and I don't feel like I owe the author a wooden nickle. Still, it's a nice attitude.

I read prefaces if it's an older book that has gone through several editions - I recently read the preface to the B&N "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" and found it very interesting and instructive.

But a recent release? Never, never, never. Prefaces are, in my experience, either completely spoilery (in which case they would ruin my reading experience), or totally non-relevant / navel-gazing (in which case why would I care to read this?).

I will read afterwords, though. If they captured my attention enough to get me to the end of the book, I'll read the afterword.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I'm really just curious as to how many people actually read prefaces.

Why or why not?


I usually skip right over them .

Sometimes. It depends of the book. I mostly read computer books so I skip preface if there is one and jump into the action

For non fiction or bios, I sometimes read the preface. It gives me additional material that can help me to understand the content or the work which was put behind the book.

[TenaciousBadger]

Originally Posted by jocampo

For non fiction or bios, I sometimes read the preface. It gives me additional material that can help me to understand the content or the work which was put behind the book.

Come to think of it, I remember some non-fiction school books in which I read nothing else except the preface.