
To All the Introductions I’ve Loved Before - hoffmannesque
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/01/22/to-all-the-introductions-ive-loved-before/
======
voidhorse
I always read introductions. There seems to be this popular idea in America
that any text is comprehensible without prerequisite knowledge or proper
framing. This is also coupled with the idea that introductions will somehow
“spoil” a work—the notion that all a story is good for are its spectacles and
surprises (a pretty shallow appreciation of narratives, especially considering
nearly all of said surprises have been done to death). I never quite
understood this myself. I don’t know where anyone gets this idea that they’ll
just understand a work without any additional rigging to help them—it’s
similar to a belief that one can and should climb a mountain without
equipment. I would not be surprised if adherents of this philosophy also don’t
look up definitions for words they don’t know but probably just breeze over
them. It’s laziness! There’s a lot that goes into crafting a quality
interpretation of a text, this includes a great deal of theoretical
exploration, and historical tidbits that aren’t covered in the text itself.
And no, reading an introduction does not somehow make your experience of the
work “impure” nor are you bound to blindly accepting everything an
introduction claims is important as such—in fact you may find through your
reading that what the introductory text emphasized seemed in fact wholly
irrelevant to the work (in which case you might consider it a poor
introduction).

Obviously if you’re reading strictly with the intention of passing time/being
entertained and not with the intention of understanding or comprehending what
you’re reading and experiencing through the text, I can see why you might skip
the intro.

------
yesenadam
A lot of fairly dry computer books have touching, emotional, wonderful
introductions. Shaw's prefaces are usually longer and more interesting than
the plays they precede. G.K. Chesterton wrote a book on Shaw, a close friend,
to which this was the entire introduction:

 _MOST people either say that they agree with Bernard Shaw or that they do not
understand him. I am the only person who understands him, and I do not agree
with him.

G. K. C._

My favourite preface is to Théophile Gautier's _Mademoiselle de Maupin_ ,
which is savagely funny, categorizing the types of critic and introducing _art
for art 's sake_ to combat the 'utilitarian critic' who complains of art not
being useful.

------
croisillon
There is a song "to all the girls i've loved before"
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-RGql11Xg](https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-
RGql11Xg)

------
oska
I read introductions but usually only after I've read the work that they are
'introducing'.

