Does anyone else almost always skip the introduction of books

I go on /lit/ and do that all the time though.

I was close to skipping the foreword in steppenwolf

File: what the fuck did you just say about me you little pleb.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

Invariably depends on who's writing it.

File: 1446077926482.jpg (18KB, 471x354px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 471x354px

>>7740174

son!

>>7740169
it depends. if it's something i want to dive into with a clear mind, i skip it. if i'm reading the critique of pure reason or being and time, i would put time into reading the introduction.

back in my young'n days i read the intro to b&n edition of war and peace then basically parroted it for my essay portion of the ap lit test and got a 5

sometimes I read it after, if I really liked the book. they're like special features on a D V D

>>7740169
Read the intros only for non-fiction. Avoid them for fiction. It is that simple, at least for me.

File: 1454954841711.jpg (190KB, 1268x1695px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1268x1695px

>>7740174
My man

>read intro to brothers k
>whole thing spoiled

>>7740498
Fucking this, so many intros have straight up spoilers to the whole book. Sometimes I look at them after I finish

And on that note, why in the name of fuck would the paragraph on the back of the book ever contain major spoilers

I read invitation to a beheading recently, and the back of the book l i t e r a l l y spoils the whole ending quite explicitly. Why would that ever be okay,?

>>7740169
I tried to do this for The Republic by Plato a few years ago wherein the author had a 500 page introduction, and boy do I fucking regret it. I later read the 'introduction' which was a contextual analysis, and had I read that before reading Plato's subject matter, I would have done everything more efficiently. The same applies to all philosophy books and most books