>Pick up a classic book >Introduction is 30 pages long

>>9526219
>Pick a ____ book
>Don't read the introduction

There you go.

>pick up a classic book
>read the introduction
>its a pseudo-intellectual posturing about nothing pretending to be an authority on the authors life episode

>pick up classic book
>read introduction
>learn a bunch of important shit about history that reveals proper context of the work, letting you appreciate it in newer, more profound ways

>>9526219
>Pick up a classic book
>Pick up a book
>a book
You don't belong here, OP

>>9526236
this, half intro's are basically just them master-baiting and spoiling the plot.

>pick up book
>read the introduction
>it spoils the ending

File: 3417297551_db35b9477d_o.jpg (414KB, 1500x2188px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1500x2188px

>>9526219
Intros are like crutches for plebes who weren't brought up with a proper gentleman's education. Needless to say, I skip them. Or sometimes skim them after reading the book for further insight.

>>9526287
?? lol *insert picture of that black guy holding 2 books if i had saved it*

File: 1458954338032.jpg (17KB, 385x387px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 385x387px

>Pick up a classic book
>Introduction is 30 pages long
>read introduction
>learn a bunch of important shit about history that reveals proper context of the work, letting you appreciate it in newer, more profound ways
>Editor spoils major plot points and gives away the ending

>>9526246
>>9526295
>>9526298
This. I don't really read for plot but it still irritates me that introductions always contain massive spoilers. Also, they usually have a bunch of biographical shit about the author (I am one of those postmodern degenerates who prefers that literary criticism focus on the text itself).

>>9526269
Sometimes this is the case. More often than not the information is completely extraneous (and uninteresting).

Wait, I'm a bit confused on your implications here. Is 30 pages supposed to be long? 30 pages is an adequate length for a simple "introduction" to something that undoubtedly has thousands upon thousands of pages written on it.

For example, any Uni library will have at least 2 or 3 shelves of scholarship on "Paradise Lost". It is a general editor's duty to be able to know which parts of these thousands of pages are relevant for a first time reader. It is important for a work as vastly influential as PL to have adequate information for someone, especially if they're not working with a professor as they read it.

The only problem with introductions that I can find is when the editor makes the silly assumption that whoever is reading the introduction has already read the book before and talks of major plot-points, or when the editor tries to introduce their own scholarly reading of a book to someone who has yet to read it.

tl;dr You shouldn't judge an introduction by the length, but by its content. I thought this was fairly obvious, but I forgot that it's summer now.

>>9526295
>>9526310
Lurk for two years before posting, fuck stain

>>9526330
>they usually have a bunch of biographical shit about the author (I am one of those postmodern degenerates who prefers that literary criticism focus on the text itself)

Quick, unimportant Q:
Even if you don't believe that the author lives in the text, don't you at least find it to some extent interesting to know major aspects of the author's life? To keep with the Paradise Lost example, I think it'd be important, or I guess at least interesting, for any reader to know that Milton was blind as he composed it. Especially Milton's invocation to the light, which he is missing, in the intro to Book III. Someone who didn't know that Milton was blind, an obviously major aspect of his life, may just gloss by the invocation to the light and not know its sad importance for the poet.

>>9526374

Yeah but most of these introductions were written before wikipedia existed. I'll come back to the introduction if I'm lost or really enjoyed it when im finished.

>>9526384
Wow. Well, I think it's incredibly sad that you'd prefer to read about the author on wikipedia (especially since you just said that you don't care about the author) than to hear a detailed depiction carefully constructed by a scholar who has devoted their life to study.

OP here, crucify me, but I really don't feel like reading that much introduction to Fear and Trembling.

I don't believe introductions should constitute more than 3% of the book.

>>9526460
In addition, I also don't feel like reading a barely understandable, psuedo-intellectual mini-thesis on the value of the book; I get enjoyment from finding that for myself.

Some texts need a preface/intro. I always read into it but you can tell if its an opinion piece not an actual "what is going on and what you should know" piece

>>9526397

I'm not someone who feels a need to defer to authority on every subject, especially something like literature. Most of these introductions are just essays purchased by the publishing house as padding.