Books - do you read the preface/introduction?

[Martinus]

I always try to read them but find them to be a waste of time and I am usually impatient to get through them to the "real stuff".

What about you? Do you see them as a legitimate part of the book or just fluff to get through quickly?

[garbon]

Depends. If written by the author to actually start the book then yeah. If it is one written by someone else that's going to in some way summarise or 'spoil' the work then not until after once I've had a chance to read the book and formulate my own opinion.

[celedhring]

Same here, if it's written by the same author often I find it interesting - i.e. the author might give insights on his creative process which is something I'm interested in, or will give some hints to interpret the work, etc... But when it's written by somebody else (most of the time are), it's often just a fluff laudatory piece.

[Martinus]

Are you guys talking more about fiction, non-fiction or both?

I suppose my question was mainly related to non-fiction (I very rarely read fiction any more). In most cases introduction to a non-fiction book mainly summarises the contents and gives some background but provides very little information as such.

[celedhring]

Both. But most non-fiction I read are essays, and prefaces tend to be a bit more informative than just summaries.

[Maladict]

I usually give them a chance, but if they bore me I have no problems skipping to the actual book.

[The Brain]

Author's yes, other dude's normally no.

I read mostly non-fiction.

If I'm reading some older book that has comments by modern scholars I tend to avoid those, at least when reading the book the first time. I don't want to have my first impressions guided by other people, and my experience is that scholars often don't really "get it" on a deeper level (even if their technical comments on language and similar can be very useful).

[Martinus]

Author's yes, other dude's normally no.

I read mostly non-fiction.

If I'm reading some older book that has comments by modern scholars I tend to avoid those, at least when reading the book the first time. I don't want to have my first impressions guided by other people, and my experience is that scholars often don't really "get it" on a deeper level (even if their technical comments on language and similar can be very useful).

What if the preface has the much-needed trigger warnings?

[The Brain]

Author's yes, other dude's normally no.

I read mostly non-fiction.

If I'm reading some older book that has comments by modern scholars I tend to avoid those, at least when reading the book the first time. I don't want to have my first impressions guided by other people, and my experience is that scholars often don't really "get it" on a deeper level (even if their technical comments on language and similar can be very useful).

What if the preface has the much-needed trigger warnings?

Then I'm fucked.

[garbon]

Are you guys talking more about fiction, non-fiction or both?

I suppose my question was mainly related to non-fiction (I very rarely read fiction any more). In most cases introduction to a non-fiction book mainly summarises the contents and gives some background but provides very little information as such.

Both. With non-fiction, I don't generally want a summary before I read / if it is something I don't know that much about, I'd rather encounter the details 'in situ' so to speak.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I usually read them after reading the main text. The theory is that I generate my own ideas about the book and then refine them afterwards by contact with the thoughts of others.

[Syt]

I give them a chance. For non-fiction the preface often contains a "Why did I write this?" which I usually find useful for setting my expectations and later judging whether or not the book meets them. In that regard, a well written intro that's available online helps with buying decision. Bits about the genesis of the work (what research has been done and where, and endless lists of people who helped) I usually skip unless it's confined to a page or two.

For fiction, again, it depends. If it's about the circumstances that led to the writing of the book, or in case of historical novels the historical climate, I find it interesting. If it's an 80 page essay about the creation, reception, and interpretation of the book (I'm looking at you, Penguin Classics's Ulysses), then count me out.

[Razgovory]

Not really, no.  Mostly it's just a list of people thanked during research.

[Martinus]

Yeah. Even when it isn't, it usually just says stuff that I know.

I mean, I get it that if you do not know the topic of the book, the intro may be a good way to summarise what you are about to learn and to get some background. But typically these days I pick up books I want to read because the topic interests me - so the intro usually doesn't offer me much new in terms of information.

Now, if it is just a couple of pages, I may read it - but sometimes the author waxes poetically for dozens of pages before getting to the meat. I tend to skip those.

[Gups]

A good introduction to a non-fiction book summarises the arguments the author is seeking to make. I find it useful - you know what the agenda is and can evaluate accordingly.