Literary Exploration discussion

I've just started reading The Master and Margarita and it has straightaway included two of the more annoying literary conventions. It's not the novel itself but rather what else the book contains.

First and foremost, the introduction. To me an introduction should be fairly short; a bit of history about the author and the impetus to create this work; for foreign books maybe a little about the translation work, etc.

It should not be a novella-sized critical essay on the work, analyzing and explaining characters, motives and segments of the book. That is not an introduction. You don't introduce a work by pulling it apart. For someone picking up a book for the first time you'll either confuse them or spoil the book.

Now I generally skip over introductions. But why should I? Why put it at the front of a book? For that much detail why isn't it at the end of the book so once you have finished reading it then you can go into the detailed analytics. It is a strange and baffling practice.

The other is footnotes in fictional works. I can see the usefulness of it in a non-fiction work. But in fiction I find it pulls me out of the story. It's like watching a movie for the first time and having the commentary track on. I know, I know, you'll say that I don't have to read them. But then I feel like I'm missing out on something. It's something that I feel real books have over ebooks. It's easier to flick back and forth in a real book and there's less likelihood of losing your place.

So those are some small things I find annoying. Does anyone agree? Are there other things that bug you?

I completely agree Kim. I used to always read the Introduction whenever a book had one, but I once found out a book's climatic ending that way. I have sworn off Introductions ever since. I don't particularly mind footnotes, however, I do seem to have to read them as I go along. I have a very difficult time ignoring them.

I agree. If the introduction is a page, or so, I might read it. Otherwise, I never read introductions or forewords. I don't even like prologues. Let's get to the story, already.

As to footnotes in fiction, you've got to be kidding me. I hated Infinite Jest for many reasons, but one was that it had hundreds of long, detailed footnotes in microscopic print in the back. Some must have been a couple thousand words. If it's important to the story, put it in the story. Otherwise, leave it the hell out. Don't make me go looking for a footnote.

I hate footnotes or an appendix, especially now that I'm becoming more and more of an ebook reader. I can handle having two bookmarks in a paperback but with a kindle it's annoying.

Oh god those introductions are an absolute pain. The Great Gatsby had one and it honestly took up a good quarter of the book. Penguin are always bad on those though so I'm trying to go for Vintage more when buying Classics.

Also because I'm a perfection nut I don't feel like I've truly read a book until I have literally turned over ever page. So most of the time I'm lumbered with these pain in the arse introductions that I have to slog through.

I don't mind the prologue; i read most of it and found it quite informative.

I do find footnotes a problem if they're sitting at the back, since that is uncomfortable, and even more so with e-readers. I don't mind footnotes that appear on the same page that you're reading, but too many and for things that don't really require them, can be irritating.

Well, I'm going to disagree. In a complex book or a classic or something that might benefit from some preliminary understanding I like a good introduction. Yes, there are bad ones, but under 10 pages, relevant to the work at hand and no spoilers can put the book in some context and give me a better appreciation of it. But I don't feel any compunction to read it if I don't want to. I'm there to read what the author wrote, not what the most recent editor thought about it.

As for footnotes, I mostly agree, but I read a Sophie Kinsella book recently in which the first person narrator used them as asides in a cute way. She (the narrator) even referenced them when she was talking about how a group of intellectuals made her feel dumb and she said (and I paraphrase) "Look, I can use footnotes, too. Don't they make me look smarter?" It was kind of funny.

As a former English major, I love these introductions. However, I feel they belong at the end of the book rather than the beginning. Too much is given away in these essays, and they should not presume that the person reading it has already done so.

In regards to footnotes, I love them, especially in the work of DFW. Michael notes that he hated the footnotes in Infinite Jest. I much prefer Wallace's footnotes in his nonfiction, like Consider the Lobster, but I still read any and all footnotes I find. They seem to me to be buried treasure, which we may or may not seek.

I don't mind the Introductions but I also do think that the ones Penguin classics are far too interested in being formal and exact as well as a little bit too long. (The length may in fact be due to the over formality and exactitude also).

I find the footnotes in M&M helpful in understanding the satire.

Introductions are more useful for literature students (such as myself) as well as providing an understanding of the book.

I don't understand why its placed at the front, as its far far better to read the book first, and then go back and read the introduction if you're interested in some further analysis and information about the author etc.
Why they don't put it at the back of the book is strange.

And Terry Pratchett's hilarious footnotes have forever rendered ones I see anywhere else a major disappointment.

I'm inclined to agree about the positioning of so-called introductory notes. They should be at the back if there's going to be discussion of the plot itself. The first time I read Anna Karenina, the intro gave away the ending (argh!!!!!). However if you don't like commentary to be included at all you always have the option of buying unedited/ budget editions which are usually cheaper anyway.

As for footnotes, I'm a fan I have to say. I love getting a really well researched annotated edition of one of my favourite books. Reading an annotated edition of Lolita was a totally different (much richer) experience to reading it without footnotes. I think it might be something that gets easier with practice. I guess because I'm still researching at uni on a regular basis I'm quite in the habit of it at this point of my life...?

I'm not sure if this is considered a convention, but I hate it when things are repeated ad nauseam. Repetitious descriptions, settings, etc. Sometimes this spills over into dialogue. I remember, I had a friend who was obsessed with this series by Laurell K. Hamilton, and insisted I try out the series. The main character would say the same thing in any situation. "You know, I could just do ___. Nah." Drove me crazy. If I had read the word Nah one more time I might have torn the book in half.

I also hate certain stock characters, like the manic pixie dream girl and the aloof/cold man who changes his way in a romance.

I usually go back and read the introduction after I've. finished the book as I've found they often assume prior knowledge of the book so end up spoiling it for me! but I think in many cases they are intended for people intending to analyse and. critique the book - all the more reason to put it at the end in my opinion!

When we did the read for The Name of the Rose last year, I wanted to get some more information about the novel, so I read the introduction, and the version I had gave away a big time spoiler about the ending. Normally that really isn't that big of a deal for me, though. If I like a book, I like a book, even if I know what is coming up. For me, it is more how the book is written that ultimately decides whether I like the book or not. I agree with others, though, in that information about the book, themes, character descriptions, major plot devices, etc, should be an afterward rather than at the beginning.

My favorite intros, and about the only ones I read, are by the authors themselves - they are usually short, chatty, informative, talk about the writing process or maybe how difficult it was to find a publisher....
Some of the best I've read are by Stephen King, he likes to communicate, his Constant Reader missives. In the uncut version of The Stand he had one to read if you read the edited version and a 'read this' if you hadn't. JRR Tolkien another great one, and often refuting the 'experts' who are 'interpreting' what he really meant - I've reread some of his introductions because they are so enjoyable, or mentioning how he had to revise Lord of the Rings from the end, and type it himself. Yann Martel, whose intro to Life of Pi was like part of the book.
That type is to me fun to read. Long boring dissertations are...long and boring and I sometimes skim them but don't read them fully.