| |
|
To be honest, I think to read an introduction not expecting spoilers is slightly foolish. The introduction is a funny thing. It often helps to read it before reading the text; it always tends to help to read it after reading the text.
Introductions can colour a reader's expectations of a book. But I think that once you're used to reading them, with the requisite pinch of salt, then there isn't really a problem. For an inexperienced reader, though, sure - there are other interpretations, really.
That said, it does depend on the type of book. For instance, most decent texts of Shakespeare - certainly the Arden and Cambridge editions (particularly the latter) - contain very diverse introductions that look at the history of all performances and criticism, not just the editor's own. This is most common with Shakespeare as well, most people have less of an agenda with regards to criticism of it. The other helpful thing about Shakespeare is that the introductions are divided into sections - I tend to read the production history and critical history first, and read the background stuff afterwards.
I may be speaking from my own position now, but I honestly believe that people need to get over having the plot spoiled for them. If that's all that matters to you, then that's a shame, because there is so much more to books (and indeed drama and films) than the ending. Knowing the twist leads to a more informed viewing. You can't keep twists secret from everyone, in the end; someone's going to read the book knowing the narrator is the man he's looking for, that Tyler is Jack, that the companion is really a tiger, you know?
Introductions probably ought to carry a warning so as to cover their backs, but to expect someone to discuss a book without discussing it all is ridiculous. I don't find my experience is spoiled because I enjoy seeing how the plot is handled as much as what happens.
And introductions are more than just opinions. There's a lot of factual information about contemporary culture and history, about important background such as political trends, which modern readers cannot be expected to have. To dismiss them as just being "opinion" is inaccurate and unfair.
I like introductions, but that's because I generally like secondary reading and criticism of what I'm currently reading. I like them, basically, because I'm used to reading them; I'm a literature graduate, after all. There is a knack to not caring about spoilers and not taking the introduction as gospel. I don't think either of those things are too hard to acquire. |
|
|
