Why are Introductions at the beginning of books?

[IrmaFayLear]

I haven't put the title very well, but...

In many books (classics) there is an introduction, often by someone eminent, often informative and instructive about the book to follow.

But I was wondering today exactly why are they at the beginning of the novel rather than at the end? They invariably contain major spoilers, and also one doesn't want someone's opinion before one has read the book, but afterwards.

I often return to read the Introduction after I have finished, but it would seem to make much more sense to continue reading once the book had ended, rather than turn back to the start.

Can anyone involved in publishing enlighten me?

I dont know, but they tend to be in reprints, don’t they? I wonder if a lot of people buy classics to study and thus don’t mind spoilers? Or maybe it’s to justify the bumped up price

I know it's a modern term but perhaps introductions could be headed "Spoiler alert!"

Reminds me of the aborted Middlemarch readalong on MN. There were some rather, er, pompous contributors who would insist on posting spoilers and then got all indignant and posited that everyone knew that Mr So and So would say such and such to Miss So and So.

Oh yes the ‘I can read faster than you’ brigade. Very tiresome! I used to feel I had to wade through the introduction before I was allowed to read the story, but now I just skip. I didn’t but the book to learn about the Victorian use of such and such a word or the original font which would have been used - I bought it for the story!

Virago Classics have the 'intro' at the end. Much more sensible.

Yes I found this when reading 1984 recently, spoilers in the (very boring) introduction.

The clue is in the title.

But yes, sometimes an afterword would be preferable.

Well, of course - that's my exact point. I don't want an Introduction that is full of spoilers and opinions. An Introduction should perhaps have a bit of context, but any actual discussion of the novel should be as an Afterward.

There’s often a bit of an airy assumption that the reader will have read it before I think. Having occasionally been to see a Shakespeare production I’ve seen the same sort of attitude in sections of the audience - loudly comparing other productions they’ve been to. I think if a ‘classic’ comes with an introduction it’s safer to read it afterwards if I haven’t read the text before, but then there’s the risk of missing interesting context if there aren’t ‘spoilers’ - though there often are as you say. I like reading newspaper reviews of newer books before (or even while) reading the book, and it would be nice to read equivalent write ups about classic books before reading the book with the same confidence that they won’t give away the plot.

I'll usually read Introductions by learned types afterwards. Having introductionsat the front does help avoid some of that confusion that comes when you are convinced you have a lot more of the book to read then suddenly it reaches a conclusion. The last chunk of the book turns out to be sample chapters from the next book in the series, or pages and pages of appendixes, and afterwards or adverts for other books from the same publisher.