There is a very simple rule for this. If the preface was not a part of the book in its original printing, skip it if you are reading the book for the first time.

If a preface was added in a later edition, whether or not the preface is actually written by the author, it isn't intended for first time readers.

Not a huge fan either but since his books were syndicated and published as chapters I do think he does a great job of hooking the reader at the end of his chapters

Other commenters have mentioned skipping the intros, but I'd also recommend considering trying to embrace them! There are some works I don't necessarily want spoiled for me, but for a lot of literature...the plot isn't the real selling point. Sure, the plot needs to be good (usually). But there's also the symbolism, the wordplay, the craft of the book. Reading the premise, even if it tells you what is going to happen, can't "spoil" any of that for you, and can in fact make it easier for you to fully appreciate what you're reading.

It's fine if you're just reading books for the plot, or if that's a major source of enjoyment for you. Most of the time, I'm the same way. But I'd also strongly encourage folks to try to get themselves outside their blockbuster thriller, mystery series obsession with spoiler culture and try to appreciate media holistically. Like, I can't remember the first time I watched The Fugitive (my parents may have been a bit lax in what media I was allowed to consume), but just because I knew every plot point by the time I was able to form memories doesn't mean it's not a great watch. Knowing every note in Schubert's Ave Maria doesn't stop me from tearing up when I hear it. Knowing every beat in Hamlet doesn't make a performance any less breathtaking. And knowing the outline of The Grapes of Wrath didn't make the journey I took actually reading it any less valuable.

In some cases -- like Heart of Darkness, or anything by Faulkner -- getting a sketch of the plot points can actually help keep you on track with what is going on. Or Song of Achilles -- knowing the way it was going to end made the language and tone and dramatic irony of the first part of the book all the more emotionally impactful.

Again. There's absolutely nothing wrong for preferring to go into books blind. But I'd consider evaluating why you don't like things (specifically, the type of classic literature that warrants a preface) spoiled for you, and trying to open-mindedly experience the literature in a different way. If it really isn't for you, no harm no foul, but you might find that you're able to find a new way of enjoying reading.

Sheesh this take is so pretentious to me. First of all, I'm not reading Crime and Punishment or Ulysses here. I'm not even reading Cormac McCarthy. I wouldn't classify Lonesome Dove as that kind of literature.

More importantly, it seems so silly to me to act like plot isn't an important part of the reading experience. You might be different, but for me it absolutely is. Don't get me wrong, it certainly isn't the only thing and I can still very much enjoy a book if I know how it ends.

But there's a reason the author didn't just state the facts of the plot from the outset when he originally wrote the book. Part of the experience is getting immersed in the world and story of the book and being along for the ride of the characters by not always knowing what's going to happen next. I am now incapable of having the experience of asking certain questions and thinking about this book in a certain way because I know a secret of the story that I wouldn't otherwise have known yet. Does it really make me some kind of philistine to want to experience the natural progression of the story and its mysteries the first time I read it?

The idea that "people who care about plot and intrigue in a book are too stupid to be reading any kind of actual literature" is tragically reductive, and just echoes the kid I knew in elementary school who would always flip to the back of a book he was reading and read the last page, just for the feeling of superiority he got from knowing how the book was going to end.

People who fret about "spoilers" shouldn't be reading the sort of books that get prefaces. The author didn't care about your hangups.

If you’re reading a work of fiction with a preface, that means you’re probably reading an established work of literature with a cultural reputation robust enough that someone - usually a credentialed academic - was tapped to write said preface. They’re there for the purpose of deeper study and targeted, implicitly, to people who are returning to that book, not encountering it for the first time, so don’t worry about it.

In other words, you’ll know if/when you’ll want to read the preface. This is unlikely to be the case the first time you read it. Skip ‘em.

Overrated.

Try Anthony Trollope.

[deleted]

Have you tried "Devolution" by the same author. Really good book about Sasquatch and a group of people/community surviving in PNW after a natural disaster.

Most books don't actually need a preface.

The places where I have seen a preface do good are:

• the preface is trying to help you focus on what the actual story is
• the preface is warning you that there is a triggering subject up front
• there is a problem with the major story elements and this resolves it (eg unclear what protagonist wants)

That's just about it

I respectfully disagree. I’m not sure how far you got into the book, or if you finished the book, but the book is not just a scattered bunch of random POVs up until the end. They all track key developments in “World War Z” with the beginning obviously starting with the first instances of outbreaks in China, then progressing through rumor and rural spread, then eventually the Great Panic, and then the brink, then humanity fighting back, until the end when it seems the apocalypse has been largely halted and reversed. The POVs, especially as you reach the middle and end, often tell a personal story that ties directly into the larger sequence of events in the story. It builds, and I really did feel a strong sense of urgency as the story went from rumors of outbreaks to shit actually hitting the fan. And then the sense of triumph and strength as the countries began to really learn from events and adapt. I mean just compare the POV from the Battle of Yonkers to the later reclamations and new tactics used by the American troops at these end of the book.

At least when I read it I certainly felt like there was a broader narrative being advanced behind every single POV and that there absolutely was motion and urgency. But to each their own I guess.

I don’t mind head hopping characters. Like the Walking Dead, the apocalyptic horror novel ‘The Stand’ does the same thing, hosting a large cast and making for a fat book. The difference between that and WWZ, is that The Stand has a story that progresses and, while it frequently changes POV, it will return to characters and show their journey progressing, and ultimately tying in with the other characters, and so there is movement, engagement, and suspense, where with WWZ it is just random snippet after random snippet, no movement, no urgency.

It was in the horror section of the bookstore. Also the cover (don’t judge a book by its cover, yeah we all do, and it’s meant to advertise the book). Also if you look up the book online, it is listed under the horror genre.

I love the book, but I see what you mean about horror. I definitely agree with what someone else said: it’s way more sci-fi than horror. Although I got to admit, some of the scenes are pretty chilling like the one of the feral girl in the church in Kansas. I think it is a great take on the zombie story from a unique perspective, and the interview format actually allows the author to go into both the broad ramifications of the zombie war and all of the little personal experiences without making it feel like some alternate history textbook. I honestly liked that we never stayed with one or two characters for too long, because that’s the main drag of a zombie story in my opinion: the opener is always horrifying but as they survive the story tends to become less and less suspenseful. Just look at the Walking Dead. In this story, the tension was kept up because you got to see all these unique little individual stories that still kept pace with unfurling world events as humanity scrambled to stave off the undead and then formulate a plan of action to return.

Honestly, this is one of the few books where I would recommend you give it a second round later on with the audiobook version. The audiobook uses different voice actors for each interview and it makes it a lot more horror-like. Like a collection of campfire stories. They got a lot of well known people in the audiobook version like Martin Scorsese voices the guy who sold the placebo antiviral medicine. Might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but the format lends itself really well to audiobook style. Almost like listening to the tape recorder of the interviewer throughout his study.

Don't know. I am not looking to connect as some do. For me as someone who loves sci-fi, and fantasy I just want escapism into a complex fantastical world, or a future that may or may not exist. Maybe female authors don't delve enough into topics you are interested in hence your push towards male authors who do.

I have some trouble seeing how the person you're responding to is being condescending, unless you're reading into that ellipsis pretty hard (which is possible! punctuation in text-based communication has become so loaded linguistically, in fascinating ways.) This person hasn't told OP that they can't feel the way they do, just that their experiences aren't universal or objective, and they weren't especially impolite about it (again, unless we're choosing to read a significant amount of tone into that ellipsis.)

That said, I agree with your initial statement. Of course subjectivity goes both ways; it's a functional impossibility to determine if a piece of media is objectively good or bad, because no media can be interpreted through a totally unbiased lens. OP's perspective is valid, just stated in a way that's probably gonna rankle people who enjoyed the book.

I have listened a bit of it's audiobook and didn't like it too much either, but for a different reason. I actually found interesting the premise and the narration style, but it seemed to me characters were too stereotypical and it kinda made the stories sound less convincing.

But I still intend to read or listen to it again. Maybe the narration of the actors made them feel more stereotypical then the writing itself. Would like to give it one more chance.

Totally agree that nineteen century readers had much smaller internal libraries of remembered visual images to draw on than we typically do. I suspect that at least some of those readers had developed their abilities to take in authors’ lengthy descriptions and build robust mental pictures from them. It’s easier and maybe a better strategy for us to pull up an image from memory or with Google for “Colorado mining town” or whatever than mentally build one following an author’s description, but really digging into the description and making something out of it can be its own experience.

Who advertised it as a horror novel to you?

Oh okay.

Did not say plot. I said events. Example. Female author: he feels a deep connection towards the potrost. He jurned for it to become a part of his soul.

Male author: he threw himself against the potrost, deworing in it entirety.

Silly example, but that's what I mean.

[removed]

It’s not horror. It’s mostly a book about how humans would react to a global crisis. It’s a character study.

Also, the audiobook with a big narrator cast is fabulous, in case you ever want to change your mind. :)

Imo, Great Expectations is the book to begin. See how you feel after that one.

World War Z might be my number one favourite book of all time. I guess everyones tastes are different.