Why Do Some Novels Lack An Introduction In Book?

I've noticed that some novels skip the introduction and dive straight into the story, and I think it’s a deliberate choice by the author to immerse readers immediately. Books like 'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy or 'Fight Club' by Chuck Palahniuk throw you right into the action, creating a sense of urgency or mystery. It makes the reader feel like they’ve stumbled into something raw and unfiltered, which can be incredibly gripping.

Some authors might also assume their audience doesn’t need hand-holding. If the world or characters are compelling enough, an introduction could feel unnecessary or even disruptive. For example, in 'Neuromancer' by William Gibson, the cyberpunk jargon and fast-paced narrative don’t leave room for exposition—it’s all about throwing you into the deep end. This approach can make the reading experience more intense and immersive, especially in genres like thriller, horror, or sci-fi where immediacy matters.

Others might omit introductions to avoid spoiling the tone or themes. A prologue can sometimes give away too much, while jumping right into the story lets readers discover everything organically. 'Gone Girl' by Gillian Flynn is a great example—starting with Nick’s narration immediately sets tension without any preamble. It’s a risky but effective way to hook readers from the very first line.

As someone who reads a lot of experimental fiction, I love when novels skip introductions—it feels like the author trusts me to figure things out. Some stories don’t need setup because their strength lies in ambiguity or unconventional storytelling. Take 'House of Leaves' by Mark Z. Danielewski; it throws you into a labyrinth of footnotes and layered narratives without explanation, making the confusion part of the experience.

Other times, it’s about pacing. Fast-moving plots, like in 'The Da Vinci Code' by Dan Brown, benefit from dropping readers straight into the action. An introduction would slow things down. Even literary works like 'The Bell Jar' by Sylvia Plath start mid-scene, making the protagonist’s voice immediately dominant. It’s a stylistic choice that prioritizes immersion over hand-holding, and when done well, it’s unforgettable.

I think some novels ditch introductions because they want to mimic real life—we don’t get explanations for everything that happens to us. 'No Longer Human' by Osamu Dazai begins with the narrator’s bleak confession, no context given. It mirrors how people often reveal themselves in fragments. Similarly, 'The Metamorphosis' by Kafka starts with Gregor waking up as a bug—no buildup, just surreal shock. It forces readers to adapt, making the story more personal and unsettling.

From a publishing perspective, cutting introductions might be about keeping modern readers engaged. Attention spans are shorter now, and a slow start could lose people. Bestsellers like 'The Girl on the Train' by Paula Hawkins or 'The Silent Patient' by Alex Michaelides grab you from paragraph one. Even classics like '1984' by George Orwell open with a striking line about the clock striking thirteen—no introduction needed when the hook is that strong. It’s about making every word count from the jump.

Some stories are so character-driven that introductions feel redundant. 'The Catcher in the Rye' by J.D. Salinger starts with Holden’s voice, and that’s all you need to understand his world. Likewise, 'Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine' by Gail Honeyman drops you into Eleanor’s quirky, lonely life without preamble. When a character’s perspective is vivid enough, exposition just gets in the way. The immediacy makes their journey feel more real and intimate.