>skips introduction
>>24921813>In the case of a philosophical work it seems not only superfluous, but, in view of the nature of philosophy, even inappropriate and misleading to begin, as writers usually do in a preface, by explaining the end the author had in mind, the circumstances which gave rise to the work, and the relation in which the writer takes it to stand to other treatises on the same subject, written by his predecessors or his contemporaries
>>24921813>introduction is better than the book
>>24921829This is common in translations of reference-material. I'm thinking of Shaybani's short treatise "Siyar". Khadduri - translator - in his introduction explained what the treatise was for, since Shaybani was writing for the caliph and was being deliberately coy.It's still very technical and understandable only to students of 'Abbasi foreign policy, but if you had that background, the introduction did the job for Shaybani. Then you go to Shaybani to get the source material.
>>24921829oh fuck, I hadn't even thought to bring up Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddima. That nafri shouldn't even have bothered writing the actual history book after that.
>>24921813I always do this
>>24921853is it even worth reading? I own it.
>>24921813I almost always do because those faggots spoil the book
>>24921813I always do this if it's not by the author. Do not care to read a 30 page introduction by some random American literature professor before reading my cozy Balzac novel
>skip editors notes>they're actually apart of the story
>>24921813Ive had the ending of a book spoiled by reading an introduction on a couple of occasions and I havent read one since
TS Eliot's introduction of Nightwood is the only introduction so kino it mogs the actual book
