When getting into a writer, I try to get as much primary and secondary material as I can to fully understand their work. Do you do the same?
>>24977317Hell no
Secondary sources are secondary. That means that you should read them second, and you should accord them secondary status in your arguments. With respect to the first point, you should always read the material from an author before you turn to the secondary sources. It will be tempting to read the secondary sources first, since the material could be very difficult, but taking this easy way out will ultimately be self-defeating, for at least three reasons. First, the secondary material itself is very difficult, and without grappling with the text on your own first, many of the issues raised in the secondary literature will not make sense. Second, and more importantly, reading secondary material first taints your reading of the primary material in a way that makes it difficult to be creative or insightful. Papers written after reading the secondary material first usually end up simply taking a side already defended in one of the secondary sources; papers written after serious initial engagement with the text on your own can bear out totally new interpretations. Third, secondary literature steals from you the experience of struggling with the text, trying to figure out what the key parts are and how to interpret them, and thinking about whether you find the arguments plausible.
>>24977317No. The only thing that matters is the book.
