I'm a big nonfiction reader. Some of my main jams are primitive Christianity, gnosticism and psychoanalysis. Tertiary topics to above. Anyways I notice having read many non-fiction books they tend to begin with a 'general survey' of pre existing thought on the topic at question, although always with some obvious-tho-masked bias in terms of presentation, accreditation. The author then proceeds to counter viewpoints they have summarized with a new paradigm or supporting one, often along the lines of charicatures established in the 'survey'.
Do most books in your genre of interest turn out to be introductory in this way? Is it usually better for you in your field of interest to switch to published journals at a certain point?
by J_ShipD
2 Comments
The journals I want to read charge $15 a page or $10,000 a year to deliver me a 0.05c webpage, so I’m stuck with books.
The world’s best knowledge is paywalled behind for profit companies earning money from volunteer labor.
Hate to break it to you but those are all fiction. Especially psychoanalysis. Fiction theory.