What is /lit/'s opinion on Oxford's very short introduction

>>9741433
I think they're good for subjects that have been written about a huge amount and it's hard to get into. I liked the French Revolution one.

>>9741433
Bump

>slang
>memey

??????

they're usually pretty good

>>9741433
Usually very, very good. Most are written by well-respected academics so the information is trustworthy. The only real issue is that they are academic so can be a bit boring or presuppose some terminology despite being advertised as an introduction. My experience with them (mostly philosophy and history ones) has been great.

Why do they all have such shit reviews on Goodreads?

I might pick up the ones on Metaphysics and Literary Theory, but I also noticed that almost none of the books in this series are above 3.8 (most around 3.6).

Pretty good. They're obviously meant as an introduction to the subject so they fulfill their purpose. They serve as easy entry points into often overwhelming subject matter, and offer additional books to turn to if your interest persists. I liked the Hinduism one.

File: 1498187316299.jpg (57KB, 750x1081px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 750x1081px

>>9741433
I read the volume on ethics, and I'm pretty sure that my professor based his lectures around the chronology of the sections.

I once visited his office, and he had an entire shelf overflowing with these things.

They're pretty condensed and are meant to be used as an appetizer; you won't absorb any considerable knowledge with these.

>>9741433

Better than a fucking podcast. Let me tell you that for free son.

>>9742498
So here are how most of the negative reviews go. "I have an introductory idea of the subject, why do I have such an introductory idea of the subject now?"

Not to mention that they are mostly written by academics so just find it as a good thing and to be expected from people on Goodreads.

Basically just pseud nonsense for pseuds who try to maximise the (pseud fuel)/(time spent reading) ratio. Same with in our time and most secondary literature. Go original texts or go home you fucking frauds

>>9742610
t. pseud

>>9741433
They're for people who are too lazy to read the real sources. "I read the Short Intro to Plato so why should I even bother reading a thousand pages of Plato now? I already know what he said anyway." Basically a slightly more sophisticated version of Wikipedia.

There are a few recommended on the reading list for lit course at uni, namely the short intro to Old English. I've read a few already, and they do a good job of introducing the subject and giving you a Wikipedia-esque overview, but obviously they fall short of giving you any serious insight. I'd say they are very good starting reads though.

>>9742658
>introduction
>introduction
>introduction
one more time for the dense
>introduction
What is an introduction? Get that together and that would mean less presuming.

File: Memecus_Aurelius.jpg (196KB, 390x493px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 390x493px

>>9742658
You're too lazy to read that they're merely introductions. And at most, they're barely supplementary.

>>9741433
Having read somewhere between 40-50 of these, they are generally quite good, as long as you keep in mind that they are intended to be an introduction. Sometimes the authors themselves forget this, and focus too much on the specific area of the field that they specialize in and assume far too much background knowledge than would be expected for the reader of an introductory work. Also, there are a handful that are just awful in general, and overlook major aspects of the subject they are purporting to introduce. Generally speaking, though, most are much better than reading the Wikipedia page for the same subject.

Some of the best in the series, that I've read at least, are The Russian Revolution, Wittgenstein, Psychoanalysis, Exploration, and The Scientific Revolution.

Read the Theology and the Astronomy. No complaint.

File: 1489848003168.jpg (40KB, 749x537px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 749x537px

>>9742610
> Go original texts or go home you fucking frauds

is this real life?

>>9742610
What about people who just want to get their feet wet and see if they like/are interested in a text before they go balls to the wall with primary texts

>>9741433
Good for you for reading them, OP. Respect for taking the time to get acquainted with ideas you didn't have the chance to learn about in college. Props. Really.

I've read two. Liked them both. Good intro to things I knew almost nothing about.