[ SECRET POST #2237 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2237 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 113 secrets from Secret Submission Post #319.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[kluify]

Probably because what parts of the book are 'outdated' would be contentious, and so any new edition with an introduction would be biased towards whatever theoretical slant the author of the introduction/re-publisher adheres to. And, if the point was updating the book, you may as well annotate the entire text rather than have a 30 page brief overview of what is wrong with it -especially when the introduction is there to 'introduce' the book, rather than indepthly analyse it.

So yeah, I think it makes a lot more sense to leave the criticism to other articles and books on the subject, rather than trying to ram it all into an intro.