First part of a essay on Niccolò Machiavelli's "The Art Of War".
Now, when I was sitting on my Lay-Z boy, flipping through the channels, I couldn't find anything on the TV. So then I had a brilliant idea. "What if I started book one of "The Art Of War"?" See, I had been given the book as a gift from my father when I had started to play lots of chess. He had read the book a while back and said it helped his game playing abilities. I didn't know how that worked, I mean, its not like it was magic or something, right? So, I had that book sitting on my dresser for about half a year now. I wasn't into chess as much as I was back then, sure I played a few games here or there, but I was more concerned about paying for a new computer and playing No-Limit Texas hold em' than playing chess with friends or online. And, for a little more backstory, my computer had white screened and started to smoke, and wouldn't turn on, so I couldn't play my favorite video games. I grabbed the book off of my dresser and went back to the recliner, and sat down preparing myself for how I usually read a book - with nothing, just me, my book, and a light source.
I finished the introduction after about an hour, which was written by the most recent author, Neal Wood. Well Neal, while I understand that you are much better than I in all aspects of writing, and you could probably make a argument that would send my mind to the moon, I personally found the introduction barley worth mentioning and talking about compared to the skill of writing by the great Niccolò Machiavelli. Now, if I wasn't comparing to Machiavelli's work then I would have a different view on the matter, but the introduction didn't seem to live up to the original book that the intro was made to introduce me to. It seems a third of the entire book was "wasted" in the introduction, and I put that in quotes because it was a good introduction, but when that third could have been used to expand and explain certain parts of the book, it made the introduction a lot less gratifying. A glossary, on the other hand, providing explanations of words not commonly used in today's language, such as virtù and vilify, is something that I would have found very useful in reading just the first few pages.
Now don't get me wrong - I deeply appreciate all that Neal's done for the book and, after review, I made my criticisms less harsh, going to show that I ended up liking his work more than I originally thought - and if he hadn't reprinted the book I would have never been able to read it, or write this essay in the first place. I'm glad that he took the time to write the introduction, as it shows that he cared enough about the work to add at least his say, and not just a simple copy paste, change a few words and be done with it. My father once said to me, as many fathers, scholars, and prophets have said before, "son, the best work, whether it be music, art, or literature never fades out." Neal, one of the three translators of "The Art Of War" proves this point, and so does the work of great people such as Van Gogh, Augusta Rosin (if you don't know, he sculpted "the thinker"), Leonardo Da Vinci, and Saul Hudson. But, on to the point, this is what I think of the original book, "The Art Of War"
If you like this, tell me.
Once I get enough points I will release a part 2, reviewing the parts written by Machiavelli.