It took me forever to figure out how I wanted to start my novel. I don't even want to think about how I have to end it. (Sigh) Why can't books go on forever?
This must have a strong discipline specific context, as I find the middle of most economics focused books to be the worst (many other academic style works as well). Typically the authors front end load all the actual argument and thought, and the middle serves as the place to hide all the rather questionable examples needed to pad out the book to be more than a journal article. Of course, it is entirely possible economists and others have decided the vast majority never read more than the introduction anyway, and so optimize for convincing you they are right up front and just phone in the rest :D
The middle has all the parts you really came for anyway - the book's raison d'etre. The beginning and the end are ideally filled in by the reader, but to include necessary context is the writer's duty, though some would call it a curse.
It took me forever to figure out how I wanted to start my novel. I don't even want to think about how I have to end it. (Sigh) Why can't books go on forever?
This must have a strong discipline specific context, as I find the middle of most economics focused books to be the worst (many other academic style works as well). Typically the authors front end load all the actual argument and thought, and the middle serves as the place to hide all the rather questionable examples needed to pad out the book to be more than a journal article. Of course, it is entirely possible economists and others have decided the vast majority never read more than the introduction anyway, and so optimize for convincing you they are right up front and just phone in the rest :D
The middle has all the parts you really came for anyway - the book's raison d'etre. The beginning and the end are ideally filled in by the reader, but to include necessary context is the writer's duty, though some would call it a curse.