> Most valuable takeaway is that you can read almost _anything_ directly or in translation. You don't need to read a summary of Hegel, you can read Hegel. You don't need to read an article about a Supreme Court case like Marbury v. Madison, you can read the case itself.
I think what's under-appreciated is that, a fair amount of the time, for these sorts of enduring classics, reading the original is both better and easier than reading later takes on the same material. If you read the later derivative works and go back, often you'll find they've misinterpreted certain parts in strange ways, or left out things that seem important, and the original is not-uncommonly also both an easier and more entertaining read.
And that in some cases they assume familiarity with a large body of knowledge of _other_ people's commentaries on the works, and in fact, those second-hand sources are what they're really responding to.
I think what's under-appreciated is that, a fair amount of the time, for these sorts of enduring classics, reading the original is both better and easier than reading later takes on the same material. If you read the later derivative works and go back, often you'll find they've misinterpreted certain parts in strange ways, or left out things that seem important, and the original is not-uncommonly also both an easier and more entertaining read.