[supernova87a]

I don't know if anyone else experienced something similar in physics, but it was not until I read the textbooks of David Griffiths (his books on E&M and quantum especially), that either of these subjects became clear to me.

I think the reason is that his writing was like a clear 1-on-1 tutorial session, with many of the "writing mathematics" practices described in the article here. It had a conversational style as if it was someone trying to explain but in written words. I recall phrases like "now look at the expression we have here, what does it tell us?" Or, "what follows is a somewhat long derivation, but you will find the effort of working through it pays off".

Most other textbooks read like stilted reference manuals by comparison, with "exercises left to the reader".

[nicklecompte]

It has been a while since I read Griffiths. If I recall I liked his style for E&M, but the quantum mechanics book was far too discursive, full of unnecessary jokes and cutesy phrases that muddled the discussion instead of aiding understanding. I remember being frequently confused about when Griffiths was making a physical argument versus a mathematical argument when deriving results.

My professor didn’t use Griffiths for the exercises, so I actually sold my copy back to the bookstore and bought a used copy of Shankar’s book: it is certainly drier, but I think it’s much more clear and precise.