Spooky hours! It's not hard to see why this one is so well-regarded. It's a really fantastic installation in the behemoth that is the Derridean oeuvre. I think Specters also features some of the most lucid deconstruction in practice, only it may be better to understand 'deconstruction' as 'hauntology' (superior name imo).

There's not a best intro to Derrida. One must start upon familiar ground- this is why I loved the Artaud essays in W&D so much. So make sure you've got some kind of familiarity with whatever primary text is at play. Here we have Marx, and, in the initial essay, Hamlet. Hamlet is a play I know better than any other and also possibly the most remarkable work of art in english from the last five centuries so I was as ecstatic as Artaud to see this come together. After this, we take a short dive into the kiddie pool to splash at Fukuyama. Appreciated D's look into Fukuyama's Kojèvian heritage. Then we have Stirner (es spukt!!), and a saucy lean towards Hegel. But I don't think one needs an encyclopædic knowledge of Marx for Specters. The Manifesto does well for most of it, and I'd recommend having read the first few chapters of Capital for the end. Also read Hamlet pls.

There's a rather covert (brilliant) use of Heideggerian temporality, so far as I can tell, in Derrida's concept of the specter/spirit/ghost/shadow. I was smug there. Was also wondering about D's treatment of Engels: he seems to nudge toward the idea of him as a shadow of Marx. I wonder.

It was only during the last essay that I realised 'hauntology/ie' is, in French, homophonic with 'ontology'. Derrida the beautiful madman. On that note, 'acceleration' appears, conspicuously, more than once. Sure there's scholarship there.

In all seriousness, I think there is something very philosophically special about Derrida's treatment of the ghost/specter (trace??). It'll take time for me, but I really love this book as an open door. Keep thinking keep thinking