In these two articles IEP and SEP, it is suggested that the works of Aristotle we have are very probably "lecture notes and draft manuscripts never intended for general readership." After reading some Aristotle, I got this impression too: it can be very stilted, have explanations much too brief, and sometimes be completely incomprehensible. Would it be better to read secondary sources on Aristotle's work, consulting the original works as needed?
So far I have read Categories, On Interpretation, and some of Prior Analytics, consulting two different translations. The first two gave me a little trouble, but it was manageable; but Prior Analytics is definitely more challenging--and very, very slow going; it's getting to the point where I don't really want to read it anymore. The things is, I do want to read it, which is why I was thinking it might be better to start with commentaries on his works. What do you think? What are some good secondary sources/commentaries on Aristotle's works? I am primarily interested in his works on logic and metaphysics.