>>11030570Hatcher and Hartshorne are on different leagues.
That said, Hatcher isn't nearly as bad as half the people claim itt. I'm not experienced enough in AT to give you a better source, but regardless, 90% of AT courses are based on Hatcher. You can always learn the basic subjects then jump directly to May's concise course, which is more akin to Hartshorne.
As for Hartshorne, there are many better learning alternatives. If you want motivation, this isn't the book for you. The only motivation is experience in classical AG and its drawbacks, and the Weil conjectures. Remember that the motivation for writing the book is out of necessity, since the only other source for modern AG came from a 1.8k page untranslated French text. The exercises are GOAT however.
An approach that is more systematic and modern that covers most of chapters 2-3 of Hartshorne (the meaty bit), is Bosch's Algebraic geometry and commutative algebra - note that it comes with most CA prereqs, and proves them, unlike Hartshorne. It doesn't have many concrete examples as with Hartshorne's 2-3, since the latter leaves them for 4-5, so the unmotivated reading experience will likely be the same.
Liu's book has many more examples, but in my opinion, the exposition is a fucking mess; it's hard to follow where he's going and many times he just has a random theorem/proposition out of nowhere.
Vakil's is great too [character limit reached]
If you've never done classical AG, I think you'd make a stupid mistake jumping straight onto modern AG, akin to an undergrad learning category theory without knowing algebraic topology/geometry. For that, a great and fast to read book is Smith's An Invitation to AG, followed by Shafarevich BAG I (you can start with Shafarevich, but I found that the translation is too rough to understand what he's even speaking about in the chapter 0). I heard good things about Shafarevich BAG II, so if you like it you can continue on with it if you want into schemes.
