You'd never know it from his 'general' reputation, but SK ain't 'hard to read' at all. Far from it, in fact. Being only ~35 pages into this anthology I'd tentatively bracket him with Nietszche in my personal category of philosophers (if that is indeed what he is/was) who write sufficiently well that you begin to be nervous they might not, in fact, be philosophers at all, but "just writers." Of course, I haven't read enough to make judgments I can feel sanguine will remain intact.

When I am in a less charitable mood, which happens more and more often as I age, I refer to the Nietszche - Kierkegaard sort of philosopher as "not a philosopher, but someone who just says shit." It seems that I have a hard time fielding philosophy that does not involve at least some level of ... what? argument? logic? Not sure what word I want to use to anchor that ... but much of FN has seemed to me (and I obviously need to reread him, and more closely than before) to be scarcely argued, but simply, well, *stated*. Mind you I admit that some of the shit these folks just say is brilliant. 'Tain't that.

UPDATE: now that I'm almost done with this book, I have a couple of other ... whattyacallems. Observations? Sounds too grand. Snarks? No, not really.

I note above that SK (even the editors of this volume refer to him that way -- I guess that's what happens when your last name is long and weird-looking) "isn't hard to read." I guess I mostly stand by that if we're talking about the sentence level ... but as you might expect, on a larger or more comprehensive scale, he is extremely subtle and even slippery ... a lover of irony and of sneaking up behind the reader and poking him or her with a sharp stick.

Your interest in SK and in this volume might hinge upon your interest in Christianity as a ... oh, golly, what words shall I use here? mode of being? I almost typed "mode of thought" but if SK is about anything, he was about separating Christianity from any kind of ... *rational* sub- or superstructure. In this he's not too terribly far from the whole "I believe because it is absurd" strain of things -- and what, finally can one say about all this? is it convincing? is it philosophy? is it ... right? Sigh. What to do. I have this awful feeling that if I had met SK and spoken with him, he would rapidly have put me in some category of person or other he deals with somewhere in his writings. Because like Socrates, whose legacy he often appeals to, SK was among other things a gadfly. He was a truly great writer, but I'm glad I'm almost done with ... all this Christianity, so I can get on with things that are closer to what I think of as "philosophy qua philosophy."