Insomniacs Unite!

<p>Then I bow to your greater ability to understand Marx’s writing. I won’t claim to grasp what he’s saying quite so well as you do, clearly. </p>

<p>Generally speaking, though, most of us lesser mortals don’t find political philosophy very interesting to begin with, and I’m sure you’ll be hard-pressed to find people who’d actually want to read about it at 3 AM in the morning. But that’s completely besides the point, I’m sure. And that’s without even touching on the topic of what exactly constitutes soporific writing. I personally find most writing to be terribly dull at 3 AM, even books written by my favorite authors, which just goes to show you how incredibly subjective it is. Though, again, I’d be willing to bet that most high schoolers (and people!) would find Marx to be duller than 90% of the books out there, but if you want to claim otherwise, be my guest.</p>

<p>Other suggestions: Heidegger, Smith, Thucydides, Broch’s “Death of Virgil”. Especially the last, if only because the sentences can run on for pages and you’ll inevitably have to reread three pages because you lost the subject of the sentence.</p>

<p>EDIT: Okay, wow. Upon a reread … my apologies for the passive-aggressiveness. Finals coming up + 3 AM + 30 hours accumulated on a comp. sci. project + just having read and crammed twenty-seven articles into my head = not having a positive effect on my mood, apparently.</p>

<p>fwiw, what he’s saying has nothing to do with understanding Marx. He’s pointing out that Marx’s writing is more entertaining than that of most political theorists - an opinion born out by the presence of small jokes in Marx’s writing, whereas I think you’d be hard pressed to find such aspects of human persona in other political science.</p>