Actually I was talking about analytical phiosophy. At lest "continental" philosophy (I hate that term, honestly, it's very Anglo-centric), is built out of huge, systematized books (that doesn't allow bickering as easily: people make their point and then move on to explain what they have come up with), and as there are less works to reference, it's easier to make a genealogy of big core books and work your way along that. Criss-crossing papers in periodical publications are far less convenient, especially if you don't have a suscription or access to archives.

No, what exhausted my patience with the continentals is that the vampire bloodlines are long rather than tangled, and that some authors seem to go out of their way to not be understood. For example Nietzsche's early books were freaking full of contemporary pop references that make annotations indispensable, and turn the reading into a sort of TV Tropes Wiki Walk through the XIXth century media rather than the lesson in human nature it's supposed to be. Not to say it isn't fun, but such things have a time and place and that is not it. Others seem to rely on Department Of Redundancy Department to reinforce their points: like Frank Millter, they seem to think an idea is more credible the more you repeat it. Kant is a huge offender.

Metaphorically speaking, I would compare analytical philosophy to a grassland, (ground level, accessible, intricately criss-crossing, vast) and continental to a rainforest (it's kinda wet and rotten on ground level, the roots are superficial, the emergent layer looks nice from afar but is actually incredibly raspy and weather-beaten).

... (looks back)

... Sorry