I'm a big fan of Adorno's work. I think American/Anglo readers struggle with it for two reasons:<p>1. It's largely consumed in translation. Normally, this isn't so problematic, but in addition to being incredibly philosophically dense, Adorno's work is rhetorically and compositionally complex, rife with structures that are rather difficult to translate, punning, particular sentence arrangements, etc.<p>2. It's unashamedly steeped in tradition and assumes a <i>lot</i> of knowledge of the history of Western thought. Adorno's texts are rich with allusions that require knowledge of philosophical and literary history, which can really confound those engaged in a superficial or cursory reading--it's easy to miss his point if you're not on your toes.<p>If you're curious, I recommend David Held's <i>Introduction to Critical Theory</i> which does a great job of framing the work of the Frankfurt school. This article also does quite a nice job of summarizing his work.<p>I also think Adorno's critique of Existentialism and Heideggerean philosophy (mentioned in the article), (also contained in <i>Negative Dialectics</i>) actually serves as a great precis of key components of his thought.