[Analemma_]

Philosophy, at least in the analytic tradition, is supposed to be precise and formal, starting from axioms and reaching well-supported conclusions in the same way as mathematics.

By contrast, the problem with Nietzsche is that he was such a good writer that no one can agree on what it is he actually said or meant: the same colorful metaphor and ambiguity that makes Nietzsche fun to read also makes his writings a mirror into which people can see anything they want. Which is entertaining, but doesn't make for great philosophy.

That's why contemporary philosophy doesn't pay much attention to Nietzsche, especially by comparison with his stature in the public consciousness: they just can't decide what, if anything, he was actually saying.