Drawing lines of flight from my recent research on Kathy Acker and my attempt to discuss Acker's writing and publishing practices in the light of what I call a politics and poetics of enervation, with regard to its affective, bodily dimensions, and (re-)reading the texts of Simone Weil with an observation in mind that I made during the last years of my research—as well in academic as in non-academic, artistic circles—that Weil's writing is "so fascinating," but also "so enervating" or "so hard to access," I'd like to present some thoughts on what I (heuristically) would call a writing outside the box as a practice of staying with the trouble (as a political strategy borrowed from Donna Haraway). Writing neither in line with the market nor in line with specifically established traditions means staying and situating oneself outside a certain politics of legibility. But by staying outside, not only old forms and traditions of reading and writing are being contested, but new ways and spaces of reading and writing are created or invented. By a) questioning in very practical terms how to read authors (Acker, Weil, but also Bataille and many more) who unnerve 'us' and tax 'our' patience (meaning contesting our ways and practices of reading) and b) by questioning the poetics as politics of such a writing, I will present some propositions that might help us staying and not fleeing the trouble (reading as dialogue: something Shulamit Bruckstein calls "Talmudic reading"; reading as a collective practice: something easily achieved in creating reading circles; reading as a bodily rather than (exclusively) cognitive/intellectual practice, like Trinh Minh-ha or Paul Preciado put it…).