Yeah, that makes sense, but somehow Derrida himself doesn't seem the most objectionable to me, at least on philosophical grounds.
I suppose one can legitimately blame him for some of the writing style, though. In particular, although he argued that all language has multiple meanings / shifting references / etc., he seemed to like emphasizing it by using a writing style that added deliberate multiple readings. For example, something like "we need to (re)construct this meaning", leaving it deliberately ambiguous, with a sort of self-aware textual wink, whether he was "constructing" or "reconstructing" things. Also, lots of puns.
I think he actually pulled it off reasonably well in some parts, and is kind of amusing to read, if you like that sort of thing. In the years since, it's become a really annoying habit that a bunch of folks have picked up, though, most of whom don't do it very well, and take it way too seriously. Now I have this instinctive "argh, I hate you" reaction whenever I see some paper or book title with a construction like "(re)engage".
edit: An interesting oddity is that a lot of the writing style traces back to Nietzsche, even though he himself was quite readable (so much so that teenage kids loving Nietzsche are even a sort of stereotype). He initiated some of the general style of writing half philosophy, half literary performance: jumping from subject to subject, making assertions that you run with and don't carefully argue for, making heavy use of puns in arguments, etc. Maybe the problem is just that most people who try to write like that need to realize that they aren't Nietzsche, and can't pull it off.
I suppose one can legitimately blame him for some of the writing style, though. In particular, although he argued that all language has multiple meanings / shifting references / etc., he seemed to like emphasizing it by using a writing style that added deliberate multiple readings. For example, something like "we need to (re)construct this meaning", leaving it deliberately ambiguous, with a sort of self-aware textual wink, whether he was "constructing" or "reconstructing" things. Also, lots of puns.
I think he actually pulled it off reasonably well in some parts, and is kind of amusing to read, if you like that sort of thing. In the years since, it's become a really annoying habit that a bunch of folks have picked up, though, most of whom don't do it very well, and take it way too seriously. Now I have this instinctive "argh, I hate you" reaction whenever I see some paper or book title with a construction like "(re)engage".
edit: An interesting oddity is that a lot of the writing style traces back to Nietzsche, even though he himself was quite readable (so much so that teenage kids loving Nietzsche are even a sort of stereotype). He initiated some of the general style of writing half philosophy, half literary performance: jumping from subject to subject, making assertions that you run with and don't carefully argue for, making heavy use of puns in arguments, etc. Maybe the problem is just that most people who try to write like that need to realize that they aren't Nietzsche, and can't pull it off.