Postmodernist literary criticism kind of fails because it generally focuses more on elitism than on postmodernism - but postmodernism itself is awesome, I think... I am sort of a «strong postmodernist», as the article you posted says - it doesn't really have any relevance if there are factors other than speech, since speech is the method we're always going to filter everything through - even if we didn't know how to speak, we would most likely be filtering things through abstraction (that is, assuming general qualities out of concrete consciences of perception), which is still a simpler version of the language ability. However, I, for certain, DO speak, so not only I don't know if this is true, but it doesn't really matter at all. Because of this, and the qualities postmodernists attribute to speech, I don't think there's any problem with seemingly «bizarre» deconstruction... but I do agree that all the posing and confusing babble of some (most) critics is exasperating, to say the least. Also, their relentless use of quotes as points (as oposed to just playing with intertextuality, which is more of a literary thing, though I'm all in for bringing down the barrier between criticism and literature itself) makes me wonder what do critics understand about postmodernism - I mean, sometimes they're using quotes from «authority philosophers» instead of using their own understanding of such thinkers (or their own postmodern ideas, like), which is as unpostmodern as it gets, I think.