Cluttered phraseology, erratic prepositions, dizzying suppositions and a tendency towards compulsive terminologicalism seem to be the hallmark of Derrida's work. The deconstructionist tact in Specters of Marx has resulted in a collection of nearly incomprehensible thoughts, taking the shape of misguided, a-structural and often unintelligible sentences. The book does not seem to have a beginning, middle or end, nor does it seem to carry themes from what chapter to the next (except for the repeated allusions to spirits, ghosts, specters, haunts, spuks, etc.). With all of that being said, I know that this is Derrida's point, to deconstruct language from its privileged space that it inhabits, to disassemble text brick by brick and to break apart the philosophical mortar until there is no foundation left to build upon. However, this raises a few flags for me. From where does Derrida derive the authority, or the power to give voice to the deconstructive effort? Doesn't the process of de-privileging a text require authority from which to speak from? Does Derrida's elite position as a pol-literati allow him some privileged vantage to see things more clearly than others? Granting him that he might hold this position (for the purposes of argument) wouldn't it behoove him to make his writings more accessible, to the masses and academia alike? Considering my relative nascence to Derrida's nonlinearity, and to his verbosity, maybe I am missing the point (in fact I truly believe that I am missing the point). I will admit however, that the excessive neologisms, the confused waywardness, and the aberrant writing of Derrida may be artistic, and sometimes charming. I have found the reading of Derrida useful in that it helps me understand that writing or other texts may best be understood if they are removed from their privileged pedestal, that writing is just a representation of reality, a simulacra of simulacra which may have no meaning by itself. But at the same time, I found Specters of Marx frustrating to read. There were several times in this book where I read a sentence, or a paragraph, or a several pages and had absolutely no idea what it is I just read. If you enjoy postmodern deconstructivist literature then this book is for you; if you prefer to read something that makes some sense, I suggest you stay away!

If you come to "Spectres" expecting find some new insight, some vision to see into Marx, and the canonical texts, as "The German Ideology",Derrida cannot help you or the cause of illumination.Your eyes have grown old and weary trying to find where this light may reside,the epistemic. In fact only history itself and the correlations of whatever exists are there waiting for that, to interpret,to re-absorb to find/locate a new context, a new air to breath, or do we need to purchase that as well, as we now do with water;or as in South America today the turn to the Left away from the hardened corruption hardened with the New York Banks. But now the time from the bottom upwards can see itslef, time again will give it content; and Derrida will not be there,he cannot be there for his help, his aid is filled with contengencies, and reservations in these regards you come away from this work wondering where and what does it strike?, what resonance does it proclaim?; for long ago he(Derrida) found activism to be an end to itself,for itself although Derrida's voice for the dispossessed has seldom lent itself to the cause of Palestine.Why erect barriers?He has forgotten the face of prejudice? Yes or No?He speaks about his childhood and the prejudice he suffered, but then extend this in time, to aid the living,or do we simply forget? where Derrida can you have done this? So conceptual borders and barriers and vocal mantras are erected all the same over time, over place he didn't have although we seldom see this time in concrete form.
These were tail-end Lectures on the demise of an Ideology again the late Fifties also proclaimed an end to ideology,it is an uncomfortable word now with the demise and threat of Soviet Communism, Fukayama's neat little ode to ideology now forgotten itself. The purpose of Derrida is to create, to create concepts,fusions, fidelities, and areas where he can escape that is the line of productive value, and his language does have its illuminations and points of curiosity. It is not a place to build however,to foster ties with, it is a though secluded,yet not altogether hostile; nor does Derrida's work set a continuation that would let you see some other place certainly not within the dirty vagaries and betrayed ambience of politics.Although following ancient thought all is politics, wherever it may interface with the human spirit.We then see on this "Spectres" what is not here. We have known something is rotten in Denamrk to fill in this void with Hamlet, and what "spectre" still roams the earth is all bound to human hunger, human greed, to erecting Walls yet again, to predestine another series of hypocrisies, where again Derrida's voice fails to look. He may look but he keeps his words, his textures inside. Being outward has more definition and committment, and Derrida's work betrays him, for we only need to look at his words. In the end we are given structures, neatly persuasive, to avoid facing the lives of those dispossessed, those who cannot now breath the air freely, nor have the aid of medical service, or not knowing where I will be tommorrow with friends,in friendship with whom? Friendship is proximity, so proximity to the "spectre" cannot be found here in words.