I think what Nagi argues so much against, this "muddy" language, she comes close to repeating. She write, "...is language that threatens the limits of the self by challenging its ability to respond--temporarily immobilizing the addressee, as in situations of extreme shock or boredom" (254). Readers become lost and completely miss the whole point because of the sheer confusion of what is on the paper. "...the subject no longer seems to be the agent producing or controlling his speech; rather, language "leaps out" with its own force and stupefies the listener" (254). If authors are aware of the fact that they are confusing readers, why do they even do it? I feel theorists need to take a lesson from journalists-report it so that your grandma can understand.