[Glice]

Yeah, a lot of people get that. I get slightly frustrated by the nay-sayers who tend to say that underneath the massively complicated arguments it's bunkum. I'm not sure if you're using the 'p' word in the sense of the era following modernism (in which case, no problem) but Derrida was by no means part of the 'p' word horror.

This notion of the 'simple idea' isn't really exclusive to Derrida. All the way back to Socrates (and further, given we could include your Confuciouses and the like in the canon) this has been apparent. I find Kant is the best exponent of proceeding from the general to the particular, which is (very roughly) similar to the idea of exploring a simple idea to arrive at a massively dense (if not complicated) epistemic. I haven't much time for anything other than the 3rd critique mind you.

I don't think his style is any more incomprehensible than Kant, Hegel, Liebiniz or whoever. Certainly no-where near as difficult (to me) as early Wittgenstein. It takes a while to get into the swing of it, but it's well worth it. It depends on whether his arguments click with you. Try the gift of death, that's pretty perspicuous.

It's all horses for courses. I know a fair few people who never had a problem with the British analytical school, but it entirely baffles me personally.