I don't like to defend what he wrote once again, it's mostly unactionnable and unreadable, so useless for anyone, but he never published new age shit, the only criticism you can do on him would be that he doesn't criticize it as much as he should. His complacency with Deleuze and Garrati (or whatever his name was) is problematic, but once again, he never reference it in any published work.

Also he was clearly in the non-Lacanian branch of poststructuralism, at least in what he published, so i think you have conflated his writing with a Zizeck or someone else. In his book on Freud, while he is quite incomprehensible as always, it's also clear he tries to deconstruct and refute Psychoanalysis through freud's writing (this is a point i really disagree with Derrida, he make everything about literature and his textual deconstruction). You can criticize the fact that he does not finish, but i don't see where this taints him.

My opinion is that he was such a poor and distracted writer that it makes it easy for people to misread him on purpose and make him say shit he never did.

Also his method of literary analysis is good, even if hard to pull on really good books (bu that's why it is a really good method), and i think it is hard to disagree on this.