Like Barrett Watten, I am not a Derridean, yet feel the need to defend against rather simplisitic definitions--whether coming from detractors or admirers. I remember when Searle demolished Culler's book on Derrida in the NYRB. Culler's defense of his book, and of Derrida, was weak, and Searle demolished him again in the letters to the editor exchange. Deconstruction turned out to be useless in the hands of anyone but Derrida, its flaw being that any simplification or clarification or even "application" of it made it seem entirely moronic if not outright wrong. I once reviewed a book by someone trying to "apply" Derrida to a particular Spanish poet. I think that was my most negative review of all time.