So how does someone like me who hates (incoherent) academic writing do a Ph.D. How on earth do I get past a obscure jargon-filled book on feminist theory, film theory, queer theory, diaspora theories?

So how will I at the end of this Ph.D sojourn give in a "academic book" to be granted a Ph.D?

I was reworking on my Ph.D proposal and it was like a High-School report. And I loved it, because I felt comfortable with it, I felt on the top of it.If I were quizzed by distinguished academia, I would do well.

This whole research writing must be written "intelligent", if you wrote simply most would think its sub-standard, like I haven't put my mind to make it intelligently incoherent.Well if you can't understand what your own proposal is saying or if you can't explain why your research matters , then your wasting a whole lot of precious time.

I think at the end of my Ph.D, I would want to hand out copies of my work, maybe most wouldn't make through the first few pages,but the few pages they glance through would make sense.

I am not the only one thinking - Academic writing should be coherent. Here is a quote from Kitchencabinet.

Too often, I think, academic writing is praised for its incoherence. Many scholars get away with loads of stuff that makes little to no sense simply because the reader's have been conditioned to believe that such incoherence is a sign of higher-level thinking. WRONG. If it doesn't make sense, it sucks