Form and style in early English literature Book

The worst thing I’ve read in ages...well, when I say read I only got through the introduction and that was a chore.
So what went wrong? A subject I’m interested in, but when you come across “...it is the sedimented repository of what medieval culture has sought to retain across vast temporal divides, each romance that survives communicates the resultant aggregated will of a collective culture, and transmits the cumulative purposiveness of a diachronous endeavor in a way that is almost unimaginable to moderns habituated to the signed cultural works of mere individuals.” Arghhh! And every now and then words will be italicised, just a word here and there for emphasis...why not just write in a lucid and fluid manner?
It reads like a word count had to be reached, yet has 150 pages of notes and a 30 page bibliography. It is only (including index) 521 pages long.
I was reminded of the fake paper submitted by Sokal to that French journal that meant nothing but was received with awe until the hoax was pointed out.
I’m sure the author was trying to say something but life is too short to read pages of waffle to justify one point. But what of the point trying to be made?
Well the blurb appears to be misleading, it talks of the Arthur legend yet the book only looks in any detail at one text directly related to it. It talks of “romance” and then gives a nebulous definition that is worse than no definition and covers pretty much everything ever written. And then tries to get cannibalism and homosexuality into the mix, no idea what the author is trying to do.
OK, as I mentioned I only got as far as the introduction but that was enough. The impression I was left with was enough for this to be the 1st book in ages I’ve not finished and the praise heaped on the book by assorted Profs on it’s jacket I find bewildering unless this is the standard of clarity expected in modern universities...clear as mud that is.
I noticed that only a handful of folk have marked this as “to read" here, I would advise you to think again, unless you have to read this for a course then avoid.
On a final note I add my own waffle (some minor changes but mainly courtesy of: ):

“In the works of De Troyes, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. The term ‘romance’ could be seen to denote the failure, and subsequent economy, of neotextual sexual identity. It could be said that Malory implies that we have to choose between De Troyes romance as quest and the pre-romance paradigm of narrative.
The premise of textual discourse suggests that truth may be used to entrench hierarchy, given that reality is distinct from truth. But several narratives concerning not, in fact, romance, but neo-romance exist. In a sense, Von Strassburg implies that expression is created by the masses.
If the post-romance paradigm of consensus holds, we have to choose between De Troyes’ idea of romance as quest and pre-romance paradigm of narrative. But it could be said that Chaucer’s manuscript on Arthuriana holds the significance of the writer paramount.”

Yes...all meaningless waffle that sounds highbrow.