>You can't evaluate how good of a writer someone is unless you already know what they are trying to explain.

I object to this premise.

Trivial counterexample: Is it impossible to evaluate the quality of a novelist because we don't have a common understanding of the plot of a novel until after I've read it? Clearly not.

Even in a post-modernist literary paper you can still judge the writer's cohesiveness of thought and clarity of argument.

Edit:

>The correctness of the content is subjective. If the correctness of the content is objective, and mutually understood, then any confusion added during the writing is bad writing.

I also don't understand how post-modernism comes into it. Is talking about the theme of insanity in Hamlet any more objective/correct than writing about the influence of race in Moby-Dick? If so, how?