  I just read Theresa Hak Kyung Cha's urlLink Dictee , and my initial reaction was that it was a tremendous waste of paper. For anyone not familiar with it, it's full of halting sentences that don't seem to make a whole lot of sense when you read it, but really sort of do if you readjust your expectations.
We read articles about it that talked about clarity being a tool of the establishment to dictate linguistic norms, and I kept thinking that anything that relies on non-clarity to make meaning is suspect as far as I'm concerned (which, I assume, makes me part of the anti-opacity establishment). And if you're a critic, relying on an aesthetic of non-clarity is a career threatening position, because if the text really does rely on opacity, any attempt to say anything about it removes that opacity and takes the teeth out of the text, so you're left either not saying anything about it, or saying something and trying to negate its goal of opacity.
But after three hours of talking about it in class, I think i kind of like it. I at least think it deserves a re-reading. 
