I'm a huge fan of China Miéville's work. "The City & The City" is one of my favourite books of all time. Particular features of his writing are his delightful linguistic obscurity and inventiveness, even though they tax the mind. Few writers could use the word "squiddity" in earnest and get away with it!
However, when one's goal is to communicate and persuade instead of entertain, simpler language would serve better. Miéville's essay "The Limits Of Utopia" would be more comprehensible to a broader audience if he had restrained his literary style. (For example, the words "coagulate", "imbricated", "malefic" and "peonage" all have simpler substitutes that would serve just as well.) A subject of this importance deserves the clearest and broadest communication; Miéville rejecting such discipline suggests that he values the his or his readers' literary gratification more highly than the influence he could exert through his essay.
It's not just Miéville, of course. All sorts of communities --- including scientists, activists, and religionists --- use specialized vocabulary, sometimes for brevity and precision, but often to identify as in-group. When they try to reach a broad audience, they'd be better off to be simple and clear --- especially when addressing people hostile to the in-group. Yet I'm amazed how often people fail to do this --- I guess due to habit, but sometimes perhaps due to insincerity.