I think absorbing, or half-absorbing, stuff you can't really schematise or represent clearly to yourself, is a valid way of reading, for a first pass over a text anyway. Just attuning yourself to the vibe, getting used to the way it goes. Eventually the mists will part and solid objects will start to assemble themselves in front of you; or they won't. You can bounce off a text, or you can splash about in it shallowly for a bit. It's OK, there's no exam at the end.
Later on, when you've got the hang of things, you can experience the world of the text as a model universe, full of things that hang together in some way, such that the things that don't seem to hang together with the other things stand out as puzzles: given that it seems to work like this, what's that doing there? And sometimes the answer is that the author thought they were building an extension to their mansion of sense, but it sort of collapsed in on itself or became a tunnel to nowhere; or the answer is that they were going through a divorce and certain rancours and long-suppressed libidinal stirrings were having their way with the writing process, or whatever. Few authors are total masters of their own domain. But it's typically more illuminating to assume that something is part of the way the text is meant to be than to write it off as a pure aberration. It's just that the entity doing the meaning may not be identical with the person the author is trying to tell you they are.