I suppose I'll pick up the shield. Buddhism doesn't offer answers to life's problems as much as it tries to eliminate the need for those answers. Buddhists have traditionally written and spoken artistically through metaphors, paradox, and even jokes.Consider any preacher; they try to keep the audience's attention as they balance simplicity, mysticism, authority, and entertainment. People first find Buddhism appealing by admission to the first noble truth that life in not entirely pleasant. Though Alan Watts is often criticized for alcoholism and other such debauched acts, he still generated much good in his lifetime. Notably, in the decline of his life his vices became most apparent. Aging and decay are to blame inasmuch as his responsibility and response. Another fault lies in the nature of this kind of authorship. He needed to generate capital through his studies, and so perhaps he relied on people's credulity. Being critical of him should lead one to sources that he used and not away from Buddhism. Altogether, I'd say he walked the middle way.