I think he would totally agree with you. Try to read Fooled by Randomness to see what I mean. I gave up after the first few chapters because I couldn't stand his unstructured - almost incomprehensible at times - arrogant, self-referential prose. Perhaps he has a lot to say, I just wish he could write too.
In fact, I believe totally otherwise. He is not only a great thinker but an excellent author also. While reading Fooled by Randomness, I literally wished the book could go on and on.
If he is pompous, he is so because he wants to drive home points which people think are unconventional and idiosyncratic. But in fact the points are real. I just wish people could understand him more, without any biases whatsoever.
I slogged through The Black Swan with the same attitude. He had some good insights, but he was so pompous I had difficulty following his reasoning. I'd continually get derailed when I encountered something that I thought was pure self-promotion.
Be proud all you want. Just be able to explain your idea clearly. Taleb intersperses self-promotion in his explanations, which muddies them.
His writing style in general is meandering and lacks focus. The book I read had a handful of insights amid pointless narration. I read books like The Black Swan to learn new ideas, not to learn how great the author is.
Totally agree - pompous. That's the word I was looking for. The kind of author who creates a fictional character based 100% on himself, makes said character the intellectual and professional superior to his peers, the only one who survives the ups and downs of the market; and to top it all off names the character Nero! Seriously!
I found that "When Genius Failed" gives a great story-telling journalistic perspective on some of the same incidents Taleb talks about in his book while "The Drunkard's Walk" provides a good mathematical intuition (sans math sadly) behind seemingly rare events.