next »

[yellowtractor]

A colleague in the English Dept. has told me that I need to read Zizek.

Do I need to read Zizek?

What, of all that is Zizek, should I read?

[marigolds]

I wouldn't if I were you.

[yellowtractor]

Are you me, then?

Will Zizek resolve this apparent contradiction?

[systeme_d_]

Are you sure your colleague wasn't telling you that you need to see the movie Žižek!?

[mountainguy]

Unless you're already well-read in Marxist and postmodern critical theory, Zizek is pretty much incomprehensible. Welcome to the Desert of the Real is probably the least technical of his works, but there were still points when I wanted to throw the stupid book across the room.

--MG, who is not a postmodernist (even though I sometimes play one on television)

[glowdart]

No.

[systeme_d_]

Oh, come on, people, Žižek can be fun, and he is the author (and the object!) of some very trenchant critiques.  Like MG, I'd suggest Desert of the Real.  His interrogation of the function of "terrorism" post-911 is quite good, in my opinion. 

If you like Lacan, you absolutely must read How to Read Lacan.

[aandsdean]

Oh, come on, people, Žižek can be fun, and he is the author (and the object!) of some very trenchant critiques.  Like MG, I'd suggest Desert of the Real.  His interrogation of the function of "terrorism" post-911 is quite good, in my opinion. 

If you like Lacan, you absolutely must read How to Read Lacan.

I just like it that his first name is Slavoj.  How could he be cooler, unless his name was Radoslav, like the musician in Iowa City called Radoslav Lorkovic.

[yellowtractor]

...but there were still points when I wanted to throw the stupid book across the room.

I'm titillated, I admit.  What made you want to throw it across the room?

[traductio]

Looking Awry is a fun read (or so I thought) if you like Hitchcock.

[spork]

Zizek and his ilk are Exhibit A for the irrelevancy of much of what happens in the humanities.

[mountainguy]

Zizek and his ilk are Exhibit A for the irrelevancy of much of what happens in the humanities.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Zizek is has no relevance whatsoever. But as a philosophical pragmatist at heart, I agree that it's difficult to justify the relevance of high theory to non-academic audiences.

[yellowtractor]

Zizek and his ilk are Exhibit A for the irrelevancy of much of what happens in the humanities.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Zizek is has no relevance whatsoever. But as a philosophical pragmatist at heart, I agree that it's difficult to justify the relevance of high theory to non-academic audiences.

High theory?  I suppose that was part of my question.  I do read--and like--Lacan, and I'm no slouch at postmodern theory more generally.  I'd avoided Zizek because frankly he seemed more pop theory than high theory.  (Maybe it was the movie that dissuaded me.)

It is difficult to justify the relevance of nearly everything I do, starting with getting up in the morning (and including posting to the Fora), to non-academic audiences, so I don't worry too much about that.

Thank you all for the suggestions.

[tuxedo_cat]

Look, you read Zizek for the same reason you go to the gym and beat yourself up on the treadmill:  it's just really hard, but it does feel like you must be doing something impressive with yourself.  And then you can feel really smug about the whole business later.

At the very least you should watch his videos.  I was going to post his 40 min. lecture on "What does it mean to be a revolutionary today?"  But I'm opting for his reflections on why Love is Evil.

Be careful.  You might just fall in love with him.

[yellowtractor]

Look, you read Zizek for the same reason you go to the gym and beat yourself up on the treadmill:  it's just really hard, but it does feel like you must be doing something impressive with yourself.  And then you can feel really smug about the whole business later.

I use Kristeva for that.