3 ms·
> How many of his ~70 books am I required to read before forming an opinion? I like to follow the rule that I only talk about things which I know about. I thin
by ianleeclark 5y ago
> How many of his ~70 books am I required to read before forming an opinion?
I like to follow the rule that I only talk about things which I know about. I think it's a pretty good rule. So I personally wouldn't talk about an entire person's collection from such a limited introduction because it would feel a tad bit hasty to me. Instead, I would talk about the works that I had read--this might prove difficult if you can't recall the names.
> This clowning bullshit is a good reason not to take him seriously.
It's a dad-joke that he told at a talk. Heaven forbid the man try and add some levity to situations.
- slibhb 5y agoSo I need to read all ~30,000 pages of Zizek before forming an opinion. Or at least a negative opinion. Wonderful system you've developed. > It's a dad-joke that he told at a talk. Heaven forbid the man try and add some levity to situations. It's not funny. Anyway, like I said, it's a performance. The fact that you (and he) would agree with that judgement doesn't make it any less damning. I watched part of a lecture he did on youtube. Absolutely unwatchable. If he has a point he's unable to communicate it. But the real point is mystifying the audience, creating the impression that they're witnessing a genius thinking out loud, and the terrible jokes don't help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHP1OwivAL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHP1OwivAL0 if anyone is "interested". Notice Avital Ronell (sex offender and NYU professor) introducing him. It's bizarre how Zizek bullies her through the starting of the lecture while playing it off as a joke between friends.
- Fargren 5y ago> So I need to read all ~30,000 pages of Zizek before forming an opinion. Or at least a negative opinion. Wonderful system you've developed. You can do whatever you want. But commenting on the entire bibliography when you have read less than 2.5% of it seems premature. Just say that everything you've read of him lacks substance rather than everything he wrote?
- chimingg 5y agoReading a book and a half is very fair, I would bet most readers can form an opinion in a few paragraphs. If a guy sucks after a book and a half he probably sucks.
- ianleeclark 5y ago> So I need to read all ~30,000 pages of Zizek before forming an opinion. By all means, form an opinion that the man and his book and a half that you went through aren't for you, but I just think it's deeply anti-intellectual to discredit the entire collection of work he's put out. You're discrediting books that you likely don't have the requisite knowledge to review which is the problem that I take with it. > The fact that you (and he) would agree with that judgement doesn't make it any less damning. What's damning about it? I really don't get this part.
- alisonkisk 5y agoThese content-free, persistent, aggresive dismissals of Zizek make me curious to read his writing and see what freaks you out so much that it pushes you to post multiple sets of paragraphs to scare people off it.
- slibhb 5y agoIf you want some "content" you can listen to Chomsky on Zizek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0 Or read John Gray on Zizek: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/07/12/violent-visions-slavoj-zizek https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/07/12/violent-visions-... It's not like these critiques are uncommon or hard to find. What I find more "curious" is the backlash you get for criticizing Zizek. Somehow I don't think I'd get any backlash for forming a positive opinion after reading only "2.5% of his books" but apparently it's "anti-intellectual" to form a negative one.
- hungryforcodes 5y agoA good intellect has a sense of humor-- keep this in mind.
- pstuart 5y agoYou piqued my curiosity -- he's not funny and is a gasbag (bonus for a speaking voice that is not pleasant to listen to).