Most definitely and I think he'd agree.
> There's not a lot of substance in his many (is he at 100 yet?) books.
Which books specifically of his are you speaking about?
> It's ironic that someone who rails against capitalism publishes at such a frenetic rate while covering the same ground.
He himself has said that he makes a good slave, he just needs to know who his master is.
How many of his ~70 books am I required to read before forming an opinion? I've read one and a half, the one being one of his "philosophical" books and the half being a more accessible political one. I'm confident that no one who has anyhting to say writes like that.
Give me Chomsky, give me Butler, give me Rorty. I don't have to agree to appreciate a thinker but I have to be convinced there's thinking going on.
> He himself has said that he makes a good slave, he just needs to know who his master is.
This clowning bullshit is a good reason not to take him seriously. Bad jokes are perhaps Zizek's greatest sin. I can forgive anyone almost anything if they're funny. But no, it's dud after dud.
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.
> 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 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.
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?
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.
Or read John Gray on 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.