There are lots of clever books about Lacan, but often they are too clever for their own good (or the reader's good), simply compounding Lacan's own obscurity. This is not an easy book but you can't fault it for any lack of clarity. Unlike many Lacanians, she actually gives examples for her abstract claims, since she is not afraid to test the abstract on the concrete. Her analysis of 'Dangerous Liaisons' is brilliantly incisive. What Zizek says about her unquestionable value in the book's blurb and the preface turns out to be a fact. Great book! Don't miss it.

Man is not as moral as he believes, but he is also more moral than he believes himself to be. The first half of this seemingly paradoxical statement tells us what we already know: beneath a "reputable", ethical facade, man is driven pathologically, he is a merely a slimy effect of symbolically situated will and social edifice. The second half of this statement is of Lacanian/Kantian import, the truly subversive gesture: the subject is (ethically) free qua empty "link" between cause and effect, qua position of enunciation - he is both answerable to the lack in the Other and the cause of it. Find out why Lacan was Kantian and Kant was, in a way, Lacanian - in short, read this book: it is a genuine piece of scholarship.

Umbr(a) marks a definitive break with the one-sided conventions of Lacanian literary criticism and/or clinical applications. While I would maintain that several of the articles tread familiar ground in the field of psychoanalysis and cultural studies, the Badiou and Milner articles are truly exceptional, scientifically informed studies of the relation between philosophy, science and psychoanalysis. It doesn't hurt that the Badiou article is quite critical of Lacan at times. My one complaint would be that there isn't any response to Sokal's critique of Lacan. A notable omission for such an easy target.

If only for the phenomenal article by Robert Groome at the end of this book, this is worth shelling out the eight bucks. The others are all pretty standard, that is to say, you've read it all before. Mr. Groome's article on logic, however, is a very unique find.

Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: Five Interventions in the (Mis)use of a Notion is an intensely searching evaluation and analysis of precisely what totalitarianism is, and how the term has been misused -- particularly in twentieth century political science and philosophical discussions. Individual chapter sections address diverse, unusual, and controversial topics such as "The radical ambiguity of Stalinism"; "A plea for material creationism"; and "The Pope versus the Dalai Lama". Deviously written by Slavoj Zizek (Senior Researcher, Institute for Social Studies, Ljublijana) to unweave conundrums about the cross-purpose classification of totalitarian power and governance, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? is a complex, thought-provoking philosophical accounting and a highly recommended addition to academic Political Science and Philosophy Studies departmental reference collections and reading lists.

Slovenia's most prolific theorist's newest offering may be the clearest statement of his radical blend of Lacanian psychoanalysis and Marxist social critique. Don't let the title scare you...Zizek has not become a militant fundamentalist. The book argues a shared impetus for change within Christianity (especially vis-a-vis St. Paul) and Marxism and proposes this "kernel" be used to bring these camps together for social good. Peppered with his trademark pop culture illustrations, this book is immensely readable and cogently argued. A great introduction to Zizek's thought.

Ever since Jacques Lacan entered the intellectual ring in the 1950s he has been a focal point of discussion and stimulation. His elusive, intriguing, often profound writings have generated wave upon wave of commentary and inspiration. Slavoj Zizek is one of the most lucid (and certainly entertaining) explicators of Lacan. He and Renata Salecl have edited a superb collection of essays by some of the most interesting and articulate writers in the field. Though these writings require a certain familiarity with the disciplines of philosophy and psychoanalysis they should entice adventurous readers by their combination of erudition and wit. Both of Zizek's contributions are astonishing as well as entertaining. Fine as it is, the essay by Frederick Jameson seems out of place, as though it belonged in a different anthology.

Lacanian Ink provides a comprehensive and accessible introduction to the work of French psychoanalyst-philosopher Jacques Lacan. The essays by authors as diverse as Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou, Jacques -Alain Miller, David Hayman and Juliet Flower-McCannell as well as art critics such as Raphael Rubinstein, David Ebony and Josefina Ayerza, and feminist-theorists Peggy Phelan, Jan Avgikos and Joan Copjec, not to mention Richard Foreman, John Yau and Lynne Tillman, map the shiftings of Lacanian theory in the USA. Linking key psychoanalytical and philosophical concepts to social and cultural phenomena, Lacanian Ink represents a powerful contribution to a psychoanalytical theory of ideology as well as offering persuasive interpretations of the contemporary art scene.

To those who love opera and know nothing about psychoanalysis or philosophy this book will be challenging and probably incomprehensible. Still, if anyone can get an Opera Queen to think, it might be Slavoj Zizek and Mladen Dolar. Dolar's is a more conventional and comprehensive treatment of the history of opera as a history of ideas. It is excellent and one can almost read the copious notes as a separate and equally enjoyable experience. Zizek uses particular operas to explain profound and fascinating ideas about love and death, narcissism and self-destruction, through the ideas (among others) of Lacan and Hegel. Ever since Zizek's seminal books explaining the complexities of Lacan and Hegel through popular entertainment he has accrued fame in intellectual circles without ever becoming pompous or complacent. He makes for enjoyable and provocative reading and chances are, after you've read him, you'll be keeping an eye out for his next book.

Zizek's claim to fame is his rapacious wit, keen insights, and his profound, hilarious and shocking use of anecdotes. Here, Zizek focuses on the relation between fantasy and desire, and the latter he sees as rooted fully in the former. Fantasy, he argues, is the foundation for political and social action. As a Marxist, he makes an interesting some interesting arguments along a line that is seemingly contradictory to his ideological convictions employing Lacan heavily but also drawing upon and offering some interesting interpretations of Hegel. He ends the book with insights on how the digitization of our universe--overly fantasized--as alienated us from our corporeality. This he views negatively as a plague--finally suggesting that the task of critical theory is the inverse of the traditional one starting with concrete social reality and then moving to abstract notions. Rather, the pseudo-concrete and virtual which now structure our lives must be debunked. His writing is erratic but intrepid and certainly worth the effort.

hard but joyfull studyng- my best boo

For those who enjoy the challenge of reading high theory but are put off by the dry, abstract, pretentious ramblings that more often than not constitute theoretical writing, Zizek is the theorist for you. Is there another theorist alive who can on one page explicate the finer points of Lacan, Hegel and Kant, while on the next page tie it all in with the three most popular female pubic hair styles, homosexual ; and subtle distinctions among toilet designs in Germany, France, and the United States? Perhaps. But Zizek makes these seemingly awkward transitions and uncommon examples quite smoothly; the outrageous examples aren't forced, nor are they merely for "shock" value. In short, they work to clarify the difficult concepts he is discussing. Although Zizek is not what I'd call an easy read - not by a long shot - he certainly knows how to make a challenge a bit less stressful and - gasp! - fun. END

I thought this was a fantastic book. I've read it several times and has allowed me to develop a new more contemporary understanding of ideology as well as gain a stronger grasp of Lacanian psychoanalytic concepts. I feel that this is definately Zizek's best work.

a must read for any intellectual, interested in theoreticians following Lacan's writing.

As the previous review noted, this is one of Zizek's most systematic works. But it maintains the engaging, entertaining, pop-culture-heavy style of his "lighter" work without becoming dense and obscure (and incoherent) like some of his longer philosophical writings. Take note that Zizek's politics are not quite what you might expect -- he is a classic European left-liberal, not a Marxist -- and this colors his reading of Marx. Those of us who approach this book looking for insight on the Marxist problem of ideology are likely to be somewhat disappointed. Still not as bad as Derrida's reading of Marx, though.

I'd vote for this as Zizek's best work by far. It's both theoretically significant and a fun read -- who ever thought we'd find that?

Zizek has always been dodgy on racism and liberal multiculturalism as he seems to fall in line behind a lot of European continental theorists - from Sartre on - who have tried to describe little Others from the 'Third World' or even Outside/In the First as fundamentally constructed through absence/invisible. You could re-read Sartre's 'anti-semite and jew' to get the point, or there's a dodgy interview about the resurgent Right in Europe and anti-semitism on the Web somewhere, or even one of Vikki Bell's excellent essays on Butler and the same problem.

He's dodgy on Butler too. Zizek claims that as long as resistance to power is a direct response to the power structure it presumes to subvert, then it will necessarily fail. He then contends that the "true" act of resistance is one that will disturb the 'phantasmic core' of the symbolic order and therefore it will be an "authentic act".

So... we start from an impossible position to reach a possible. At the end of the day there are more 'real' examples of resistance, framed by a big Other/dominant power structure/hegemon that have, while coming out in response to that power, actually envisioned and/or travelled above and beyond it than there are of re-constituted Cartesian subjects upsetting the structure at it's core. In fact the core is often upset by the subversive over-statements of pre-substantiated resistance. The added advantage is that you don't have to reify dodgy discources on "race" and anti-semitism to realise this.

Lets all go back to Fanon (or visit him for the first time!) and see that a new humanism should always aim 'above and beyond' and that unfortunately we need to be much more aware and in-tune to those aspects of resistance that do. Said's been doing this for yonks and pretty much everyone in his footnotes. Paul Gilroy's "Against Race" is pretty good too. Or, maybe just some good old social science theory and volunteer activism with people who care much less about John Woo's Face/Off than we do?

If you had pretty much given up on Zizek after Metaseses of Enjoyment and Plague of Fantasies, both of which contain some embarassingly bad writing, you will be happy to rad this book. Routledge finally gave Zizek a new copyeditor, and what a difference she makes! ALthough Zizek's new concept of "the Act" smacks of Chrisitan mysticisim, the book is one of his stngest. It's otfen very insightful about academic trends and as entertaining as ever when it comes to film. he is one of the few theorists who manages to kep thinking, even if he repeats himself over and over again.

Check this quote out from the book on the symbolic institution:) "The mysterious character of this moment can best be illustrated by a funny thing that happened during the last election campaign in Slovenia, when a member of the ruling political party was approached by an elderly lady from his local constituency, asking for help. She was convinced that the street number of her house (not the standard 13, but 23) was bringing her bad luck--the moment her house got this new number, due to some administrative reorganization, misfortunes started to afflict her (burglars broke in, a storm tore the roof off, neighbours began to annoy her), so she asked the candidate to be so kind as to arrange with the municipal authorities for the number to be changed. The candidate made a simple suggestion to the lady: why didn't she do it alone? Why didn't she simply repaint or replace the plate with the street number herself by, for example, adding another number or letter (say, 23A or 231 instead of 23)? The old lady answered: "Oh, I tried that a couple of weeks ago; I myself replaced the old plate with a new one with the number 23A, but it didn't work--my bad luck is still with me; you can't cheat it, it has to be done properly, by the relevant institution." The 'it' which cannot be duped in this way is the Lacanian big Other, the symbolic institution." :)