return to, the home of critical reviews

Re: well, dunno

From:     blp
Category: Life
Date:     31 March 2008
Time:     04:45 PM


What you describe is very familiar to me and I agree up to a point. At least, I look back over my
posts and think, shit, there has to be a simpler way of saying that. Actually, there usually is,
second go around. Eva forcing me to clarify my statement about Tillmans was good. In my case, it's a
version of the old 'if I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter letter': if I'd had more time
and was able to edit my first passes, I'd have been able to explain these slightly difficult points
a lot more clearly. 

There's a nice bit in the Zizek documentary where he's being interviewed on American TV and the
grinning, tooth whitener perfect hair and tan man who's interviewing him says with a big, uncanny
tooth whitened grin, 'This is the hardest book I've ever read!' and Zizek says, 'Really? That's
strange because I wanted to write something on Lacan that even your grandma can understand.'
(slightly sweeping notion of grandmas here, but never mind). At another point he says, 'I'm an
enlightenment kind of guy. I want to explain clearly so people can understand.' I do actually think
he's better at doing this than any of the post structuralist mob. You never feel, as some people
(Francis Wheen, say) do with Deleuze, for instance that even the author just can't possibly believe
what he's saying actually makes sense. But when Zizek gets heavily Lacanian and is leading you
through the labyrinths of the objet petit a and the Big Other and jouissance, it can get awfully
hard to follow. Some of it's just hard. In which instances, you can't blame the theorist. I advise
taking a bit at a time and being patient, if you can stand it. It does get easier and I think it's
worth the candle. 

return to, the home of critical reviews