Every once in a while he makes sparks fly, the way Nietzche used to. But otherwise, he's always struck me as a metrointellectual.
...................
Perhaps.
But I think criticisms of Zizek which flow from a premise of his allegedly insufficient gravity (particularly when compared to almost universally applauded philosophers such as Nietzsche) are as off target as ESA Mars landers.
Interviewed in Astra Taylor's creative and entertaining documentary, Zizek! -- a fine example of branding efficiency and brevity -- Slavoj describes the role of philosophy in general and his own work specifically in refreshingly modest terms ('if a deadly virus is threatening the world' he imagines 'you don't need philosophy to ask questions...you need good science to address the problem...philosophy has its place which is not so big').
He builds on this argument during a moment when he's watching a copy of an ancient French television broadcast starring a grim Lacan, dramatically lecturing about "the real" and related concepts. Zizek is completely unsentimental as he dissects the 'phoniness' of his intellectual mentor's style of presentation. And yet, he's quick to point out, that's not the important thing to pay attention to.
The important thing to pay attention to is the usefulness (or lack) of the ideas presented which must be considered as a whole.
Typically, the conclusion that Zizek is a complete lightweight -- or, more generously, *almost* a complete lightweight -- is based upon essays written for newspapers or appearances in front of wide-eyed students and not a reading of his books and technical papers (such as the material written for Lacanian Ink magazine).
I believe this to be a mistake.
.d.
"You people...your hands are so greasy and slimy...I don't want to shake your hands."
Andy Kaufman
...................... http://monroelab.net/blog/