[a bit of a parallel to the recent movie … what’s it’s name … the talented ripley?]
> So it pretty much depends on the audience - what they want to hear and
> how they relate to a particular style of presentation and speaker's
> persona. If the "chemistry" is right, a speaker is viewed as a
> revelation even though what he is saying is not much different from
> opinions than can be found elsewhere.
No argument with any of the above. But, (1) would you say Cornel West is this sort of simpleton? I guess George Bush proved that anyone can get through Harvard, but the man (West) does seem to have done serious work, (2) how things are said matter, I would think? (I sometimes suspect, especially after reading the Cambridge lectures exchanges with Alan Turing, that this — the way things are said — is a large part of Wittgenstein’s appeal).
I think it is likely that West (as he is today) and Zizek are both kinds of *educated sophisticates* (rather than uneducated simpletons) dwelling in and living off of overlapping elite circles, with semi-coherent ramblings and digressions. The difference might be the M.O - West (arguably; and I am still going to get in trouble for saying this) works with the intellectual white person’s penchant for their own version of the “magical negro”, while Zizek seems to cater to a sophisticated version of the self-indulgence and mockery that Mark Ames so amusingly (if lengthily) described in his piece about the Jon Stewart rally (http://l.ravi.be/g1Djwf).
Anyway, I am rambling incoherently, and dangerously (and risking adding more yucks to Miles’s life, as well as alienating resident Zizek fans). I liked your post better.
—ravi