Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
I wish I had my Zizek book here, I want to quote a sentence I read of him last night that was an absolute masterpiece of mishmashing hyphenated ideolocial adjectives, just a howlingly funny exercise is cramming every heglian/lacanian/marxist/proto/neo/etc possible into one thought.
Maybe this will remind me to do that tonight.
Zizek is discussing Jean-Jacques Rousseau's huge novel
Julie, or the New Heloise.
"We should, rather, risk a somewhat naive historicist-Marxist solution to the final deadlock of Julie; what if the Clarens cure/sublation fails not because of some ontological incompatibility between love and virtuous social order, but because the social order at Clarens is in fact a proto-totalitarian heirarchical-pedagogic nightmare, the realization of a fantasy proper to the despotic pre-revolutionary Enlightenment?"
I'm pretty sure you could completely remove
proto-totalitarian heirarchical-pedagogic from that sentence and not affect its meaning. Why is the proposed solution necessarily naive, historicist, or Marxist? He is merely saying that the novel ostensibly is about the incompatibility of love and social norms, but the society it depicts is sick. He acts as though he makes a very deep point here. He does not.
He did a sublime job of breaking down the dialectic of Kung Fu Panda though. He talked about that movie for ten pages and it was awesome.
Last edited by amplify; 06-14-2012 at 10:13 PM.