Customer Reviews

First As Tragedy, Then As Farce

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

As a reader of Zizek most of this is covered in other books. In Defense of Lost Causes immediately comes to mind. But if you don't want to slough through a 500 page tome but want to look at the latest political reflections by Slavoj Zizek then this book is a good introduction.

Also of note, this may be one of the few books criticizing today's political Left that's by a Leftist(although albeit radical Marxist one)and as such is a better and more well rounded critique concerning the path of the Left. Zizek's style is for experienced readers, one cannot just simply walk into one of Zizek's books and expect the dry pedantic style that plagues much of contemporary academic reading. It takes some skill to recognize what Zizek is arguing, but once you find that hidden gem, you gain an insight into why the system crashed.

This might very well be the best place to start if you're interested in the politics of this singular Slovenian philosopher. The prose here is as trenchant and as pellucid as it gets- it is clear that Zizek regards this polemic as a conjunctural intervention, and its topicality (much of the text deals with the current financial meltdown) is unparalleled in his oeuvre. Perhaps the closest parallel that one can draw is to Zizek's text on the Iraq War, Welcome to the Desert of the Real. This does mean, however, that one should not approach the text expecting to find a cursory sketch of Zizek's philosophy. Consider this to be an hors d'oeuvre of sorts. If you survive the naked forthrightness of Zizek's approach- his greatest challenge to our postmodern sensibilities lies in his uninhibited resolve to say what he means with a naïveté that is unprecedented since Nietzsche and Marx- you are already on the way to engaging with one of today's great provocateurs. The crucial point of the text lies in Zizek's classically Marxist assertion that, contrary to its (ideological) self-image as the embodiment of `objective reality' (capitalism as a pragmatic, time-tested formula that works in the `real world'), capitalism is, in fact, driven by a utopian fantasy of its own, the truth of which is revealed in crashes and meltdowns. The `crisis of the Left' lies in its incapacity to formulate a viable alternative, a crisis that must be overcome through commitment (allegiance to what Badiou has called the `communist hypothesis') and concerted hegemonic struggle.

This powerful little tract is Zizek at his best and without much of the adulteration many of his more popular books have with regard to the jokes and pop-culture anecdotes. Yet it is as engrossing as anything he's written. The gauntlet is cast. Recent events have only brought to the surface the potential for capitalism to run aground and the remarkable unity of the otherwise bickering elite when it comes to keeping the profit flowing. Zizek discusses these events and maps how ideology, ideology, ideology, is everywhere in this moment where purportedly all ideology (including Alan Greenspan's), seems to have been shaken to rubble, and the only thing in front of us is to take the "pragmatic" but painful steps necessary to restore the markets and restart the engines so everyone can get back to business as usual (remarkable how much cash is suddenly available when the banks can't balance their own checkbooks, as opposed to when people are starving en masse in Africa). In page after page the case for communism becomes terrifyingly reasonable. Whether you are "with him or against him," you can no longer ignore Zizek after taking a serious look at this really magnificently composed work that condenses his whole political perspective without quarter. Personally, I have long been on the fence about embracing all that Zizek represents and all the consequences of his position. But I cannot see how this one can be the butt of jokes except for those so ideologically mystified that they'd chuckle themselves to tears if they were to really sit down with open eyes. Verso cleverly printed at the top of the cover a quote from a New Republic article on Zizek. It simply states, "The most dangerous philosopher in the West." This says it all, except, I wonder, who the heck is not in the west (today) that is a dangerous philosopher? CAN you be truly dangerous (to the western dominated global capitalist order) if you are in the "east?" Hence the geographic qualification means nothing but its mere inclusion implies racist sentiment. And does placing him in the west make him more or less dangerous than whoever in the non-west might be lurking in the jungle, as it were? Is the only possible reference Osama bin Laden? Thus HE is a "philosopher"? (a foolish idea, so indeed best not to state directly - takes cultural relativism to awfully absurd limits, no?), but then by logical substitution must not Zizek be a terrorist? Put the kettle on the burner and crack the celestial seasonings hemlock anti-occident tea, Meletus is back in town.

Every new work of infamous Slovenian philosopher is bound to attract some attention. Especially when topic is much hated and much debated as communism. Hatred here being only relative term, which awfully depends on where you are from. But, it is rather obvious, or better to say noticeable that thought of the Left is making a major comeback in past few years. That certainly isn't surprising since neo-liberalism failed to fulfill its own promise, and capitalism as a system appears to lead nowhere. To make the picture completely full with details, you'll have to add the horror of 9/11 and the omnipresent financial crisis of modern times. After you do all of this, you'll be on your way to completely understand the position Zizek is speaking from and the type of public he is actually addressing. Now, for those of you who are familiar with his previous work, there really isn't anything out of ordinary here. This book follows the same structure and rhetoric every other Zizek book has ever followed - apart from those that specifically concerned themselves with psychoanalysis and works of Jacques Lacan. Zizek is actually putting a big show with this book, fully aware that him coming out as a communist will be a landmark event in recent Theory which has up to this day managed to escape any connections with this line of thought. Horrors of Stalinism are yet too fresh to merrily prance around the idea that fueled them. But, book does not exhaust itself with this - it actually has to offer some insightful details about the state of the world that we live in today.

It would be an error to presume that "First as tragedy, then as farce" aims to give a conclusive answer about difficulties and problems of modern times. "Modern times" in itself are to complex a notion to be magically solved and/or grasped within the covers of a single book. What Zizek tries to accomplish, and in a way succeeds is pinpoint the discrepancies in neo-liberalist thought and challenging them to a debate. This is being done by focusing reader attention to rhetorics and ideology of the neo-liberalism, by concerning oneself with media products showing them as a fertile ground upon which the seeds of ideology can flourish, and finally dismantling them by showing inconsistencies in them. As far as a creative thought is concerned, Zizek does not stand very well. All he does is saying: "We can't go like this anymore, it's time to make a change, whatever it might be." In a way it's a battle with postmodernism and poststructural schools of thoughts by reintroducing the Idea (the Story) in general discourse from which it has been banished.

There will be lot of challengers willing to dispute Zizek's theories, and mainly all of them will come from the direction of progressivists who will fail to see the main argument of Zizek. It is not a question of what system should be implemented throughout the world. It is a question of slowing down, start asking questions and demanding answers. That is the only way to actually evolve in a responsible community instead of being pushed around by positions with Power. "First as tragedy then as farce" is an invitation to a debate. And a very successful one as it is.

Zizek delivers a chaotic collage of observations and adventurous speculations, while skillfully avoiding any conclusions to any of it. Some of the thinking might be even brilliant but, again, it leads nowhere. His pro-communist chapter is particularly disappointing in that regard; I was really interested in reading something more specific, a vision that would at least deserve some consideration. He wouldn't even define communism - after all, it does seem that if one wants to be a communist the term itself needs redefining... Zizek is a good showman, knows how to keep the reader glued to the page so the book is perfect for a 3-4 hour flight. Entertaining author with lots of potential. He just gets continuously lost in thousands of facts and semi-conclusions; his constant mixing of social thought with philosophy and psychoanalysis produces some sort of a salad bar situation. I think the "intellectual virtuoso" style is supposed to impress the reader but this kind of delivery will not sell for long if it doesn't improve. There is some knowledge here (academic and otherwise) and plenty of unorthodox thinking, but you will find no depth and no wisdom. Sorry.

This was the first book by the oh-so-famous Zizek that I've read. There may be something profound behind all of his characteristic playfulness and eccentricity, but - in this book at least - it is poorly elucidated. He likes to string together so many different directions of thought that even when reading diligently and slowly it becomes difficult to follow. What he is saying is not very hard or technical in its particulars at any given point, but the overall trajectory of the argument constantly loses its clarity.

There's some good little points in here, and on the whole it's very very important not to forget that the global capitalist system is, after all, an institution created by humans and to that extent a product of ideology. In response to this, Zizek provides a brief defense of resuscitating the communist question, and attempts to cast it in a 21st century framework. It is here that he fails, I think, and he seems to attempt to substitute one (false) ideology for another (his own). Zizek even starts this book off condescendingly calling it a basic I.Q. test, and essentially says if you don't agree with him from the get-go you shouldn't read it. Well, I read this book with an open mind, genuinely undecided about how I felt about capitalism. However, when he begins to speak about the "eternal Idea of Communism" (see pg. 125) while simultaneously criticizing the alleged unreal "ideology" of global capitalism and the naive "totalitarian utopianism" of some leftists, it's hard for me to resist calling him an ideologue himself.

This book, like it's author, is flashy funny and charming. For these same reasons it's easy to forget how radical it is. I give Zizek credit for being a leftist with guts, but this book has little else. It is not a great book, nor will it endure. Nonetheless, I say it's worth reading. Maybe some will learn something more substantial from it - unfortunately, I did not.

I like Zizek. His irreverence and equal measure Aristotelean logician and Groucho Marx infused with Hegel and George Carlin work for me. And I certainly understand his anger and frustration and sense of urgency given the mess we are all in. The paradoxes and the contradictions posed by the hegemonic authoritarian powers in teh world today anger him and as you read his analyses, they should anger you as well. If they don't, you're the problem.
His observations on what the Haitian revolution of 1804 meant were written prior to the earthquake but now resonate with near clairvoyant insight, as does his deconstruction of the wealth of ids like Bill Gates. He knows exactly where the dangers are as humanity attempts to right itself and move beyond the collapses it has nearly effected. Zizke isn't sure we are really going to do that unless we take action that isn't an attempt to have both a socialist and capitalist set of pies and eat them as well.
And that's the problem. He hasn't real answers either. It is easy enough to punch holes through Obama (an empty suit if there ever was one), Putin and Berlusconi (two thugs in competing in gangs), Hu Jintao (The Dr No of the 21st Century). Zizek finds little reason to retry strategies of the past that were inspired by Marx, but does look for an Hegelian dialectical answer that does not repeat same old startegies, expecting a different result. That is an insanity that he is convinced we can ill afford to humour. I think he is or should be looking more closely at Sartre's notion of the "group in fusion". Sartre was quick to point out that unless the group constantly redefines the next cause to come together to resolve/overcome/conquer, the group falls back into self absorbed singularities. As Zizek points out, the age of nations (a very big singularity) is over. Capitalism does not respect the integrity of any individual, be it person, culture, country; nor do the fundamentalist terrorists of any stripe (Christian, Jewish, Islamic); nor does organized crime (the Mob, Russia, Goldma Sachs). Thus why should those of us bearing the brunt of their self absorption?
Exactly what steps and what directions to take are unclear. What is certain is that it is going to cost blood. Time is not in our favour. Sartre would insist that the leaders of the groups in fusion keep the targets in front, keep fueling the dialectical struggle. Hegel would expect nothing less.
This is a provactive book and is especially clear on delineating exactly what the issues are and how very, very difficult it will be to resolve them. Failure to do so will leave us smeared with teh farce of our own destruction, much like placing your head between your knees to prepare for a crash.

This is what I call "Starbucks Philosophy"! Not only because it has the notorious "Starbucks passage" in it, but also because the many bloody theories in this book are best discussed at the crime scene.

It's so intelligent, thought-provoking and hip, that I shall recommend the unheard: you must search youtube for Slavoj (if you haven't already). But be warned. Once he has been seen, he can't be unseen. His cartoonish voice will stay with your forever.

Slavoj Zizek book "First as Tragedy, then as Farce" present a very powerful argument for struggle for ideals. The first half of the book calls for the left to re-enter the ideological debate about democracy and the future society, because cultural capitalism will incorporate old left words, but the vision of the future cultural capitalism will jettison to the side.Slavoj re-asserts again the importance communism again. I strongly suggest the left to read and debate this book today.

This was my first taste of the crazy vortex of Slavoj Zizek's head, and I have to say I hope to be spending more time there. He is a Slovenian economic/political/sociological philosopher with a razor-like intelligence and an endless supply of biting sarcasm, made all the more entertaining by his formidable vocabulary and grandiose prose, which would make Edgar Allan Poe jealous.

In this book, he gives a blistering attack on global capitalism, as well as the so-called Political Left that keeps it trudging along its overused tracks, to the detriment of the rest of us. He frames the discussion, of course, within the context of the current financial crisis, but widens it to include many other historical and current events, as well. An unapologetic believer of communism in its non-statist form, he divides the book into two sections. The first section deals with ideologies in general and the specific ideology of capitalism-as-god, and the second then offers a newly-revamped form of communism as a solution to the current problem. Yet in what seems to be true "Zizek" fashion, he never really gives any specific details or definite plans; he merely sets the ideological stage with his philosophical fretwork and allows the reader to finish the song.

Having just finished reading this book today, it became even more poignant as I also just finished watching on YouTube a speech by economist Richard Wolff called "Capitalism Hits the Fan," based on his book of the same name. Wolff also talked about the inherent, systemic problems of global capitalism, and it resonated with many of Zizek's points.

Zizek is all over the map in his narrative, sort of like Karl Marx with ADD . . . which, I suppose, is why I like the book so much. My own thoughts sometimes follow much the same path, jumping from idea to idea and tangent to tangent, but always finding my way back to the overall theme. I'm not ready to claim Zizek and I are birds of a feather by any means, but I suppose I see a sort of kinship in his mastery of the long-winded and somewhat disjointed, but always entertaining, story. I plan on reading more of Zizek's works.

And what does Kung Fu Panda and Monty Python's Life of Brian have to do with all this? Read the book to find out.