Customer Reviews

Introducing Lacan

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

 

 

Like many, I have struggled with Lacan's "own" words in English translation, sensing ideas of importance that are lost because a) Lacan intentionally obfuscated his ideas to make the very points he wrote about, b) French linguistic play doesn't translate into English, & c) translators vary in quality, in part depending on their audience (e.g., cultural studies, which often misconstrues Lacan as a postmodernist). This book is a wonderful introduction, although I suspect it is of greatest value to someone like myself who has already attempted to fathom Schema L with frustration.
For the beginner, I suggest making a try at Lacan himself especially the Seminars, for example, Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. After enduring one or two of these, come to this book, and then return to Lacan, who should now seem much more illuminating and witty. You may even understand why Lacan seemed so frustrating to you, which goes to his essential points about what language does for the sense of self.
Another strategy is to read any number of works by Slavoj Zizek (for example, Looking Awry, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Hitchcock), who can slice and dice popular culture in a fun way, all the while with a very lucid understanding of Lacan's ideas. It helps to have one or two videos of Hitchcock handy as you do so.

When you need an introduction to Lacan, buy this and forget the rest. This book has at least three merits. First, the author is an orthodox lacanian psychoanalyst. This advantage could not be overstated. So many books titled so-called "Introduction to Lacan" are written by non-professional (e.g. professors of French, Cultural Studies or literary critic) with some dubious leanings and irredeemable confusions. Those books are rather personal accounts than good introductions for beginner and of no use to understand one of the most difficult writers of all time. Darian Leader's book is different. This book was written by lacanian professional rather than self-appointed "interpreter" of Lacan and supervised by Jacques-Alain Miller, the successor of Lacan. This fact makes the book the most faithful and reliable introduction to Lacan. Second, this book explains the clinical significance and origin of great Lacanian terms, e.g. repetition, sinthome, lalangue, so on. The result is that the approach makes it easy to understand. This is why other books by non-psychiatrist could be by no means competitors. Third, this book is written by exceptionally clear language and aided by intelligent graphics. Clearity is not a Lacanian virtue, but this book makes a immensely satisfying exception.

I must disagree with the first reviewer of this book. I found this "Introducing..." installment to be unclear and unhelpful, unlike most in the series. The author hurls terminology at you with little, and sometimes no, explanation. Each page seems to introduce a new concept without building on the previous ones discussed. Perhaps this is a good overview or refresher for those already familiar with Lacan's work, but for the beginner, it is useless.

With no disrespect to the favorable reviews already here, I must wholeheartedly disagree. This tiny introduction is something like Cliffs Notes for Lacan, but with less information and insipid illustrations. Consider this fact alone: the illustrations use the majority of the page, while there are only a few sentences per page. It's like a book for children. Granted, Lacan is very difficult and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a simplified introductory text. However, the author of this introduction (and indeed, this series) has simplified to the point of removing a significant amount of information.

Is Lacan's thought really remarkable if we simplify it to the point of utter generality? There are plenty of introductions that are short, concise, and clear. When one takes a concept such as 'objet petit a' and explain it in three sentences, what have we really learned? We understand only in terms so general as to be meaningless.

There are plenty of good introductions, each with its own strengths. Bruce Fink's outstanding book, "The Lacanian Subject," The Lacanian Subject is great for a detailed, thorough introductions to even the most difficult concepts. If you're familiar with Marxism and you like pop culture, Slavoj Zizek's "Enjoy Your Symptom" Enjoy Your Symptom!: Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out (Routledge Classics) is entertaining and informative. If you want something very approachable, "Jacques Lacan" Jacques Lacan (Routledge Critical Thinkers) from the Routledge Critical Thinkers series (author: Sean Homer) is quite good. It's a small, thin book, but it's packed with solid information. Homer faces the daunting task of simplifying difficult concepts without OVERsimplifying and the result is a triumph.

I've read most of the introductory literature on Lacan and "Introducing Lacan" is easily the worst. It's not that the scant information present is bad - it's that there is just so little of it that it's hardly worth the price. It's sad when the Wikipedia entree for Lacan is about as detailed as a "book."

I'm puzzled at the other reviews; this really is the best place to start with Lacan. It is the Third intro to him I've read. The first was Zizek, which was very interesting, but he explains Lacan in more cultural terms, as Lacan relates to popular culture. Then I read Sean Homer's book, and I was a bit disappointed, in trying to simplify he left me feeling like I hadn't gotten enough info to understand really what Lacan meant with certain terms. This book I loved. Yes, it is simple, but extremely clear. Many of the terms I had previously read about `clicked' with me the way they were presented in this book. Usually I don't write reviews, I would never have bought this, it was given to me, but I am so glad I read it. InsectDesires.com Psychodynamic art.

I bought this book for a college assigment. IMHO, this book is not a good introduction to Lacan. There are instances, however, in which the author does not explain a concept or an idea at length thus causing you to pause and reread. As I said, it doesn't work as an introduction; don't consider the definitions of concepts, like jouissance for example, as final because Lacan does revisit them and change them in his later seminars. Lacan himself prefers that people read him without knowing anything and that is what you, as a new reader of Lacanian writing, should do. Afterwards come to this book for a simplification of terms. A better title would be Simplifying Lacan.