WTF was Zizek (and Verso) thinking?: Part [too many to keep track]

I haven’t read that much of Zizek, the so-called most dangerous philosopher in the West, but what I have read doesn’t seem to live up to the hype. That said, I feel like I’ll eventually need to deal with him if only because he’s too visible not to take to account.

He has a new book out, published back in May. (And another out yesterday, it seems. He’s like the late-capitalism philosopher, keeping the wheels of would-be-edgy-leftist consumerism turning.) I haven’t read it yet, but according to the publishers it his “pinnacle publication.” I guess it’s about Hegel’s legacy in philosophical and social thought and apparently argues that we need to return to Hegel, become him, and push him even further.

Okay. That’s fine. It’s what philosophers do.

But what the hell does this cover have to do with anything?

Bear in mind, this is the man who says that tulips make him think of vagina dentata and that children should be forbidden from interacting with flowers because flowers’ sexy bits are exposed.

So his attitudes towards sex seem a bit … off. But this cover? Is he seriously trying to lure people into reading a 1000 page analysis of Hegel by having an anonymous naked women bend over for us?!


Apparently the book is split into four parts, with “The Drink Before” and “The Cigarette After” bookending one part on Hegel and another on Lacan, so he quite clearly evokes sex. Presumably they have a rollicking three-way in the most sex-discomforting way possible.

Is this cover meant to evoke Deleuze’s statement

“I would imagine myself approaching the author from behind, and making him a child, who would indeed be his and would, nevertheless, be monstrous”?

If so, why isn’t that Hegel’s pimply rump beckoning us hither? Or a two-headed Hegel-Lacan? Or Hegel and Lacan in passionate embrace, inviting us to join the fun? All these would make sense to me. This? Not so much.

And don’t even get me started on that red line…

Seriously. Can someone explain this to me?