28 thoughts on “My piece on Zizek in LA Review of Books

  1. Excellent article. I wonder what Duncan’s response will be? There were two typos, I think, but I can only find one now: “complimentary” should be “complementary.” Not trying to be “gotcha,” I just figure since it’s online you can change it.

    I like the “drug pusher” remark, it’s refreshing to see a little advocacy after all the dismissive things that have come out…

  2. I’m not sure what this means, it’s from comments at 3 Quarks Daily:

    “Adam Kostko? I thought he only wrote in bulk wholesale quantities.”

    Does that mean we can get a good price?

  3. It doesn’t appear that the negative comments are winning many people over — still, it’s annoying that my piece, which I worked hard on, went over multiple drafts of, etc., is going to be indelibly associated with that crap. I can see having a forum for feature articles, but the fact that any idiot can come along and type in something that becomes a permanent part of the article’s presentation feels wrong to me. (Even more for newspapers, which are presumably serving as a permanent record of the events reported — and so anyone who is researching those events also gets a healthy serving of racist comments, etc.)

  4. A companion piece is clearly called for: “How to Read Adam Kotsko on Me” written, of course, by Slavoj Zizek.

    Notwithstanding the prodigious output of that woman best forgotten and ignored, you should be happy that the long-winded guy from that respectable liberal group blog hasn’t joined in with another forty-thousand words of barely coherent crap.

  5. You article was, admittedly, pretty generous. I was disappointed that you didn’t address the more controversial features of Zizek’s philosophical work, i.e. it would have been helpful to readers discuss his perspective on violence, which received serious critique in the NY Review Books article you referenced.

  6. The critique in the NYRB article was completely idioitc, which anyone reading his work with an open mind would recognize. Zizek explicitly defines three different senses of violence, but Gray reads each one as though it means literal physical violence. Such stupidity doesn’t warrant a direct response.

  7. I agree with you about the NYRM article, but I thought given the fact that you titled your piece “How To Read Zizek” implying that you were going to give a hermeneutic for reading him and the centrality of violence in Zizek’s work you might have aided the lay reader of Zizek with some helpful insights in how to read his nuanced position on violence. In any case, I appreciate the response.

  8. Adam, it is a terrific piece! I don’t know if you remember me, but in 2002 or so I was toying around with the then-new concept of blogging, you and I became internet friends, our blogs were linked, we discussed Zizek, but we never met each other. It was strange to strike upon this article and find the two of us published in the same venue (The LA Review of Books). My blog was called The Sliver; my real name is Joshua Hardina. Funny how paths re-cross. I wish you all the best!

  9. Seymour,

    To be honest, I can’t actually figure out what’s going on on that page, or how to read it. I think blogs are right at the limit of my current understanding of how to interface with a computer…

Comments are closed.