...it's just not fair!

I presumse it's the full collection and not selected essays of?

Not sure if i really want to start Lacan, I've only second hand info through Zizek

Lacan can be challenging, but worthwhile. It is important to try and grasp a sense of the original text/thinker, especially if you end up liking it.

Yep. I was surprised when I found it in the bargin bin at the university library.

Even though Zizek should not (especially these days) be taken for being Lacan, I do think that his (early) work is probably the best way to get into Lacan. Something like "Looking Awry" or "Enjoy your Symptom!" is a good place to start. I also remember, getting hold a copy of Ecrits years ago and just thinking what the ...hell...is this? I've now read a few of Lacan's (again, early seminars) with some level of comprehension, but they're still fairly crazy. Oh, and one particularly strong piece of advice: do not get hold of seminar XI, on the grounds that it is called "The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis" and that it thus may constitute an 'introduction'. It is as difficult as Ecrits at leas. I would start with Zizek then seminars up to about VIII.

Regards,

-Mal

How To Read Lacan (subtitle might have originally been "...with great difficulty") which may be worth looking at.

I'm awaiting the day for someone to attempt to right Lacan: A Very Short Introduction.

"How to Read Lacan" is for good or ill a massive collection of extracts from other books by Zizek arranged, if one were being uncharitable arbitrarily. Not bad 'though.

Oh it sounds rubbish then.

I borrowed How to Read Lacan. It was full of Zizek's personality, and I didn't get the impression I was learning how to read Lacan at all.

I would recommend Dylan Evans' An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis, it certainly can help when battling with .

Thanks for the tip, I'll look into that.

Well, indeed. Zizek is famous for self-plagiarising, but "How to read Lacan" is almost continuous Zizek-self plagiarism. I think "Looking Awry" + "Enjoy your symptom" would probably be a better bet than "How to Read...", but they do STILL contain lots of idiosyncratically Zizekian things that are not...Lacan.

Having said that, I still stand by the idea that Zizek did hel me when I started looking at the early seminars. Although, Victor you should still probably take Parapraxis's suggestion. I mean, if I had a really sophisticated understanding of Lacan, I should be able to translate your initial post (the Ecrits extract) into decent English prose, which I most certainly cannot.

-Mal

I quite agree, but i still love me some good Zizek, the whole fun in reading him is that he's not afraid to put personality in his writing. For a person like me who is not particularly interested in the nuts and bolts of psychoanalasis and already familiar with the nuts and bolts of social analysis I find it an entertaining way to pass the time.

cheers,
Russ

Dictionary's title of "Lacanian Psychoanalysis", the good thing is it imbues neither philosophical credence or clinical application when examining core terms of Lacan.

Yessir, Zizek is great! His tone is great. I love some of references he drags in, quite unexpectedly. As far as Lacan goes, a good misreading can be as good as a reading. Misreading is creative. I find Lacan fascinating, but (predictably) obscure. I read much of the Dylan Evans' book. It was good. Afterword, I found an essay by Evans rebuking or dropping Lacan.