Scan barcode
orphs's review against another edition
3.0
I kind of get what the main ideas are, I just wish that the main concepts had been more dumbed down for people who dont know anything (like me).
Ultimately I can see what the innovations and contributions are, and I can also see how some of the theories established may have influenced philosophy to some extent. But I don’t think I’ll ever understand this need to use the language of sexual organs and pleasure to talk about stuff that ultimately is unrelated.
Ultimately I can see what the innovations and contributions are, and I can also see how some of the theories established may have influenced philosophy to some extent. But I don’t think I’ll ever understand this need to use the language of sexual organs and pleasure to talk about stuff that ultimately is unrelated.
karldiebspecht's review against another edition
2.0
Non-fiction comics with explanatory function are in the position of having to defend their own existence, as it is often not clear what additional value the comic offers in contrast to a "normal" introductory text when it comes to explaining complex concepts. In Lacan's case, this becomes especially clear, since the theory in general and individual theory segments in particular are so highly complex that it is impossible to explain, for example, the "castration complex" on one page, 90 percent of which consists of one illustration and the rest of two speech bubbles. That the book tackles Lacan in the chronological order of his seminars and not in thematic order is also a very odd decision for a beginners guide, which adds a lot of confusion.
Unless you are already halfway into Lacan's theory, I would keep my hands off this book.
Unless you are already halfway into Lacan's theory, I would keep my hands off this book.
ms_castalian's review against another edition
3.0
Lovely illustrations and a very, very hearty attempt at probably one of the most challenging thinkers to summarize.
Also, summary is no good when the basic concepts themselves leave you scratching your head. For example, the name of the basic distortion that exists in language is... the phallus?!? But why?!?
Perhaps could have benefited from an anchoring in a general summary of the psychoanalytic tradition / conversation around Lacan as many of his references seemed outdated to a contemporary reader, or at least arbitrary — Oedipus, Joyce, Greek Tragedy...
Final note — near the end of the graphic guide the author seems to want to insist that Lacan’s work was very clinically relevant. It began to feel less like a summary and more like a defence, which is okay, but “the best argument against something is a poor argument for it.”
Also, summary is no good when the basic concepts themselves leave you scratching your head. For example, the name of the basic distortion that exists in language is... the phallus?!? But why?!?
Perhaps could have benefited from an anchoring in a general summary of the psychoanalytic tradition / conversation around Lacan as many of his references seemed outdated to a contemporary reader, or at least arbitrary — Oedipus, Joyce, Greek Tragedy...
Final note — near the end of the graphic guide the author seems to want to insist that Lacan’s work was very clinically relevant. It began to feel less like a summary and more like a defence, which is okay, but “the best argument against something is a poor argument for it.”
cpalmerpatel's review
4.0
A good, quick introduction to Lacan, but I wish there were footnotes identifying where I can read the original Lacan material
skttrbrn's review
2.0
I've enjoyed other entries in the Introducing... series and gotten a lot out of them, but this one did little to get me entirely across Lacan's concepts. This, I'm sure, is on account of the complexity and abstract nature of Lacan's work. Presently my only other exposure to him has been through the films and lectures of Žižek. Time to dig deeper.
unionmack's review
3.0
I've become fascinated and perplexed with Lacan's thinking since first encountering him through Zizek. I came to this hoping to make some more sense of concepts I found intriguing yet still somewhat impenetrable. It did a good job of stating the basics in plain language, but there's a lack of thoroughness here that made it hard for many of them to stick with me. Of course, that's probably symptomatic of it being a bare-minimum introduction to his thought, so it shouldn't be slighted too much for that. There's not much, if any, personality to the writing here—it felt like a somewhat more refined set of flashcards with pictures added in for flavor. Regardless, it still did what was advertised: introduce Lacan.
More...