If you know anything about Hegel and Lacan, Zizek is actually a quite clear expositor of Lacan. Looking awry is particularly clear, lucid to the point of simplification in his account of Lacan, but what can you expect when your proof-test is Hitchcock and HOllywood movies. Most academic books consist of (dead author) and (contemporary theorist), and if the text at hand simply serves to validate the theory, why drag out heavy reading when Hitchcock will do? If the theory is correct, it encompasses both Shakespeare and anything oj simpson ever appeared in, so not to use both would only be a sign of stuffiness. Zizek has the virtue of being easy to read and not taking himself too seriously, and begins every chapter with a quote from Lenin or Stalin, as if Stalin was the last philosopher. It's not a parody, but if Kojeve (Lacan) is right, that every philosophy is just a repetition of one moment of the Hegelian spirit, then Zizek's jeu d'esprit is an honest accomodation to what's happening now.
