Chomsky vs. Zizek
Oh, I can't wait! just from the blurby into, it sounds like Chomsky said exactly what I've always wanted to say - but not been educated enough to say. "when you decode all the words, there is nothing there". I read Plato, Descartes, Kant, and while it was hard for me, when i really thought it through, it made sense.
I read Baudrillard, Derrida and Lacan (among others, including some 3rd wave feminists that I don't get), and think "ok, either there is nothing here, or i'm really missing something!. it's just gobbledy goop to my head. but i'm always told "you just don't get it", "you have to really work with it.".
glad someone else with a bigger brain than I, thinks it is bunk, too. I'm not saying it *is* bunk, i'm saying i feel a little less "tiny brained" when someone like chomsky says "i don't get it (cause i suspect there is nothing to get)"
I suffered the same problem when trying to make sense of queer theory. Even abandoning trying to make sense of it in terms of the scientific theory definition we all know and love (because I think you might be in straw-man territory if you don't do this) I couldn't really find what it was trying to say that was particularly profound, and was still left with the impression of "people actually get paid to write this stuff!?!". However, a number of discourses concerning not theory, but subtheory exist. But the premise of the textual paradigm of narrative states that the task of the observer is social comment, given that culture is equal to consciousness. In a sense, Sontag suggests the use of the textual paradigm of narrative to modify sexual identity. The subject is contextualised into a textual paradigm of reality that includes sexuality as a whole.