Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I know from reading Bruce Fink (and har har Paul Ricœur's book on Freud) that Lacan's philosophy has a ton of potential (not to mention his actual influence on a couple writers I adore: Deleuze and Laruelle). However, Lacan himself is a horrible writer. Reading him is a very unenjoyable experience.
He very often feels the need to unexpectedly jump from one topic to another with little logical connecting tissue. He comes off as completely petty and overly self-important in the takedowns of his colleagues he performs with some regularity (especially because he barely takes the time to explain why he is so obviously correct). And despite the impressive web of concepts and literary references he weilds to back up his points, he barely ever ends up making points. There are really great passages here and there in the papers in ɳ¦°ù¾±³Ù²õ, but to get to them, the reader has to slog through pages and pages of nebulous piles of psychoanalytic jargon, arguments which are interrupted half-way, obtuse irrelevant wordplay, and vague allusions to whatever books Lacan happened to be skimming at the time.
In short, this book sucks. Which itself sucks, because from what I've gotten from secondary sources, Lacanian philosophy is really interesting, just not when written by Lacan! blech