So you don&#x27;t like Zizek. Thats fair. But comparing him to Nietche is not.<p>He is a philosophy popularizer. He writes a lot about some of the greats, himself, like almost all other contempararies not being one himself.<p>My impression is not that his academic writings are &#x27;pop&#x27;, in any way comparable to Dan Brown. I have only read a little but he has published. Some of it is essayistic in nature some of it quite heavy.<p>I get your point. But just because your a not one of the absoulte greatest there ever was, it doesn&#x27;t him instantly become a superficial literary con-artist the way dan brown has become to be regarded.<p>Also he seems quite well read and a great analyzer. Not that i agree with all he says, but he is not trying to push agendas as other pop-philosophers are.<p>A better example of some one being &quot;Dan Brownish&quot;would be sam harris. He is not respected in any way in the acedemia of philoshophy, he doesn&#x27;t reference the history og the historiagrahy of the field, and simply doesnt seem on-level despite writing a lot of pop-philosophy and being regarded publicy as a true academic.<p>Zizek is actually a respected academic.