Curtis v Zizek

This probably says more about me and my bad reading habits than anything else but ... I am currently reading Zizek's and Mark Curtis' books (sort of) on the Iraq War in parallel. This is having the effect of getting me to think less about Iraq and more about the process of and motivation for reading.

The contrast in tone and style between the two books is sharp: Zizek skitish, oblique, funny; Curtis unwavering but polemical. Zizek plays with the ironies and the paradoxes, Curtis reveals the hidden facts. What works best and why?

Zizek's playfulness, his impulse to shock or show off can be infuriating but it is a way into the complexities. I worry, however, that his style is also a way of managing the faint embarassment that certainty, commitment and moral outrage now seem to engender. Curtis' approach, on the other hand risks precisely that kind of response.