and semblance? Does Nietzsche's supreme philosophical gesture amount to nothing more than a heroism of alienation, a tragic assumption that we are forever ensconced within the mire of metaphysics, a fate that we can achieve some minimal distance from by use of ironical puns, meta-critical qualifications, writing words 'sous rature' etc.? Where is the dimension of the Real in Nietzsche? Is it a noumenon radically distinct from phenomenal reality? How does Nietzsche manage to think contingency, chance and the New, the event that gives the lie to ontological closure? Zupancic, reading Nietzsche with Lacan, gives us a Nietzsche of a radical immanence, one that is much closer to Hegel than we'd like to think. Zupancic' Nietzsche is an unflinching rationalist decisively opposed to every form of obscurantist mysticism, as well as a philosopher committed to the question of truth in an age dominated by the University Discourse of verifiable knowledge. She illuminates the shared concerns of Badiou, Nietzsche and Lacan, illustrating the ways in which a critical re-appraisal of Nietzsche can help us understand the 'aleatory materialism' (Alberto Toscano's remarkable description of Badiou's system) that is required today. Central to Zupancic' book, which should be read alongside Badiou's 'Logics of Worlds' and Meillasoux' "After Finitude', is her demolition of the dyad that counterposes Appearance to Truth, replacing it with the axiom that truth is precisely appearance qua appearance. Or: "Nietzsche's bet on appearance is not a bet on appearance AGAINST truth; it is a bet on truth as inherent to