This is an interesting re-envisioning the possible denouements of the play. If you've read Sophocles, the first two thirds of the play is the same. Zizek offers three different endings to stimulate your opinion of the play's political/existential significance. There is a preface and an introduction, both of which I read after reading the "translation" itself. I recommend this approach. But why?
Zizek is way too smart to not have considered using the introductory essay as a commentary after the play; out of the "force of habit" or of tradition, I felt the need to promote the "translation" to the primary and the "introduction" to the secondary position. However you choose to modify or or not modify the sequence of reading it, I think it was a worthwhile endeavor for myself.
Maybe the actual best reason I can offer for violating the publication's design is that anyone who, like myself, doesn't like spoilers will not want to be exposed to the translator-adaptor's commentary on the crucial divergences of the play from Sophocles until having read the text for herself.
A Fascinating read, and the language positively flies off the page. (Terry Eagleton)
A radical re-writing of Sophocles' classic play Antigone by one of the world's most famous and controversial philosophers