Sooooo jealous. I won't be anywhere near ready to read Deleuze for at least a few years. ;(
It took four months, but I’ve finally re-read Deleuze & Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus from cover to cover.pic.twitter.com/9bmj54vJKz
-
-
-
What’s stopping you currently? I wasn’t at all prepared the first time I read it, but that incomplete reading was a great motivator for further research and thought.
-
Just all the prior reading one seemingly has to undertake i.e. Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson, etc.
-
That’s fair. I’m glad I better acquainted myself with those texts before returning to D&G. It’s a controversial opinion, but I don’t see all that as entirely necessary to a first reading. If you take to the text, there’ll be time later to get prepared for an informed re-reading.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes! Took me around the same time to finish A Thousand Plateaus.
-
That’s up next! Here’s hoping I’ll get all four Deleuze & Guattari collaborations done by Christmas.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Semiotext(e) published a volume called Anti-Oedipus papers which is bunch of essays & interviews that were helpful. Lines of Flight by Guattari was recently published which is sort of a philosophical project report for the support received for this book.
-
I’ve been meaning to check out The Anti-Oedipus Papers, thanks for the reminder!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Pics of the spine or it didn’t happen!!!
-
Breaking the spines of books is micro-fascism. Here’s my sticky notes instead.pic.twitter.com/zeusX68ixA
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I will always come to this book but I have recently started to realise that they get a lot of the Lacanian psychoanalysis wrong. I think this locks this book somewhat in the intellectual conflicts, with all the inevitable blindspots, of that time. But what biting sarcasm!
-
As an honest question, and knowing it’s probably a bit hard to sum up on Twitter, what do see Deleuze & Guattari getting wrong about Lacan?
-
I think they completely miss the point about Lacan's conceptualisation of lack & desire. Very simply put desire & lack get us beyond the Oedipus complex. Yes, in the analytic situation there is tendency to orient the subject using mommy-daddy & it is rightly condemned.
-
The Lacan/Deleuze encounter around anti-Oedipus is now legend (being summoned by L, asking for a copy of the book proof by L before publication, L's anger, resentment over it etc). All seems unnecessary now but they had real stakes in that conflict & we don't.
-
Since the hits on Lacanians keep coming all through Anti-Oedipus it's easy to miss that that central concept of desiring machine is what Lacan calls drives. The question is why they proliferate for D&G and they don't for Lacan. But 70s onwards Lacan tried to get us beyond desire!
-
Lastly it's a bit disingenuous to use Lacanian psychoanalysis from the neurosis clinic to criticise Freudian psychoanalytic approach to psychosis. There is a Lacanian psychosis clinic & it doesn't work through transference. It creates precisely temporary, improvised assemblages.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I haven’t read the whole thing, but I’d recommend it as a companion to the two main D&G books. My introductions to Deleuze were Claire Colebrook (any of her three intros) and Ian Buchanan (Deleuzism & edited books). Deleuze’s own Negotiations is also a great guide.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
The user guide is kinda crap actually. Just read it once without all the prepping. It's dense but not an impossible task to complete.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.