Forwarded message:
>From MCURRENT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thu Feb 24 12:29:28 1994
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:31:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Michael J. Current" <MCURRENT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: MP - On Approaching the Text, Part I
>From the second paragraph of "Rhizome," we are confronted with the issue
of "the book," and I am hopeful we will have some good discussion about
that. But first, to set the stage, I am going to do some "introductory"
posts that do not directly address what is written in "Rhizome," because
some of you may find approaching the book a difficult, puzzling, alien
experience.
I want to share here a bit of my own understanding of what Deleuze and
Guattari are trying to achive by writing as they do, and provide some
pointers that may help you as you approach the text. I will follow-up
this post with some quotes from other texts by Deleuze that may be
helpful, about what he believes theory is/is for, and about how he and
Guattari intended the book to be read/used. I will also post some
remarks from the book's translator that I think are compelling in this
regard. [Later posts will contain some quotes from Deleuze about
philosophy in specific, and discuss, for those of you who have read
_Anti-Oedipus_, the transition from the first volume of _Capitalism and
Schizophrenia_ (_Anti-Oedipus_) to the second. . . .]
As those of you who have begun the reading and are approaching Deleuze
and Guattari for the first time have no doubt noticed, this is a
different sort of book from the kind that we are used to reading, not at
all like traditional theoretical writing, not even very like most other
French post-structuralist writing, and not like standard creative
writing, either - though finding a "poetry" in the writing is possible
and intended. In some very specific ways, the book is designed to
*work,* to work in and with and through the reader, taking each person
in at least a slightly different direction. That may lead to some
interesting discussion, to say the least.
But it may also make you feel like, "what is this, what am I suppose to
make of this, what am I supposed to do with it?" Most of us would
dispair if assigned to write a short essay for a class on a portion of
this book, or at least feel like it would be a quite different exercise
than usual. First and foremost you must keep in mind that there are not
"right" answers as to where the text is leading, what it is supposed to
mean. It is designed to be an *open system* which you must enter into.
It would probably not be too far off the mark to say that you are
supposed to *write* the book as you read.
Derrida has taught us that, to some degree at least (the exact extent
and implications being subject to much debate) we _always_ rewrite a
text as we read it. The difference with _A Thousand Plateaus_ is that
the authors self-consciously constructed the book with that fact in
mind, utilizing stylistic and organizational techniques that are
designed to take advantage of that fact, to allow *you* to take
advantage of that fact - bringing your own issues, your own questions,
your own goals to the process, and also letting you - in fact, urging
you - to read with your senses. Deleuze says:
(T)he good ways of reading today succeed in treating a book as you
would treat a record you listen to, a film or TV programme you
watch; any treatment of the book which claims for it a special
respect - an attention of another kind - comes from another era and
definitively condemns the book. There's no question of difficulty
or understanding: concepts are exactly like sounds, colours or
images, they are intensities which suit you or not. . . . [1]
This is not how we are taught to read, of course. The extent to which
you allow yourself to engage the text in that way, or conversely, the
degree to which you resist doing so, will play a large role in
determining whether you have a chance to find something "productive" in
the book for you. . . .
More soon.
Michael
[1] Deleuze, Gilles and Clare Parnet. _Dialogues_. [Paris:
Flammarion, 1987] Tran. by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1987. Pp. 9-10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Current mcurrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcurrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Presently unemployed (: G/L/B/T & AIDS policy activist
737 - 18th Street, Des Moines, IA 50314-1031 (515) 283-2142
"AN IMAGE OF THOUGHT CALLED PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN FORMED HISTORICALLY
AND IT EFFECTIVELY STOPS PEOPLE FROM THINKING." - GILLES DELEUZE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
>From MCURRENT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thu Feb 24 12:29:28 1994
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:31:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Michael J. Current" <MCURRENT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: MP - On Approaching the Text, Part I
>From the second paragraph of "Rhizome," we are confronted with the issue
of "the book," and I am hopeful we will have some good discussion about
that. But first, to set the stage, I am going to do some "introductory"
posts that do not directly address what is written in "Rhizome," because
some of you may find approaching the book a difficult, puzzling, alien
experience.
I want to share here a bit of my own understanding of what Deleuze and
Guattari are trying to achive by writing as they do, and provide some
pointers that may help you as you approach the text. I will follow-up
this post with some quotes from other texts by Deleuze that may be
helpful, about what he believes theory is/is for, and about how he and
Guattari intended the book to be read/used. I will also post some
remarks from the book's translator that I think are compelling in this
regard. [Later posts will contain some quotes from Deleuze about
philosophy in specific, and discuss, for those of you who have read
_Anti-Oedipus_, the transition from the first volume of _Capitalism and
Schizophrenia_ (_Anti-Oedipus_) to the second. . . .]
As those of you who have begun the reading and are approaching Deleuze
and Guattari for the first time have no doubt noticed, this is a
different sort of book from the kind that we are used to reading, not at
all like traditional theoretical writing, not even very like most other
French post-structuralist writing, and not like standard creative
writing, either - though finding a "poetry" in the writing is possible
and intended. In some very specific ways, the book is designed to
*work,* to work in and with and through the reader, taking each person
in at least a slightly different direction. That may lead to some
interesting discussion, to say the least.
But it may also make you feel like, "what is this, what am I suppose to
make of this, what am I supposed to do with it?" Most of us would
dispair if assigned to write a short essay for a class on a portion of
this book, or at least feel like it would be a quite different exercise
than usual. First and foremost you must keep in mind that there are not
"right" answers as to where the text is leading, what it is supposed to
mean. It is designed to be an *open system* which you must enter into.
It would probably not be too far off the mark to say that you are
supposed to *write* the book as you read.
Derrida has taught us that, to some degree at least (the exact extent
and implications being subject to much debate) we _always_ rewrite a
text as we read it. The difference with _A Thousand Plateaus_ is that
the authors self-consciously constructed the book with that fact in
mind, utilizing stylistic and organizational techniques that are
designed to take advantage of that fact, to allow *you* to take
advantage of that fact - bringing your own issues, your own questions,
your own goals to the process, and also letting you - in fact, urging
you - to read with your senses. Deleuze says:
(T)he good ways of reading today succeed in treating a book as you
would treat a record you listen to, a film or TV programme you
watch; any treatment of the book which claims for it a special
respect - an attention of another kind - comes from another era and
definitively condemns the book. There's no question of difficulty
or understanding: concepts are exactly like sounds, colours or
images, they are intensities which suit you or not. . . . [1]
This is not how we are taught to read, of course. The extent to which
you allow yourself to engage the text in that way, or conversely, the
degree to which you resist doing so, will play a large role in
determining whether you have a chance to find something "productive" in
the book for you. . . .
More soon.
Michael
[1] Deleuze, Gilles and Clare Parnet. _Dialogues_. [Paris:
Flammarion, 1987] Tran. by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1987. Pp. 9-10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Current mcurrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcurrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Presently unemployed (: G/L/B/T & AIDS policy activist
737 - 18th Street, Des Moines, IA 50314-1031 (515) 283-2142
"AN IMAGE OF THOUGHT CALLED PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN FORMED HISTORICALLY
AND IT EFFECTIVELY STOPS PEOPLE FROM THINKING." - GILLES DELEUZE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------