Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:00:22 -0500
From: "Charles J. Stivale" <C_Stivale-AT-wayne.edu>
Subject: Re: Deleuze-1


At 11:47 AM 12/4/97 MST, you wrote:
>A question:
>
>I'm writing my MA thesis on Deleuze and Guattari and find myself 
>consistently struggling with the separation of the names, that is, 
>refering to 'Deleuze' rather than 'Deleuze and Guattari'.  I see this 
>sort of separation consistently in writings on/about their work as well 
>as here on this listserve.  My question, I suppose, has to do with 
>nuances.  Apart from dealing specifically with co-authored works or 
>specifically with solo works, are we talking broadly about a kind of 
>'Deleuzian thought'?  When talking about co-authored works, how 
>important is it to distinguish pre- or post-co-authored influences as 
>'Deleuze's' or as 'Guattari's'?  Given that in the co-authored works, 
>Deleuze and Guattari "render themselves imperceptible," is it 
>irresponsible to refer broadly to this work as 'Deleuzian'?  Is it at 
>all important or productive to think about these sorts of questions?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Garnet
Dan Grub responds briefly today with:
Subject: Re: Deleuze-1
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 97 21:47:33 -0000
From: Daniel Brub <dberube-AT-mediom.qc.ca>
To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>

I think that we cannot take Deleuze as a metonymy for D&G. There is still 
some differences that we cannot ignore. For instance, the semiotic work 
in their book is mainly the contribution of Guattari. As would have say 
Guattari, each of them talk from a specific "surface de phase".
>
I agree with Dan, but I don't think one can easily parse out, say, from AO
or A Thousand Plateaus what is 'from' one or the other author. I've stated
on this list on several occasions in the past years that authors need to
attend to the nuances that Garnet asks about, but also that one is entirely
free to assimilate their work into a general 'Deleuze-Guattarian' reference
when it's a question of their collaborations. I get quite annoyed when I
hear papers or read essays that discuss, for example, 'Deleuze's concept of
the rhizome,' when this and quite a number of concepts were developed
collaboratively. However, the adjectives 'Deleuzean' and 'Guattarian'
surely have their relative specificity as well. For Deleuzean, there is a
wide body of work pre-AO and also the work in the 1980s and concepts that
emerge from these works that correspond to Deleuzean thought. Indeed, the
'image of thought' is one of Deleuze's richest contributions. As for
'Guattarian', there is certainly a whole realm of semiotics,
counter-psychoanalysis, ecocritique and more that one can readily link to
FG. I think one troublesome term, that one might be tempted to link to FG,
is 'chaosophy'. If I'm not mistaken, this is an interest that both GD and
FG share. But FG's development of a 'chaosmosis' is certainly his own
elaboration of this.
Anyhow, this is my weak attempt to give Garnet's credit the attention it's
due (sorry for the delay; semester is winding down with deadlines still not
met <coff>).
CJ Stivale