File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2004/lyotard.0412, message 39


From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:30:11 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Rhizome


glen

the idea of your producing a list of  'strange readings' appeals to me
immensely I look forward to it (hint)---- though to be honest i was
interested in the Badiou book  as a source text by Badiou than because of
the subject...   after all you it's clear that you cannot rread Deleuze
through Badiou just as you cannot read Foucault through the mirror of
Negri/Hardt.

I have fond memories of the disastrous arguments over Zizek's reading of
Deleuze last year on this list...  (eric told me off for getting anally
pedantic - i think (laughs))

steve

> Steve/n,
>
> Ok, so I was wrong about the secondary lit. Most of it is bad and
> thinking about what I have read a little more I would agree with Steve
> about this (I could make a list of books full of strange readings
> (including Badiou's book), over simplifications and other assorted
> sins), but Buchanan's book and Patton's book are very good works in
> their own right. Stivale has a scathing review of Buchanan's book
> somewhere, but don't let that put you off. My impression was that
> Stivale was pissed off by Buchanan's lack of discussion of French-
> language secondary texts (Stivale is Professor of French languages or
> something) and because of Buchanan's avowed call for the
> disciplinisation of 'Deleuzisms'. Just remember he has his own
> influences. Patton translated one of Deleuze's key texts (D&R). Maybe I
>  am warped in my sense of reading as I felt I needed to 'get' some
> understanding of Deleuze and D&G for my thesis, but I did not have the
> luxury of an open-ended time frame.
>
> Dialogues and Chaosmosis are not secondary texts by any measure.
> Dialogues is a bit of a weird book though... and in a different way to
> ATP or something.
>
> If you can handle the incredibly dry writing style of some 'proper'
> philosophical texts then even Difference and Repetition may be a good
> place to start. The core argument of D&R is repeated throughout
> Deleuze's body of work in different ways (haha).
>
> Or you can just read it however want starting at page 1. Although
> Deleuze did comment once that he liked the way high school students
> read ATP by focusing on the aspects they were interested in and
> forgetting the rest.
>
> It depends on your interests really. There are a diverse range of
> secondary texts. From film stuff (not very much good work, most film
> Deleuzians still haven't let go of representation), to Delanda's work
> (which is pretty good fun), to Massumi's stuff that was described to me
>  once (by Buchanan) as 'his own thing'. Greg Seigworth has done some
> interesting stuff from a cult studs perspective, he has a very good
> unpublished essay that is critical of Negri and Hardt's deployment of
> Deleuze's virtual/actual couplet with the addition of the third term of
>  the possible. Oh, Delanda raises an important point in that you need
> to  keep in mind the question of scale in D&G especially ATP.
>
> We were meant to start up a reading of Badiou's Deleuze on the D&G list
>  a while ago, but it hasn't started yet.
>
> ANyway, I am knackered. I am at a conference and the Deleuze session is
>  at the same time as mine. We will get all the non-deleuzians so they
> should be thoroughly annoyed by my paper. lol
>
> Ciao,
> Glen.
>
>> Steven
>>
>> Reasonable reading advice here is difficult because of the tendency
> that
>> people have to suggest reading 'student texts' and  'texts about
> texts' as a
>> means of understanding  what Deleuze and Deleuze and Gauttari  thought
>> consists of. For what it is worth - I would suggest that to begin
> with you
>> only read the source texts themselves and avoid the secondary texts,
> some of
>> which are absolutely dreadful. (I disagree with Glen here -  don't
> waste
>> your time on secondary texts until you've read ebough of the source
> texts to
>> be comfortable).
>>
>> The issue of where you start in regard to Deleuze/Guattari is very
> difficult
>> - most people do start with the capital and schzophrenia series of
> texts -
>> but it's worth remembering that between Deleuze and Guattari there is
> an
>> enormous body of work and unless you tend towards completism you'll
> need to
>> work out a way of  identfying what texts not to read....  In the main
> Glen's
>> suggested reading route is as good as any but for myself I started at
> page
>> '1' of ATP  and read through to the end  taking the usual notes, I
> can't
>> remember if the introduction in the english language version is worth
>> reading  -  and when I first read ATP I was suspicious of their
> proposed
>> hypertextism  and now it's clear that only an end to end reading is
> really
>> possible because of the interference of the secondary sources.  The
> impact
>> of this belief on the interrogation of their ideas in the book(s) is
>> interesting ...
>>
>> mostly enjoy the process....
>>
>> steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> All --
>> >>
>> >> I've started working through the trenches of D and G and thought I
>> > would get
>> >> out some ideas on the rhizome. (I'm also on a couple of other
> lists,
>> >> but  this one, although Lyotard, has engaging exchanges, and also
>> >> occasionally  refers to D and G.) I have begun _1000 Plateaus_ but
>> >> felt it best to
>> > go back
>> >> to _Anti-Oedipus_ and then move on from there...
>> >>
>> >> So, the Rhizome -- this seems to be an investigative metaphor, but
> I
>> >> am  unsure if it is 'classified' as a research method such as
>> >> 'realism,'  'positivism,' 'postmodernism,' or what have you. It
> seems
>> >> to allows for a  sort of intellectual reconnisance -- diversive and
>> >> unbound. There also
>> > seems
>> >> to be some postmodernism tied to it, as it offers no grounded
>> >> standpoint  from which to view, rather many standpoints and many
>> >> 'truths.' I
>> > realize I
>> >> am trying to get into the rhizomatic method in one paragraph but
> there
>> > seems
>> >> to be a wealth of investigative power there and I want to get my
> head
>> > around
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> Any talks or hints or suggestions would be grand.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Steven.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > PhD Candidate
>> > Centre for Cultural Research
>> > University of Western Sydney
>> >
>> > Read my rants: http://glenfuller.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> PhD Candidate
> Centre for Cultural Research
> University of Western Sydney
>
> Read my rants: http://glenfuller.blogspot.com/




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005