Jump to content
Coconuts

DnG

Recommended Posts

I think idolizing people for running a K like Deleuze is pretty counter-intuitive, but I will say Head Royce is a truly talented team and Robbie in particular is probably the best high school Deleuze debater I can think of. I partnered with him at Xylum and it was a pretty amazing experience, especially since that was the first time I have partnered with someone who also enjoys Deleuze. I think he quit debate this year because he had trouble finding the commitment necessary for the activity, which is a massive shame.

With almost no prep he got a bid at Notre Dame with his first time partner. I wouldn't call my post idolizing moreso than it is an acceptance and recognition of such outstanding debaters. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best deleuze team last year (in my humble opinion) besides anyone coached by Stephen Murray (like CE Byrd) was Head Royce Manley Pease. The type of shit they ran was inspirational they ended up downing in quarters of the TOC to CK McClatchy (who won the TOC). They are the epitome of K debate and seemed to me like the absolute best D and G debaters (once again, aside from those that were coached by Murray or Zagorin). From their Pirates Aff to their Hitchikers aff, and don't even get me started on their neg strats. There was a thread very recently that was asking about the pirates K, go there and look at the links under the critiques section, the type of stuff they run is beautiful. 

 

Also, Stephen if you are reading this, just know you are going down in history as one of THE Deleuze debaters, not just because of your file but because of the extensive knowledge you possess on D and G, which is unrivaled by almost everyone except Edmund. The fact that everyone on this site jumps at the mention of Murray is proof enough. 

 

First, the best Deleuze team in the country was absolutely Head Royce. They were not the best besides us, they were the best. They popped our asses round five of Gonzaga when we were reading our Graffiti aff, partially by using a Deleuze strategy (the Pirates argument). Second, Steven is not only one of the best Deleuze debaters ever, I would go as far as to say that Steven is one of the top Deleuze scholars for someone of his age. He is now in grad school at Baylor, and one of the thesis papers he wrote was about Deleuze and Cinema, and of the parts I have had the privilege to read, it is absolutely a masterpiece. 

 

Now, I think this thread is kind of silly. It's pretty much impossible to distinguish between the "top Deleuze debaters". I think that Head Royce was a much better debate team than Josh and I last year, and I think that is why we lost to them. But I'm not so sure that the reason we lost was because we were behind in our knowledge of the Deleuzean concepts that were being deployed in that particular debate, rather because they were just better at debate in general. The difference between debate and scholarship is that debate is not knowledge production for the sake of knowledge production. Instead, the existence of things like argument competition, etc. mean that we deploy these ideas in a way that is spun and explained differently than they are originally written, because we need to use them to fit the model of "link/impact" etc. I think that debate is a good site for knowledge production, but I think that it is often a place where students twist existing scholarship for competitive reasons. And for that reason you can't say who the best Deleuze debater is, because what does that even mean? Does it mean that this person has the most debate success while reading Deleuzean arguments, or does it mean that this person expands the field of Deleuzean scholarship (like Steven.) 

 

Just my thoughts

Edited by ...Hi...
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

schizo analysis sounds pretty ableist to me

 

I'm cutting this as a link for my ableism counter K to DnG K's / K aff's and no one can stop me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those interested, this is a first draft. The second draft should be appearing in a real outlet soon (rhizomes magazine or some film journal).   http://www.mediafire.com/view/9imxx1fmbgk7xxz/Deleuze%20Guattari%20and%20Zombies.docx

"The only modern myth is the myth of zombies—mortified schizos, good for work, brought back to reason." -Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, p. 335. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those interested, this is a first draft. The second draft should be appearing in a real outlet soon (rhizomes magazine or some film journal).   http://www.mediafire.com/view/9imxx1fmbgk7xxz/Deleuze%20Guattari%20and%20Zombies.docx

Interesting paper, even for those like me who aren't familiar with DnG.

 

One of the Ben's at the bottom of page 9 needs capitalization.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your treatment of Ben and Mickey was inconsistent. Mickey is criticized for his belief that baseball isn't useful, while Ben is praised for gathering practical supplies rather than souvenirs from the past. There seemed to be something of an attempt to characterize Mickey as living in the past and constrained by it in contrast to Ben living in the present and freed by it. However, this attempt was undermined when you characterized Ben's experience at the waterfall as an act of near absolute freedom, despite the fact that Ben had mentally "projected himself back to before... zombies ate the faces of everyone he loves". It was further undermined when you characterized Ben's revenge motive as good, despite its obviously backwards looking nature.

The conclusion claims that we shouldn't fall victim to an oversimplification that characterizes all nomadism as good and all stability as bad. But the paper itself makes hardly any attempt to do so, instead contenting itself with a one dimensional analysis that interprets two complex characters only through the lens of their desires and their desires only through the filter of freedom versus captivity, and fails to even achieve this with proper consistency.

C-, see me after class.

I'm almost entirely kidding, but I am confused. If I'm missing something here, what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your treatment of Ben and Mickey was inconsistent. Mickey is criticized for his belief that baseball isn't useful, while Ben is praised for gathering practical supplies rather than souvenirs from the past. There seemed to be something of an attempt to characterize Mickey as living in the past and constrained by it in contrast to Ben living in the present and freed by it. However, this attempt was undermined when you characterized Ben's experience at the waterfall as an act of near absolute freedom, despite the fact that Ben had mentally "projected himself back to before... zombies ate the faces of everyone he loves". It was further undermined when you characterized Ben's revenge motive as good, despite its obviously backwards looking nature.

 

The conclusion claims that we shouldn't fall victim to an oversimplification that characterizes all nomadism as good and all stability as bad. But the paper itself makes hardly any attempt to do so, instead contenting itself with a one dimensional analysis that interprets two complex characters only through the lens of their desires and their desires only through the filter of freedom versus captivity, and fails to even achieve this with proper consistency.

 

C-, see me after class.

 

I'm almost entirely kidding, but I am confused. If I'm missing something here, what is it?

 

Negotiating the internal contradictions of both Ben and Mickey is the entire point of the paper.  There is no pure nomad or a pure neurotic, rather there are fleeting elements which can characterize an individual in either direction.  In order:

- Mickey believes baseball is only useful for external reasons (money, social prowess, etc), this is anti-nomad.  Ben's reliance on immediately practical elements is a means of living in the present he has been thrown into (analogous to enjoying Baseball as a simple pass time - it's enjoyment of the immanent).  

- The freedom Ben finds in the waterfall exists nearly outside of temporal constraints. He can project himself into a simpler time but that's conjecture (a hypothetical, a possibility of what he is thinking).  Regardless, his freedom in the waterfall is consistent with his motives to live in the moment.

- Ben's revenge motive is explicitly noted as antithetical to nomadology.  Also noted as antithetical is his general protection of Mickey.

 

The core concept of this paper is that we exist on a spectrum from schizo to neurotic (something rather explicit in Anti-Oedipus) and the explication of Ben and Mickey shows this spectrum even within a 100 minute film.  My point is that these characters are very much NOT one dimensional, they are internally contradictory and cannot be defined with simple labels.  

 

P.S. This was an A paper.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...