Jump to content
BangBang98

Deleuze And Guattari Files

Recommended Posts

Hey I was wondering if there are nay other DnG files other than the Murray one? I love their lit and what they talk about and want to know if there is anymore lit on them other than the books. Any advice on where to find them

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit 1:Not what you were asking for lulz - ignore 

 

Edit 2: A basic google search will yield you more literature on Deleuze and Guattari; I believe Hardt and Negri utilized Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus to create their concept of the Empire (and the book series thereof) 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I do plan on reading Anti-Oedipus, that just takes a lot of time

How do you "love their lit and what they talk about" if you haven't even read Anti-Oedipus? I'm also gonna have to assume you haven't read A Thousand Plateaus either...?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you "love their lit and what they talk about" if you haven't even read Anti-Oedipus? I'm also gonna have to assume you haven't read A Thousand Plateaus either...?

 

Love the lit means "I like the 'death isn't real' shell and no one knows how to answer DnG

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I do plan on reading Anti-Oedipus, that just takes a lot of time

Anti-Oedipus isn't so bad. There's a lot of Deleuzian language but what else would you expect? It's a good book nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how everyone thinks DnG is super confusing; it's really not. You just gotta know what like 5 buzzwords mean, the rest is normal English. 

NOT TO BE THAT GUY but they specifically said that a reading of Anti-Oedipus (at leas the 1st chapter) requires a deconstruction of what you deem to be as "normal" (or "rational") - I think Maury posted last year that he spent about 2 years reading introductions to Deleuze and Guattari PRIOR to his reading of Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus, and even after he did that, he still had a difficult time understanding Anti-Oedipus. 

 

Deleuze and Guattari are open to misinterpretation (as is Nietzsche), meaning that there's a risk you might have misinterpreted Deleuze and Guattari

 

ALSO - Philosophy is SUPPOSED  to be difficult, if you find it easy you're either the next Nietzsche or you just misinterpreted the literature really hard.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOT TO BE THAT GUY but they specifically said that a reading of Anti-Oedipus (at leas the 1st chapter) requires a deconstruction of what you deem to be as "normal" (or "rational") - I think Maury posted last year that he spent about 2 years reading introductions to Deleuze and Guattari PRIOR to his reading of Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus, and even after he did that, he still had a difficult time understanding Anti-Oedipus. 

 

Deleuze and Guattari are open to misinterpretation (as is Nietzsche), meaning that there's a risk you might have misinterpreted Deleuze and Guattari

 

ALSO - Philosophy is SUPPOSED  to be difficult, if you find it easy you're either the next Nietzsche or you just misinterpreted the literature really hard.

I agree. My copies of ATP and AO are covered in highlighting, underlining, notes, annotation, etc.

 

I found both works to be very difficult, and my understanding is still not perfect after nearly a year of reading/analysis done

Edited by aram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOT TO BE THAT GUY but they specifically said that a reading of Anti-Oedipus (at leas the 1st chapter) requires a deconstruction of what you deem to be as "normal" (or "rational") - I think Maury posted last year that he spent about 2 years reading introductions to Deleuze and Guattari PRIOR to his reading of Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus, and even after he did that, he still had a difficult time understanding Anti-Oedipus. 

 

Deleuze and Guattari are open to misinterpretation (as is Nietzsche), meaning that there's a risk you might have misinterpreted Deleuze and Guattari

 

ALSO - Philosophy is SUPPOSED  to be difficult, if you find it easy you're either the next Nietzsche or you just misinterpreted the literature really hard.

I might be misinterpreting it, but I personally don't think I am, as when we read our DnG aff infront of RJ (really good DnG debater when he was in college @ OU), he said we did a really good job explaining it. But, I should definitely rephrase what I said. If you have read Deleuze Dictionary and Ballantyne's book, you can understand it if you also make notes, translations, and really put time into it.  

 

Idk about being Nietzsche, I'd rather enter into a state of becoming-Nietzsche.

Edited by CapitalismIsNotCool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was ok with ATP, I haven't read AO so idk about that. 

 

LOL Anti-Oedipus is on a complete different level than A Thousand Plateaus IMO

 

I might be misinterpreting it, but I personally don't think I am, as when we read our DnG aff infront of RJ (really good DnG debater when he was in college @ OU), he said we did a really good job explaining it. But, I should definitely rephrase what I said. If you have read Deleuze Dictionary and Ballantyne's book, you can understand it if you also make notes, translations, and really put time into it.  

 

Idk about being Nietzsche, I'd rather enter into a state of becoming-Nietzsche.

 

Hmm, I meant more like a grasp on Deleuze and Guatari's much more nuanced explanation of different things (I do believe they tackle a little bit of everything in the books they produced); for example the machinic-process as outlined in the first few pages of Anti-Oedipus (the connective synthesis, disjunctive synthesis, and the conjunctive synthesis). 

 

I do believe schizoanalysis (explained in Anti-Oedipus) plays a major role in A Thousand Plateaus (specifically in the concept of the nomad and the rhizome); I don't really see how you can have an understanding of Deleuze and Guattari if you missed out of the first book

 

I understand that the secondary literature makes it easier to understand; but I believe it was Claire Colebrook (or maybe Ballantyne himself) who proclaimed THEMSELVES in their books on introductions to Deleuze and Guattari that the guide books should NEVER be read as replacements of the actual literature because you're missing out on the experience of reading Deleuze and Guattari (which is in itself shattering, at least on me and other academics) AND because you're not really creating and understanding of our own of what they're saying; you can't really substitute a "Deleuze Dictionary" for the actual books, I just doesn't make sense

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

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...