Excerpts
Deleuze on Style for Style’s Sake
“According to Deleuze style is inextricably intertwined with affirmation and ethics. If we think of style as the style of some subject, ground or concept then we subordinate the event of style to one of its effects. We proceed as though our actions (of speech, thought or movement) were reactions to some determining ground. If we affirm style as style, however, we have no foundation upon which our events are grounded. We would be confronted with the groundlessness of events. And if no event could be given privalege over, or ground, any other event then there could never be a proper style (a style that was adequate or accurate). Rather, the challenge would be to affirm the difference of style eternally. If style were taken to be the style of some point of view it would lose its force as style.”
-from Claire Colebrook’s essay “Inhuman Irony: The Event of the Postmodern” included in the collection Deleuze and Literature (Edinburgh University Press, 2000)
Tags: claire colebrook, gilles deleuze
so good, so right. reminds me of william gass v. john gardner. (Gardner: “The difference is that my 707 will fly and his is too encrusted with gold to get off the ground.” Gass: “There is always that danger. But what I really want is to have it sit there solid as a rock and have everybody think it is flying.”)
deleuze’s essay or dialogue or whatever on french lit v. american lit is really fascinating, too.
so good, so right. reminds me of william gass v. john gardner. (Gardner: “The difference is that my 707 will fly and his is too encrusted with gold to get off the ground.” Gass: “There is always that danger. But what I really want is to have it sit there solid as a rock and have everybody think it is flying.”)
deleuze’s essay or dialogue or whatever on french lit v. american lit is really fascinating, too.
Hey Chris, I’ve been wanting to ask you: Where does one start w/r/t Deleuze? Which books are the important ones that ought to be read first, and do you recommend an order of reading?
Hey Chris, I’ve been wanting to ask you: Where does one start w/r/t Deleuze? Which books are the important ones that ought to be read first, and do you recommend an order of reading?
this looks awesome. good post
this looks awesome. good post
Hey Kyle,
Great question.
Ultimately it depends on what you are after. Deleuze was a big thinker with many tentacles: cinema, literature, philosophy, geography, etc. But in terms of a basic approach, here’s my best advice…
To get the most out of your experience with Deleuze, you should first familiarize yourself with the philosophies of these four thinkers: Spinoza, Hume, Nietzsche, and Bergson. For a nice overview, I would recommend checking out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries for each of them. Of course Deleuze interacts with many other thinkers, but these four are crucial. If you try to take on Deleuze without a basic working knowledge of those four dudes’ ideas, you will likely sink – or at the very least feel confused/lost/irked.
After conducting the necessary background research, I would head straight to the introduction of A Thousand Plateaus, the chapter explicating the rhizome. This will give you a really helpful methodology for thinking about and approaching your study of Deleuze.
Now the rhizome will teach you that there is no beginning or ending, no starting point or ending point, that every entry is a node in an assemblage. Ergo, it doesn’t matter where you start with Deleuze. To a degree I agree with this, but to another degree I have found from my studies that some texts serve as more productive entry points than others. So my entry point recommendations would be:
Read Deleuze’s book on Nietzsche, where you will get a strong base for understanding Deleuze’s materialist approach, affirmative ethics, etc. (The philosopher Michael Hardt, who writes the introduction, claims this is the best entry point for anyone looking to investigate Deleuze for the first time – I tend to agree.)
Next, read Deleuze’s book on Bergson, where you will get a strong base for understanding his particular brand of ontology: the plane of immanence, the plane of consistency, the role of the virtual, etc.
From there, I would suggest Dialogues II. This, again, will help to give you a broad sense of Deleuze’s overall project.
Now at this point you have to make a decision: do you tackle Deleuze qua Deleuze, or do you approach him via his work with Guattari. This is an important, if often times neglected, distinction: there is the work of Deleuze and then there is the work of Deleuze & Guattari.
To be completely reductive, if you are interested in the heavy philosophical work go for Deleuze’s solo stuff: Difference and Repetition, and The Logic of Sense. If you are interested in the insane poetic mind-unraveling shit go with his co-authored work: A Thousand Plateaus (the second part of a two book collection “capitalism and schizophrenia”), then hit up the first part: Anti-Oedipus (where they eliminate the validity of Marxism and Freudianism in one book), then hit up What is Philosophy.
Again, this is a really reductive approach that leaves out nearly a dozen other books, including his cinema books, his literature books (on Kafka and minor literature, on Proust, etc), his book on The Fold, his two books on Spinoza, his book on Kant, etc. In other words, this is just a starter suggestion kit.
In terms of helpful, interesting secondary texts. I found John Rajchman’s The Deleuze Connections pretty helpful and interesting. I also enjoyed reading Alain Badiou’s Clamor of Being and Zizek’s Organ’s Without Bodies – for a different reason: both texts attempt to destroy Deleuze (but in my opinion fail miserably). A few of the big names in Deleuze Studies are Eugene Holland, Claire Colebrook, Gregg Lambert, and Ian Buchanan. Anything those folks have out on the subject are certainly worthwhile.
Hope this helps!
Hey Kyle,
Great question.
Ultimately it depends on what you are after. Deleuze was a big thinker with many tentacles: cinema, literature, philosophy, geography, etc. But in terms of a basic approach, here’s my best advice…
To get the most out of your experience with Deleuze, you should first familiarize yourself with the philosophies of these four thinkers: Spinoza, Hume, Nietzsche, and Bergson. For a nice overview, I would recommend checking out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries for each of them. Of course Deleuze interacts with many other thinkers, but these four are crucial. If you try to take on Deleuze without a basic working knowledge of those four dudes’ ideas, you will likely sink – or at the very least feel confused/lost/irked.
After conducting the necessary background research, I would head straight to the introduction of A Thousand Plateaus, the chapter explicating the rhizome. This will give you a really helpful methodology for thinking about and approaching your study of Deleuze.
Now the rhizome will teach you that there is no beginning or ending, no starting point or ending point, that every entry is a node in an assemblage. Ergo, it doesn’t matter where you start with Deleuze. To a degree I agree with this, but to another degree I have found from my studies that some texts serve as more productive entry points than others. So my entry point recommendations would be:
Read Deleuze’s book on Nietzsche, where you will get a strong base for understanding Deleuze’s materialist approach, affirmative ethics, etc. (The philosopher Michael Hardt, who writes the introduction, claims this is the best entry point for anyone looking to investigate Deleuze for the first time – I tend to agree.)
Next, read Deleuze’s book on Bergson, where you will get a strong base for understanding his particular brand of ontology: the plane of immanence, the plane of consistency, the role of the virtual, etc.
From there, I would suggest Dialogues II. This, again, will help to give you a broad sense of Deleuze’s overall project.
Now at this point you have to make a decision: do you tackle Deleuze qua Deleuze, or do you approach him via his work with Guattari. This is an important, if often times neglected, distinction: there is the work of Deleuze and then there is the work of Deleuze & Guattari.
To be completely reductive, if you are interested in the heavy philosophical work go for Deleuze’s solo stuff: Difference and Repetition, and The Logic of Sense. If you are interested in the insane poetic mind-unraveling shit go with his co-authored work: A Thousand Plateaus (the second part of a two book collection “capitalism and schizophrenia”), then hit up the first part: Anti-Oedipus (where they eliminate the validity of Marxism and Freudianism in one book), then hit up What is Philosophy.
Again, this is a really reductive approach that leaves out nearly a dozen other books, including his cinema books, his literature books (on Kafka and minor literature, on Proust, etc), his book on The Fold, his two books on Spinoza, his book on Kant, etc. In other words, this is just a starter suggestion kit.
In terms of helpful, interesting secondary texts. I found John Rajchman’s The Deleuze Connections pretty helpful and interesting. I also enjoyed reading Alain Badiou’s Clamor of Being and Zizek’s Organ’s Without Bodies – for a different reason: both texts attempt to destroy Deleuze (but in my opinion fail miserably). A few of the big names in Deleuze Studies are Eugene Holland, Claire Colebrook, Gregg Lambert, and Ian Buchanan. Anything those folks have out on the subject are certainly worthwhile.
Hope this helps!
It does. Thanks, Chris.
It does. Thanks, Chris.
Well done, Christopher. For all the writers, which many of those who visit this site are, I say have a good look at Kafka: Towards a Minor Literature, perhaps after you’ve latched on to the Deleuzian neologisms by reading Dialogues II. It is the most startling investigation into literature’s potential as a political agent, allows for a re-thinking of historical and social significances – most importantly limitations – as a part of critical approaches to literature, and is generally a fascinating, rich investigation into complex processes interacting with one another in a body of work. You’ll never read the same way again after it.
Well done, Christopher. For all the writers, which many of those who visit this site are, I say have a good look at Kafka: Towards a Minor Literature, perhaps after you’ve latched on to the Deleuzian neologisms by reading Dialogues II. It is the most startling investigation into literature’s potential as a political agent, allows for a re-thinking of historical and social significances – most importantly limitations – as a part of critical approaches to literature, and is generally a fascinating, rich investigation into complex processes interacting with one another in a body of work. You’ll never read the same way again after it.
Logic of Sense is where it’s at (for me anyway).
For most of your Deleuzian needs:
http://a.aaaarg.org/
Logic of Sense is where it’s at (for me anyway).
For most of your Deleuzian needs:
http://a.aaaarg.org/
Damon, this is perhaps the greatest gift in a link I’ve ever received. I couldn’t believe my eyes, and that I’d never been put on to the site before. First of all, I don’t have to buy the Arcades Project!
Damon, this is perhaps the greatest gift in a link I’ve ever received. I couldn’t believe my eyes, and that I’d never been put on to the site before. First of all, I don’t have to buy the Arcades Project!
shhhhhh… we gotta keep the lid on this thing or the whole operation’ll blow. but, yeah, it is pretty amazing. I was like Ponce de León coming up on the fountain of youth when I found that site… I couldn’t believe it.
shhhhhh… we gotta keep the lid on this thing or the whole operation’ll blow. but, yeah, it is pretty amazing. I was like Ponce de León coming up on the fountain of youth when I found that site… I couldn’t believe it.
guhhhh
guhhhh
Amazing.
Amazing.
[…] RT @htmlgiant Deleuze on Style for Style’s Sake – htmlgiant.com/?p=16062 […]
Hi Kyle. Do you remeber me? We`ve meet in Argentina 15 years ago.
5 th december is your birthday. I remember very well. Well I send you a big hold and a great happy birthday
Paulo Tisocco
Hi Kyle. Do you remeber me? We`ve meet in Argentina 15 years ago.
5 th december is your birthday. I remember very well. Well I send you a big hold and a great happy birthday
Paulo Tisocco