/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12585955]

A big part of his supposed genius was commonplace back then. He only seems esoteric and mysterious to us because of his obscure language. He was forgotten until Nick Land or some faggot revived him from oblivion and now every becoming-academist jerks off about how amazing he was while in truth he was alright for the times. There's nothing in Deleuze that doesn't also happens in other postmodernists from the period.

[Anonymous No.12585976]

>>12585955
>There's nothing in Deleuze that doesn't also happens in other postmodernists from the period.

elaborate

[Anonymous No.12585993]

>Or one might say, and it's true, that I dream of being, not invisible, but imperceptible, and the closest I can get to the dream is having fingernails I can keep in my pockets, so I find nothing more disconcerting than somebody looking at them)

what did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.12586004]

>>12585993
nothing that other postmodernists from the period didn't mean

[Anonymous No.12586132]

I've been saying this for years

[Anonymous No.12586178]

>>12586004
but WHAT DOES IT MEAN

[Anonymous No.12586187]

>>12585993
Becoming-imperceptible is tldr becoming so insignificant to the dominant regime of the world the sign that they overlook you. No clue about the fingernails, where is this from. Context?

[Anonymous No.12586189]

>>12585955
Deleuze is just gibberish passed as profound.

[Anonymous No.12586193]

>>12585976
>>12585993
>>12586004
>>12586132
>>12586178
wow not a single person can find nothing that doesn't also happen in other postmodernists from the period lmao almost like his supposed genius was commonplace back them

[Anonymous No.12586221]

>>12585955
This is accurate lol well meme'd

[Anonymous No.12586254]

>>12586187
he's quoting the pic in OP but it's from Letter to A Harsh Critic

[Anonymous No.12586261]

>>12586193
what?

Just give some examples please. I'll spell it out so you can understand. Pick some specific ideas, concepts, problems that are "in" Deleuze, and then explain how they all "happens" in other postmodernists (please be specific) from the period.

Just in case you're confused on the matter, the burden of proof lies with you.

[Anonymous No.12586266]

>>12586261
not him but it's pasta, m8

[Anonymous No.12586287]

>>12586266
Oh

[Anonymous. No.12586361]

>>12585955
We shitpost about him because the mods doesn't allow Land on the board for some reason...

[Anonymous No.12586363]

>>12586287
>>12586266
>>12586261
>>12586254
>>12586221
>>12586189
>>12586187
>>12586178
>>12586132
>>12585993
>>12585976

[Anonymous No.12586380]

>>12585955
Good thread deleuzers, really rhizome'd my assemblages.

[Anonymous No.12587960]

>>12586361
cause mods = fags

[Anonymous. No.12589572]

>>12587960
Ye

[Anonymous No.12589606]

>>12585955
>He was forgotten until Nick Land or some faggot revived him from oblivion

He was always common fodder for humanities papers, you're just an ignorant meme twerp

[Anonymous No.12589614]

>>12585955
There’s a few ways of thinking/saying things that obviously pins you as an absolute amateur who has spent way too much time on this site, such that you’ve cobbled together ideas of pretty extensive traditions in a dangerous and downright stupid way. Please never actually say this kind of shit to a student of philosophy/comp. lit., let alone a professor. If you unironically think Deleuze hasn’t had a steady influence in comp. lit., critical theory, continental departments, and hipper English departments since he started writing you’re retarded. The fact that you suggest Nick Land had something to with his “revival” is just embarassing. Very few academics outside of a few niche circles know anything about the CCRU. If anything, people find Deleuze via Foucault, and the latter has always been popular in the humanities.

[Anonymous No.12589642]

>>12585955
Now as for your claim of his unoriginality, I am bewildered. More than any other postmodernist did he branch out and write beyond his immediate prior field of knowledge. More than any other PMs did he investigate his own views, and in that regard is the most novely Nietzschean among them. Also I’d argue for the novelty of his account of Marx; he took Marx more seriously than anyone other than maybe Baudrillard. I just don’t understand why you’d make these claims against Deleuze when he is the least consequential/politicallt whacky of the PMs to get involved in. You have to swallow alot of political baggae to get behind Foucault; Derrida’s schtick gets old as soon as you understand his work against the background of structuralist meaning; Lyotard is just a shit writer; and Baudrillard rushes to his conclusions in a finalizing way. Deleuze is probably the most rewarding to sift through in that regard.

[Anonymous No.12589649]

Gilles "Become a Yuppie Artist" Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.12589671]

>>12589642
fine post