Worst written book you have ever read?

[Anonymous No.17479932]

Picrel: what the fuck is this shit? Convoluted jargon - the book

[Anonymous No.17479943]

>>17479932
Filtered

[Anonymous No.17479949]

until recently it was Fountainhead but last week I've tried The Secret History
fuck anyone who said it was good; it is atrociously written, overwrought, and it doesn't matter how good the story is if it's badly written.

I know there are much worse books out there but it was the worst I've seen in the last 2 years or so

[Anonymous No.17479954]

>>17479949
ah, A Little Life would fall in the same category too, forgot all about that peace of mediocrity

[Anonymous No.17479959]

Deleuze's intention is to try to see what an analysis of the desiring forces could be by avoiding the repression of the desiring machines by the despotic signifier. It is this approach that will lead him to forge the concept of schizoanalysis. At the forefront of the signifier rejected by Deleuze is, of course, the Oedipus complex. He refused Oedipus' triangulation of desires and did not grant parental stimuli a symbolic organizing function that could be simply modeled. Parental stimuli are certainly inducers, but are not organizers: "parental figures are by no means organizers, but inducers or stimuli of some value that trigger processes of a completely different nature, endowed with a kind of indifference to the stimulus."

Deleuze does not deny that parents have a role in the child's psychic constitution, but he believes that this role cannot be simply modelled, because he refuses to accept the adequacy between inductor and inducer. There certainly exist inductors, but what they induce does not correspond to what induces. Basically, the inductors do not matter, what matters is that the child builds its own desiring machines. This does not mean that the constitution of the desiring machines is done in an anarchic and random way. They are built by being in constant relation with the whole of social production. For this is another of Deleuze's theses: all desire is fundamentally social. And this social dimension of desire encompasses parental stimuli in a much larger set of desiring production at the societal level.

Thus, not only is the child influenced by all non-familial stimuli, but even those coming from the parents depend to a large extent on the state of desiring production in society at a given place and time: "social investments are first in relation to family investments, which arise only from the application or withdrawal of these". The social dimension of desire also includes parental stimuli in a much broader set of desiring production at the societal level. To put it another way, the family is only a subset of the social field that it is futile to try to understand without first analyzing social production as a whole.

[Anonymous No.17480025]

>>17479932
The first part explains what he is doing, don’t read out of order. Not that I’m necessarily defending him, I just think the book deserves better than just, “jargon the book”

[Anonymous No.17480962]

>>17479959
>Félix's intention
>rejected by Félix is
>Félix does
>Félix's theses
FTFY