[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 205 KB, 750x1334, 7A0F4694-4CC4-46A6-951D-5F1B579BB83C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
19064794 No.19064794 [Reply] [Original]

I know this threads been done 1000 times before but I’m 150 pages in. When does it start making sense?

>> No.19064818

>When does it start making sense?
Oh son. Oh my poor poor son.

D&G are speaking Bantistani, and you appear to be a seppo. I'd suggest you learn Bantistani by entering into a language immersion sexual relationship with an Australian, a working class pom, and a scotsman. The Australian can speak Marx. The Pom can speak Freud. And the Scotsman can speak structuralism.

Maybe then you can understand what bantsmen D&G are, after you've been fucked three ways to sunday by people who use "cunt" as a universal noun/verb.

>> No.19064897

you need to smoke a lot of weed and listen to Coil, Autechre, Bach, and Coltrane to get it.

>> No.19064925

My hearing has gotten bad and I've spent the last 5 years smoking weed. I don't even get stimulated by it or reading anymore. Am I fucked?

>> No.19064936

nah. Ask some questions about what concepts and words are confusing to you in anti-oedipus though.

>> No.19064959

listening to coil as i read this

>> No.19064977

this post shouldn't be ignored. There is a fundamental level of trolling and tomfoolery they're doing with this book (that they scale back and get more serious about in ATP), it's important for its interpretation.

>> No.19065155


>> No.19065168
File: 1.78 MB, 378x368, 1624925758376.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You could read Plato, Spinoza, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Bergson, Bataille, and Artaud, or you could do exactly what this poster says. It's probably safer to go with the latter.

>> No.19065178

You're not transgender enough to understand it.

>> No.19065191

Don't moind me matey, I'll just be here lubing up my fish-fucking sanger for his dunny cunt. C'nyouse find us the scots bugger and the pommie cunt?

>> No.19065254

Figure I'll blast the soundtrack to Highlander and see who shows up first.

>> No.19065279


>> No.19065481

You mom has a nice house

>> No.19065533
File: 104 KB, 1258x630, 1684731104048.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

When you start reading the secondary literature.

>> No.19066377

It’s not my mom it’s an airbnb I’m tarping roofs in New Orleans

>> No.19066384

I listen to Aphex Twin isn’t that good enough?

>> No.19066413
File: 62 KB, 803x526, E9L0pcgXoAkzXU0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

For Bach, it's got to be Glenn Gould. And don't forget J Dilla.

>> No.19066416

I like the weirdo prose style because it keeps it interesting and usually I feel like they scale it back and sum up the chapter pretty well in the final paragraphs. But like I’ll be thinking I’m understanding something but then they’ll just say something that completely breaks down what a thought I was understanding. I assume this is intentional. But why? Is it because it gets their post structuralist dicks hard when something that ordered and built, like understanding the book, gets smashed?

>> No.19066432

Also I was wondering, do you think they had a coherent understanding of what they were writing about or was it more just like a constant free form jazz improv around a certain idea of Oedipalizations.

>> No.19067079

literally the most straightforward and easy to read and understand book to come out of French Theory

>> No.19067363

You need to start from the beginning, of the first few pages don't make sense to you, you need to read better or fill in background.
I have a lot with Marx and Lacan those probably help the most.
Baudrillard, early Levinas, Althusser, and Foucault are all substantially easier to understand page to page.
Go back, reread, and see if the new idea makes more sense than the old one. It is also very plausible to me given their themes of interest, in rhizomes plurality and multiplicity that they intentionally cultivate interpretational indecision. This is also a principal objective of Derrida's commentary.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.