Essays Critical and Clinical

by Gilles Deleuze, Daniel W. Smith, Michael A. Greco

The final work of this essential thinker. Essays Critical and Clinical is the final work of the late Gilles Deleuze, one of the most important and vital figures in contemporary philosophy. It includes essays, all newly revised or published here for the first time, on such diverse literary figures as Herman Melville, Walt Whitman, D. H. Lawrence, T. E. Lawrence, Samuel Beckett, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Alfred Jarry, and Lewis Carroll, as well as philosophers such as Plato, Spinoza, Kant, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. For Deleuze, every literary work implies a way of living, a form of life, and must be evaluated not only critically but also clinically. As Proust said, great writers invent a new language within language, but in such a way that language in its entirety is pushed to its limit or its own “outside.” This outside of language is made up of affects and precepts that are not linguistic, but which language alone nonetheless makes possible. In Essays Critical and Clinical , Deleuze is concerned with the delirium-the process of Life-that lies behind this invention, as well as the loss that occurs, the silence that follows, when this delirium becomes a clinical state. Taken together, these eighteen essays present a profoundly new approach to literature by one of the greatest twentieth-century philosophers.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory, Essays, France, Literary Criticism, French Literature

280 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

About the author

Deleuze is a key figure in poststructuralist French philosophy. Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought. His thought locates him as an influential figure in present-day considerations of society, creativity and subjectivity. Notably, within his metaphysics he favored a Spinozian concept of a plane of immanence with everything a mode of one substance, and thus on the same level of existence. He argued, then, that there is no good and evil, but rather only relationships which are beneficial or harmful to the particular individuals. This ethics influences his approach to society and politics, especially as he was so politically active in struggles for rights and freedoms. Later in his career he wrote some of the more infamous texts of the period, in particular, Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. These texts are collaborative works with the radical psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, and they exhibit Deleuze’s social and political commitment.

Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about” art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters” that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.

He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.

Reviews

[Laurent De Maertelaer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ik was al een tijdje op zoek naar dit boek, jaren eigenlijk. Hopeloos uitverkocht sinds lang. Ik gaf mijn zoektocht op. Tot ik 'Krank' las van Giuseppe Minervini en hij me terug op het spoor bracht van Deleuze. Opnieuw een paar weken tevergeefs gezocht, zelfs de uitgever aangeschreven. Noppes, kale reis. Tot ik in de kerstvakantie naar het Paard van Troje ging en tot mijn verbazing en jolijt een nagelnieuw exemplaar zag fonkelen bij de 'd' op de filosofieplanken. Kudos!
Deleuze bedwelmt met zijn hoogst originele stijl. Prachtige inzichten, ook. Literatuur is inderdaad een vreemde taal.

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably one of my favorite literary theory books. I should first have said that the word "theory" and its connotations, not to mention all that is "literary", kind of scare the piss out of me. Deleuze writes here of Alfred Jarry, Whitman, Spinoza, Lewis Carroll, and of course Beckett, Nietzsche, and Melville, among others.

It was enough for me to read Deleuze bring Bartleby back to where it should be, a "violently comical text", but fortunately Deleuze doesn't stop there. Yes, there is the usual Deleuze openings, becomings, lines of flight, possibles, schizoid bodies, and stuttering. But here, they are treated quickly, critically (as in literary), and clinically (as in medicinal).

A few remembered highlights for me are 'What Children Say', 'Bartleby; or, The Formula', and 'The Exhausted'

I'll gladly lend or give this book to someone I've hugged or kissed in real life, so if you are a friend and are interested in reading this, let me know.

[Shakiba Shamloo · Rating 3 out of 5]

«فرسوده‌بودن بسیار بیشتر از خسته‌بودن است. خسته صرفاً تحقق را فرسوده است، درحالی‌که فرسوده تمام امر ممکن را می‌فرساید. خسته دیگر نمی‌تواند محقق سازد، ولی فرسوده دیگر نمی‌تواند ممکن کند.»

[Serhii Rafalskyi]

В останній збірці статей Дельоза на сусдініх сторінках можуть співіснувати роздуми про мову, тіло, батька-мати, сутність і форму, кольори, світло й тінь, Бога, життя й час, Кафку/Мелвілла/Бекета/Лоуренса/Арто/Керрола/Вітмена/Мазоха, а потім ще про стоїків, Ніцше і Спінозу (куди ж без цих персонажів).
Для себе ж я шукав роздуми про письменництво, і трохи знайшов.

[natalia · Rating 4 out of 5]

gosto muito de revisitar esse livro e pensar em algumas passagens dele, principalmente os ensaios “a literatura e a vida” e “o que dizem as crianças” que me emocionam sempre:
“não se escreve com as próprias neuroses. a neurose, a psicose, não são passagens de vida, mas estados em que se cai quando o processo é interrompido, impedido, colmatado. a doença não é processo, mas parada de processo. o escritor, enquanto tal, não é doente, é antes médico, médico de si mesmo; escrever é um empreendimento de saúde. não que o escritos tenha uma saúde de ferro, mas ele goza de uma frágil saúde irresistível, que provêm do fato de ter visto e ouvido coisas demasiado grandes, fortes demais para ele, cuja passagem o esgota, dando-lhe contudo devires que uma gorda saúde dominante tornaria impossíveis.”

“a arte também atinge esse estado celestial que já nada guarda de pessoal nem de racional. ela é feita de trajetos e de devires, por isso faz mapas, extensivos e intensivos. à sua maneira, ela diz o que as crianças dizem. a arte é um processo impessoal, onde a obra se compõe de reuniões de trajetórias e devires. tal concepção é a única que pode arrancar a arte do processo pessoal da memória, do ideal coletivo da comemoração: a arte arqueologia [que é também a da psicanálise, com sua noção de sublimação]. ela mesma é uma viagem; ela insere-se em meios não-preexistentes, em caminhos exteriores que, dependentes das relações internas da obra, não preexistem à mesma. é como se alguns caminhos virtuais se colassem ao caminho real, que assim recebe deles novos traçados, novas trajetórias. um mapa de virtualidades, traçado pela arte, se superpõe ao mapa real cujos percursos ela transforma. toda obra comporta uma pluralidade de trajetos que são legíveis segundo aqueles que são retidos. trajetos e devires, a arte os torna presentes uns nos outros; ela torna sensível sua presença mútua, e se define assim, invocando dionísio como o deus dos lugares de passagem e das coisas do esquecimento.”

[Filip Wijnings · Rating 4 out of 5]

De meest verslavende filosoof

[Rohit Lal · Rating 5 out of 5]

not done yet but many of the essays(1,6,8,11)in here gave me the impression of being the best thing i’ve ever read

[Mateus SSLL · Rating 5 out of 5]

Um livro que indica o ponto, ou a área, onde clínica, literatura, filosofia, e uma ácida psicanálise se encontram. Tratam-se de uma coletânea de artigos: tendo em geral cada capítulo o nome de um autor, dentre eles estão Carrol, Beckett, Kant, Nietzsche (duas vezes), Masoch, Bartleby, Walt Whitman, Lawrence, Platão, Spinoza, etc. Talvez esteja no primeiro capítulo o mais importante e tocante em relação à literatura de modo geral e à clinica: nesta parte do texto Deleuze fala sobre os momentos de 'tornar-se' daquele que escreve, algo de impessoal. Além disso, é neste capítulo que diz que o escrever é um ato de saúde e também um ato produtor de saúde. No campo da crítica literária exclui a primeira e a segunda pessoa do campo da literatura, destitui o poder de um eu e o passa para uma terceira pessoa, para o indefinido, para os personagens outros, impessoais. Deleuze insiste na língua estrangeira dentro da própria língua, na balbucia, na deformação.

Outro momento a ser destacado se passa no capítulo 'o que as crianças dizem', em que é falado sobre o entrelaçamento do real e do imaginário, do circuito do acontecimento (que mais se aproxima do real) e de sua imagem. Da ação e do pensamento; de como o imaginário recobre o real, de como o real necessita da cor de sua imagem virtual para não se tornar algo demasiadamente concreto, de como a imagem fantástica do pensamento precisa do suporte real dos lugares e atos para não se tornar algo demasiadamente aéreo.

A repetição é fundamental nesta obra, vemos as mesmas ideias circularem nos mesmos artigos, comprovando a consistência e a insistência das mesmas.

[Seyhan · Rating 5 out of 5]

L. Wolfson, L. Carroll, Kant, Nietzsche, Aziz Pavlus, Melville, Lawrence, Spinoza gibi devler ve eserleri hakkinda genel bir bilgi, az bucuk bir kavrayis, ilgi yahut bir ön okuma olmaksizin, Deleuze’un idiosyncratic bir sekilde ele aldigi bu deneysel metinler son derece anlamsiz olabilicegi gibi eglenceli bir okuma da olmayacaktir.

Aksine eger metinlerin iceriklerine genel bir hakimiyet varsa Deleuze‘un penceresinden bakarak son derece eglenceli bir okuma da yapilabilir bu kitapla. Mesela G. Deleuze L. Caroll‘in Alice’i icin “Alice’in Yeralti Maceralari“ diye baslar soze , yahut Bartleby icin “I’d rather not to do it“ ile Melville’in ana dilinde yabanci bir dil insa etmesindeki ustaligindan bahseder. Kant’in yapisalciligini ve 3 buyuk elestirisini Saf Aklin Elestirisi, Pratik Aklin Elestirisi, Yarginin Elestirisinde, Prusyali ahlak filozofumuzun arzu ve cogulculuk kavramina yer birakmadigindan yakinir, odev geregi yasamanin ozgurluge ve ozgur iradeye giden yollari tikadigindan bahseder. Descartes’in cogitosu temelli her turlu fenomenolojiye elestirel yaklasir. “Dusunuyorum oyleyse varim”daki ozne yani dusunen 1. Tekil “Ben “ icin “Varlik olarak olmak ,fazlasi degil” diyerek Her turlu fenomenolojik ozne- nesne iliskisine karsi cikar. Son sayfalarinda bir satirda olsa Leibnizla Spinozanin gostergeler ve isik etkileri uzerine dusuncelerini kiyaslayisi bir nevi Deluze tutarsizliginin eglenceli bir gostergesi olarak okunabilir.

[Aslı Can]

Ben Deleuze'ün dilini çok seviyorum, edebi bir eser yazar gidi aktarıyor aklındakileri. Kafa karıştıran hallerini seviyorum. Hiç ilgimi çekmeyen konularda bile yazsa ilgimi kaybetmeden okuyabiliyorum.

Kritik ve Klinik; edebiyat üzerine, psikanaliz üzerine, filozoflar, yazarlar, onların yarattığı karakterler veya tarihi karakterler üzerine yorum-analiz tarzında bölümlerden oluşuyor. Özellikle Artaud, Kafka ya da Herman Melville severlere önerebilim kitabı, çünkü kitabın içinde bol bol bahsi geçiyor bu yazarların.

[Jake Hirtenstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent collection of essays by Deleuze. While his literary prowess and knowledge is always apparent in his other works, this is an excellent example of the breadth that he possesses.

In the introduction, Michael W. Smith claims that Deleuze is attempting to draw attention to and perhaps rectify certain problems that plague the psychiatric field. Smith notes the three components in understanding a disease-its symptomatology, its etiology, and its therapy. Symptomatology is essentially the base conceptual framework that constitutes a disease, and is largely a problematic that is derived from a whole or "an ideal picture of health". Smith claims that for Deleuze literature is, in this epoch, where the aesthetic wholes that mediate a people's sense of psychological and spiritual normalcy are created. All literature, all good literature at least, should generate novel becomings for us as a people, in the creation of a people yet to come. It does this by asking us "what is it to be whole?" And following from that, we are asked in what potential ways deviations from this wholeness be problematized in such a way that we can then create a symptomatology that we can use to diagnose an illness or disease (note that the illness is a construct of the symptomatology which is also constructed). I went into the essays with this approach and expectation that the text would in some sense respond to this interesting notion, and it informed my reading as such.

With this in mind, the essays that most stood out for me were in the final third and the Kant essay. There are excellent ones other than that, of course, but these really stuck out to me more than the others. In the last third I found it impossible to not draw connections between those essays, and largely read them as an ontopoetic cycle that builds from Kant's Critique of Judgment. This cycle begins with the analysis of the eternal return as the Being of becoming in the Nietszche essay. He identifies that becoming with language in "He Stuttered", arguing that the way out is to turn a language on its head in the creation of a minor language. He continues with the positing of language qua eternal return or minor becoming as an oscillating dichotomy of shame and glory that subjectivizes a body in the Lawrence essay. Deleuze then deconstructs the judging function of language that launches it into that oscillation in "To Have Done with Judgment", and then argues that the way forward from here is, in typical Deleuzian fashion, a return to immanence whereby the selections that we make about episteme concern power instead of knowledge (an escape from Platonism). In the Spinoza essay, he outlines how this immanent power works, whereby the selections that inform our formal epistemic constructs are posited as effects, analyzing these effects as fields of power laid over various kinds of signs and relations established between signs, their eventual formation into concepts, and their becoming-essential as pure, luminous beings, free of geometric restraint, a purely immanent knowledge-power relation. Finally, this culminates in "The Exhausted" where he lays out the logical operator at the heart of this ontopoetic cycle, the inclusive disjunction. Difference and becoming do indeed occur, but they fall back into themselves. "God, who is the sum total of the possible, merges with Nothing, of which each thing is a modification". Inclusive disjunctions create images-not artistic, but rather aesthetic, in the cumulative sense of a gathering of univocal flows, essences of Life that pop in and out of Being, pure immanences that create and deconstruct subjects with their movements. This cycle is what he terms exhaustion, the process in which subjects create and destroy themselves and the fields of power they are laid across. The image that is exhausted is itself a "movement in the world of the mind." One becomes exhausted by acting as if they already are, by rendering their soul immobile. One can create new images, but it is difficult, requiring one to render themselves into an intensive indefinite that can open a new space within themselves for said image-they must eat that which has already eaten them.

The ontopoetic cycle, then, is a Deleuzian formulation of the eternal return, beginning with the eternal return and ending with a sacred image of the soul, its axis mundi, whereby the conditions of its own being are problematized into its becoming that swallows itself-the potential symptomatology derived from the base selection of metalogical orientation or vision predicates the possible therapy for its own rejuvenation. To me, this is most closely related to the Critique of Judgment, not only because of Deleuze's own essay in this book, but likewise because in that text the power of the imagination and its structuring of the schematism is laid out in a way similar to here-the vision of the imagination is ultimately responsible for the limits and structure of the understanding, as the imagination is how the understanding can come to understand the function of its own faculties and their relation, and with that itself, in a way that is similarly self reflexive and autogenerative to what Deleuze has laid out here.

[Molsa Roja(s) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un llibre excel•lent, excel•lent... Deleuze gaudeix de la literatura bojament i si en fa crítica, si la comenta, és precisament per a enriquir-la, per fer-la més gran i complexe. La introducció és magnífica, i després una es troba amb Melville, Spinoza, TH Lawrence, Nietzsche, Kant... variat i esplendorós camí.

[Майя Ставитская · Rating 4 out of 5]

French poststructuralist philosopher Gilles Deleuze is not the one I was eager to read, but I heard about him as a significant figure of the modern cultural background, and I did not rule out the possibility of making an idea someday on occasion. We know that "someday on occasion" is a euphemism for "never", with Deleuze it would most likely have happened if it hadn't been for the magic pendel of a Long walk, to which I am grateful for many names. which I wouldn't have reached at all if it weren't for the quest tasks of the game. Now I have an idea about him, at least according to the latest and most criticized of the works, which he partially wrote already a patient with lung cancer (it was one lung, he lost the second one while still young due to tuberculosis) and chained to a ventilator.

"Criticism and Clinic" is his solo work, which is a significant detail for Deleuze, who worked in co-authorship for many years - this work was written after the death of his permanent co-author Felix Guattari. I will outline my far from exhaustive understanding of "Criticism and Clinic". With this book, the philosopher summed up his work in the field of literary criticism, which he approached not from the point of view of literary criticism, but considering creativity from the standpoint of philosophical categories. A writer, in his understanding, is a person who becomes a doctor, a clinician of civilization, inventing a "language within a language".

Всегда ускользай
Великий писатель — всегда как чужеземец в языке, он черпает свои силы из немого безвестного меньшинства, принадлежащего ему одному. Он кроит внутри своего языка язык иностранный, коего прежде не существовало.
Фрнцузский философ постструктуралист Жиль Делёз не тот, кого я страстно стремилась прочесть, но слышала о нем, как о значимой фигуре современного культурного бэкграунда, и не исключала возможности составить когда-нибудь при случае представление. Мы знаем, что "когда-нибудь при случае" эвфемизм для "никогда", с Делёзом скорее всего так бы и вышло, не будь волшебного пенделя Долгой прогулки, ей благодарна за многие имена, до которых нипочем не дотянулась бы, когда бы не квестовые задания игры. Теперь у меня есть о нем представление, хотя бы по самой поздней и наиболее критикуемой из работ, которую он частично писал уже больной раком легкого (именно одного легкого, второго лишился еще молодым из-за туберкулеза) и прикованный к аппарату ИВЛ.

"Критика и клиника" его сольный труд, что для Делёза, много лет работавшего в соавторстве, значимая деталь - этот труд написан после смерти его постоянного соавтора Феликса Гваттари. Я конспективно изложу свое, далеко не исчерпывающее, понимание "Критики и клиники". Этой книгой философ подвел итог своим работам в области литературной критики, к которой подходил не с точки зрения литературоведения, но рассматривая творчество с позиций философских категорий. Писатель, в его понимании - человек, который становится врачом, клиницистом цивилизации, изобретая "язык в языке", примерно как в отрывке, который вынесла в эпиграф.

Среди философов, которых мне довелось читать, Делёз один из самых непростых для понимания. Французский постструктурализм вообще в значительной степени вещь в себе, а в его случае отсутствие якорей и привязок осложняется еще полемикой с Кантом, Гегелем, Фрейдом - теми, в ком профаны, интересующиеся развитием философской мысли, обычно находят точку опоры. Канта я вспомнила не случайно, Делёз спорит с ним и критикует три его "Критики", но при этом самого его относят к неокантианцам, хотя трансцендетализм, как мне кажется, сильно не к нему. Ясность изложения и отточенные формулировки словно бы претят Делёзу, любую свою мысль он излагает предельно путаным способом, с заходом во многие смежные области, совершенно пренебрегая примерами, которыми Витгенштейн, Гуссерль, Кьеркегор достаточно ясно иллюстрируют сложные для понимания пассажи. Мысли Делёза на вольном выпасе, гуляют сами по себе, и когда удается какую-то из них ухватить за бочок - это просто праздник.

Вот смотрите, я люблю Шекспира и люблю Канта, и мне было бы очень интересно понять, каким образом Делёз соединяет их в статье "О четырех поэтических формулах, которые могли бы резюмировать философию Канта". Но я начинаю читать, и прихотливая авторская мысль зачем-то многократно ведет меня к Артюру Рэмбо, цитатами из стихов которого Делёз богато иллюстрирует предельно темную воду во облацех своих рассуждений, но практически не нахожу Шекспира, и из дважды прочитанной главы понимаю лишь, что Кант начал как Гамлет, а кончил как король Лир.Что ж, пусть этот бесценный осколок французской философской мысли пребудет со мной.

На самом деле, когда удается ловить за ускользающий кончик какую-нибудь мысль и докручивать ее до логического завершения, она оказывается подлинно драгоценной. Как например вынесенная в эпиграф и очищенная от напластований идея меньшинства, на языке которого говорят подлинно великие авторы. Меньшинства, состоящего из себя, заново переизобретающего язык, который отныне со всеми его корявостями (Платонов) и немыслимыми красотами (Набоков) становится частью общего языка. Что верно как для национального, так и для общечеловеческого.

Вообще идея меньшинства значима для Делёза. Питая огромное уважение к Марксу, от совершенно отрицает классовость, на которой зиждется марксизм. По Делёзу есть один класс - рабов, и одни рабы владеют другими. Вне этого те, кто научился ускользать, и вот это уже почти пелевинские "Затворник и Шестипалый", это я понимаю и люблю. Кстати о способах и методике ускользания - им собственно как и мироустройству по Делёзу, посвящена "Тысяча плато", и теперь я думаю, что найду возможность почитать эту вещь.Невзирая.

Резюмируя: чтение сложное даже для подготовленного читателя. Но интересное и небесполезное.

[Maksym Karpovets · Rating 5 out of 5]

Одна із моїх улюблених книжок Жиля Дельоза, до якого я ставлюсь дуже неоднозначно. З одного боку, мені подобається його "лабораторія концептів", певна інтуїтивна логіка щодо злободенності, але мені водночас дико не подобається його психоаналітичний синтез всього зі всім, тобто те, що тримало назву шизоаналізу. Однак ця збірка -- неймовірна інтелектуальна пригода! Дельоз просто нереально цікаво (водночас доволі ясно й зрозуміло, що для естетики постмодернізму взагалі є дивовижним) розповідає про Керрола, Спінозу, Ніцше, Уітмана та інших. Раджу читати як тим, хто вперше знайомиться із дивним дзеркальним світом постмодернізму, так і тим, хто просто хоче побачити улюблених письменників та філософів під незвичним кутом зору. Однозначно річ у favorites.

[Brock · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought this book after reading some of the "plateaus" because I wanted to see how Deleuze tackles literary criticism, esp in his reading of "Bartleby." Turns out that Bartleby's famous refrain plays right into Deleuze's ideas about indeterminacy and the character without qualities, and Deleuze extends his discussion of Bartleby's "formula" to flesh out a theory of literary language and the differences between American and European fiction. Well worth the effort it often takes to read Deleuze. He's much more focused and lucid in his critical writings than he is in his philosophical "lines of flight," although from a Deleuzian point of view that might not be a compliment.

[Arno · Rating 4 out of 5]

Particularly enjoyed essays "Literature and Life", "Lewis Carroll", "Re-presentations of Masoch","What Children Say", "Bartleby; or, The Formula", "He Stuttered", "The Shame and the Glory: T.E. Lawrence", "To Have Done with Judgement", "Spinoza and the Three Ethics".

[Karl Hallbjörnsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some great stuff in here. The essay on Wolfson was supremely engrossing and the one on Bartleby as well, the Lewis Carroll one was good as well and The Exhausted and the one on Jarry were alright as well.

[Nate · Rating 5 out of 5]

the first essay, "literature and life," is fantabulous. and his bit on whitman is thrilling.

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great set of essays with a magnificent introduction. Review published in Symploké 6.1-2 (1998 [published in 2000]): 192-196.

[homoness · Rating 2 out of 5]

the bartleby text i liked but a lot of this is either really naive or just needlessly affirmationist. in many ways, deleuze really didnt age well.

[Eric Phetteplace · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great set of essays mostly on literary topics, some redundancy but I didn't mind. Loved the essay on Bartleby, the Scrivener the most.

[Aylin]

"Kılıç değil, kılıcın ışıltısı, kedisiz gülümseme gibi, kılıçsız ışıltı. Hiçbir şeyi anlamdan geçirmeden, her şeyi anlamsızın içinde oynatmak Carroll'ın işidir..." s. 33
"... şeyler insanlardan daha tehlikelidir: Onlar beni algılamadan ben onları algılayamam, bu haliyle her algı, algının algısıdır. Bu ikinci durumun çözümü, hayvanları kovmaktan, aynanın, mobilyaların üstünü örtmekten, renkli taşbaskıyı söküp almaktan, fotoğrafları yırtmaktan ibarettir: Bu ikili algının yok oluşudur." s. 35
"Hamlet harekete geçmek için zamana gerçekten ihtiyacı olan ilk kahramandır, oysa öteki kahramanlar zamana, ilksel bir hareketin (Aiskhylos) ya da uygunsuz bir eylemin (Sophokles) sonucu olarak maruz kalır. Saf Aklın Eleştirisi, Kuzeyin Prensi Hamlet'in kitabıdır." s. 40
"Ben bir başkasıdır..." Rimbaud
Descartes'ın cogito'su, zamanın sekülerleşmesi, laikleşmesi: Düşünüyorum, belirlenmemiş bir varoluş içeren (varım), ve bu varoluşu, düşünen bir tözün varoluşu olarak belirleyen (ben düşünen bir şey'im) anlık bir belirleme edimidir... ...Kant, zamanın ikinci bir özgürleşmesini gerçekleştirir ve laikleşmesini tamamlar." s. 40- 41
"...Hamlet, oyuncunun ya da uyuyanın yaptığı gibi, düşüncesinin etkinliğini bir başkası ... olarak alımlayan edilgin bir varoluş gibi ortaya çıkmakla son derece Kantçı karakterini ilan eder." s. 41 "Hamlet, kuşkuculuk ya da kuşku insanı değil, Eleştiri insanıdır." s. 42 "Öznenin deliliği, zıvanasından çıkmış bir zamana tekabül eder." s. 42
"Bilinmeyen yasalarla yönetilmek ne azaptır!... Zira böylelikle, yasaların karakteri, içerikleri hakkındaki gizliliği gerektirir..." Kafka, Çin Seddi. Antik bilinç. "Yasalar, tanrıların terk ettiği bir dünyada İyinin bir temsilcisi, bir "ikinci kaynak"tır." s. 43 "...yasalar bilgi açısından, şu ve bu durumda İyinin taklidi gibidir." s. 44 Pratik Aklın Eleştirisi yorumu 44, 45, 46, 47. Yüce 46, 47
"...Kant'ın Shakespeare'vari yanı Hamlet gibi başlar ve Kral Lear olarak biter..." s.47
"İncil, aristokratik, bireysel, yumuşak, sevgi dolu, simgeci ve yeterince kültürlüdür. vahiy, kolektif, avam, kültürsüz, kin dolu ve vahşidir." s. 48

[Guilherme Smee · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A escrita é inseparável do devir: ao escrever, estamos num devir-mulher, num devir-animal ou vegetal, num devir-molécula, ate num devir-imperceptível. Esses devires encadeiam-se uns aos outras segundo uma linhagem particular, como num romance de Le Clezio, ou então coexistem em rodos os níveis, segundo portas, limiares e zonas que compõem 0 universo inteiro, como na pujante obra de Lovecraft. 0 devir não vai no sentido inverso, e não entramos num devir-Homem, uma vez que 0 homem se apresenta" como uma forma de expressão dominante que pretende impor-se a toda matéria, ao passo que mulher, animal ou molécula tem sempre um componente de fuga que se furta Ii sua própria formalização. A vergonha de ser um homem: haveria razão melhor para escrever? Mesmo quando e uma mulher que devem, ela tem de devir-mulher, e esse devir nada tem a ver com um estado que ela poderia reivindicar. Devir não e atingir uma forma (identificação, imitação, Mimese), mas encontrar a zona de vizinhança, de indiscernibilidade ou de indiferenciação tal que já não seja possível distinguir-se de urna mulher, de um animal ou de uma molécula: não imprecisos nem gerais, mas imprevistos, não-preexistentes, tanto menos determinados numa forma quanto se singularizam numa população".

[fake · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think I was able to decipher most of it correctly. Here's my interpretation:

You're saying that "Critical and Clinical" is the first book by Deleuze that you found generally accessible and readable, except maybe for the last two essays. You think it's a great introduction to his work, and perhaps it was Guattari (Deleuze's frequent collaborator) who was responsible for making some of Deleuze's other texts more difficult to read.

In this book, Deleuze explores the concept of "true reading" and "true writing." He argues that every great book is written in a kind of foreign language, and that each great book creates its own readers. Deleuze examines how language works within language by destabilizing or deteriorating the meaning of original words, allowing the meaning to shift and change. He illustrates this idea using examples from authors like Melville, Kafka, and Blake.

You're humble about discussing Deleuze's ideas, feeling that when you try to explain them, you sound "stupid and preposterous." However, when Deleuze himself writes about these concepts, it makes perfect sense to you. So, you'd rather let Deleuze speak for himself, rather than trying to elaborate further in your review.

Is that a correct interpretation of your voice-typed review?

[Alfredo Suárez Palacios · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muy Deleuze, me gusta cuando se pone crítico de literatura porque no sabe muy bien como hacerlo y a veces simplemente da vueltas sobre una frase para contar lo suyo, pero es que lo suyo es muy bueno. Es un poco lo que sucede en el ensayo sobre Kant que va hilando diferentes citas literarias para explicar el aspecto más kantiano de Hamlet y está muy bien, es un texto que he disfrutado mucho. El ensayo más literario creo que es el análisis de la obra de Melville, aquí si entra en contacto con los personajes, expone sus formas y da rienda suelta a un verdadero amor por la obra de Melville y termina por esbozar una maravillosa idea del espíritu americano que me encanta. Luego hay otros ensayos que están bien pero parecen un poco relleno, Lewis Carrol podía haber sido más y es un articulillo interesante, pero parece una introducción a otra cosa (algo que es realmente la Lógica dle Sentido donde analiza muy a fondo la obra de Carrrol).

[Noah Thellman · Rating 5 out of 5]

1. Spinoza essay (three ethics, Pure Light - Color - Shadow, Affects and Affections / Vectorial and Scalar, Signs Concepts Precepts)
2. Bartleby essay (I would prefer not to)
3. Nietzsche and Revelation essay (John v Christ, heaven as panopticon, resentment and Paul)
4. Lawrence of Arabia essay (lisan al gaib)
5. Literature and life essay (writing is a becoming imperceptible)
6. Beckett essay (language combinatorials exhaustion)
7. Whitman essay (America is minoritarian and revolutionary)
8. Artaud essay (Judgement is bad)
9. Kant essay (time is unhinged)

[heychipx · Rating 4 out of 5]

« La vitalité non-organique est le rapport du corps à des forces ou puissances imperceptibles qui s'en emparent ou dont il s'empare, comme la lune s'empare du corps d'une femme: Héliogabale anarchiste ne cessera de témoigner dans l'œuvre d'Artaud pour cet affrontement des forces et des puissances, comme autant de devenir minéraux, végétaux, animaux. Se faire un corps sans organes, trouver son corps sans organes est la manière d'échapper au jugement. »

[M de Maestro · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesante en cuanto a la relación de la literatura y la salud, la cuestión del tercero en la literatura, pero hasta ahí. La voluntad de estilo parece decir más de lo que el contenido realmente ofrece.

[Matheus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chãozinho pra conversar com as pessoas na Letras PUC-Rio.
Hoje me incomoda a dispersão de alguns conceitos e certas impressões da ideia de “vida”. Sendo um termo carregado de nieztschismo, faz bem revê-lo.

[Kristýna Marková · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5