From: Karen Ocana <"ko@xxxxxxxxx"@total.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 20:20:38 -0700
Yes, what in the world was I thinking when I stuck Beckett (sp?) in that
list of anglo writers? Especially when almost all of my reading of B.
was in French for a course on the nouveau roman? and when most of my
Beckett reading is found in one novel, L'Innomable... But then what
really matters, as Jill and MOna point out is that Deleuze could write
French (and as for Beckett it is true that D&G refer to him as a French
writer, or they say half of Beckett... and Artaud... when they talk about
what good contemporary schizo writers there are in French).
But as for the detteritorialization/outlandish question, I'm sure that it
is posed in A is for animal, although it may be posed again and again in
the Abecedaire (maybe i will order the video, though it's not available
in Quebec yet), although I don't recall it recurring twice between A and
N. You're right about D. referring to both as barbarisms... and he does
make the comment in WIP? and perhaps elsewhere that sometimes to create a
concept you need a barbarism but that an already existing word might do
just as well, the word is not really the thing, but what happens and what
it makes happen. But deterritorialization is one of the most important
D/G ian concepts... and it is linked to the question that comes up re:
becoming-animal, namely, that that impulse has to do with worlding or
making a world. An animal, says Deleuze, has a world. Whereas most
people, accuses Deleuze, don't have a world. (Now, you mentioned,
Stanley, that deterritorialization struck you as a Heideggerian concept.
Why?) Again, Deleuze takes up the question of the 'agencement mondial',
or making an assemblage with the world in the difference he imputes to a
leftist and rightist subjectivvity...where the rightist would begin
his politics with himself and move out layer by layer from his/her self
as the centre, segment by segment, as it were; whereas, the 'gauchiste'
would reach first for the world-horizon and then perhaps zigzag back home
But, in any case, I like the idea of what is a world less than the idea
of the territory. Hm. I can no longer see my keyboard. perhaps it is the
animal-becoming that gets us into territorial and deterritorializing
mode... and, but, then, what about animals?? and their becomings...
Deleuze imputes to the animal a world!! Wouldn't this be a sort of
human-becoming of the animal. I have always balked at the fact that
becomings in D/G are uni-directional, or somehow interesting in that
they involve a sort of disempowerment. I guess I have never seen
puissance as being entirely different from empowerment. Puissance means
the joy in action. And Deleuze in fact gives in J for joie the example
of a typhoon and its joy in arriving.... I have never really truly been
convinced by the minoritarian argument.
Sorry, this is all very confused. Immonde? Deleuze is very delicious in
his insults. Effarant and immonde are two. But, Deleuze is not confused
in what it takes for an animal to make a world, I think. Only I cannot
remember the three points. to be continued,