+
From: Vadim Linetski <picador@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 09:55:13 +0200
14 JULY 97
Dear Karen,
i appreciate your response - although i can't agree with you. forgive my
saying so but you seem to skip the discussion altogehter placing
yourself on the plane where the discussion is impossible: "i like it,"
"you don't" etc...
< But, in any case, the terms they invent - pragmatics,
> rhizomatics, schizoanalysis - are so much more telling about the nature
> of their project than 'pomo'. Who cares about pomo when you are engaging
> with Deleuze and Guattari? They borrow, they steal, they appropriate,
> they create. And what is it that they are building???? It is intensely
> personal because it has to do with their libidinal investments, with
> their desiring machines. It is self-help for D&G first and foremost, but
> secondarily it is impersonal/// because the self is already a
> multiplicity machine. Ou bien??<
to follow you, PoMo doesn't exist:
1.'cos the same could be said about ANY theorist (would you deny that
Lacan's engagements/borrowings were lacking personal investments?);
2. 'cos the practice of pastiche from which you try to differentiate
that of D/G is, if anything, exactly the two-step affair you find in
D/G: from personal to impersonal;
3. you avoid the main problem, i.e. the very possibility of BORROWING
/with or without investment does not matter), and it's this question
which should be addressed BEFORE we start to discuss different
BORROWINGS.
yours, v
p.s. PoMo and Bach - don't you notice the irony? PoMo, okay, D/G, not
PoMo, opt for lawless rhizome, whereas Bach produced GUT TEMPERIERTE
SACHEN...
