+
From: a.hackett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:37:54 +1000
Gilles Deleuze (1925 - )
deleuze is dead? what do you mean? isn't he with you even as you read his
name?
a latecomer, i never knew the man . . . but perhaps, from what i have heard
about his health towards the end i am more fortunate to have known, be
getting to know, the "real" deleuze. i have not heard anyone missing his
conversation over coffee, but this is the deleuze which is no longer
becoming anything, other than worm-fodder and flowers.
are you afraid that no-one can do what deleuze once did? as he remarked
about the passing of foucault. perhaps the lack of a continual outpouring
of 'new' works from him? . . . i certainly have some regrets but less so
than when guattari retired early from the partnership.
does this not bring on a rather timely occurence for those who would like
to right on, or better with, dag (my own acronym for deleuze and guattari,
context forthcoming)? we cannot be deleuze but we can certainly embark
upon a becoming-deleuze, a becoming-dag. (oh poor felix, always in the
shadow)
deleuze is far from dead, quite the contrary, we have not yet reached his
century.
Peter Johnson
? / # * @ ! $ % &
hypatia, the antipodean
& % $ ! @ * # / ?
------------------