In the literary machine that Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time” constitutes...

>In the literary machine that Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time” constitutes, we are struck by the fact that all the parts are produced as asymmetrical sections, paths that suddenly come to an end, hermetically sealed boxes, noncommunicating vessels, watertight compartments, in which there are gaps even between things that are contiguous, gaps that are affirmations, pieces of a puzzle belonging not to any one puzzle but to many, pieces assembled by forcing them into a certain place where they may or may not belong, their unmatched edges violently forced out of shape, forcibly made to fit together, to interlock, with a number of pieces always left over.

Well Veeky Forums?

so, short stories?

Deleuze is pretty great, but if you aren't familiar with his work he always sounds like a rambling hobo. I suppose that stands for most philosophers though.

He's definitely for people already deep within it.

He's so handsome.

>In the literary machine that Proust's "In Search of Lost Time constitutes

you mean uh

>In Proust's novel,

?

What are you working on there? A novel?

No, haha, no. Good one. A literary machine, my friend. A linguistic apparatus aimed at providing the human organism an aesthetic experience through narrative.

Oh... is this the first draft?

The first model, actually. Later models will see adjustments to the components. I'll tinker here, tinker there, and the machine will be complete.

I didn't know you were a writer.

I'm not. I'm a poetical engineer.

Literary machine is a Deleuzian concept. It refers to production of sense, how a work of literature changes the reader not just with its content, but with its style as well. Production is to be taken quite literally: the reader is given raw material to digest in order to produce sense for himself.

So a 'literary machine' is a book that can be interpreted.

Somewhat. But its more what those interpretations necessarily are or restricted to be.

>Deleuze
>Philosopher

Oh, Veeky Forums, never change.

What else was he? You can disagree with philosophy, but I fail to see Giles was not a philosopher.

Sure, fine, he is a philosopher. The quote I was responding to was rather silly though--Deleuze is not representative at all of the western philosophical tradition, nor is the rest of the obscurantism produced in France from the 60's to the 80's. But have fun obsessing over the ins and outs of Deleuze, Lacan, Derrida, Badiou all you want.

Thanks.

No problem, enjoy wasting your time with your pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation!

How can you call someone within the niche of Deluze psued? There are plenty of others you can pull from.

Don't bother, people already produce their enjoyment/knowledge/power and reinforce it with every thought, you won't change his opinion on the matter since the discussion was not about debates, explanations and learning in the first place.

what? Deleuze has been the trendiest thing in 'theory' circles since Derrida became a dead dog 15 years ago.

You sound more psued than anything.

was this directed at me?

true, but it's just false that most philosophers sound like rambling hobo's if you aren't familiar with their work. That's pretty much just true of a handful of mostly french philosophers in the second half of the 20th century whose work is of dubious philosophical interest.

Yeah, mistake. I was calling you a psued for designating all philosophy you seem to be disagreeing with as, psued.

no there is lots and lots of work i disagree with that i think is of tremendous value. i just find a lot of the philosophy that is trendy in certain parts of the humanities--with its deliberate obscurantism etc to be pseud.

i mean ever wonder why it isn't read in philosophy departments (inbd they are all evil analytic positivist logic choppers)

>with its deliberate obscurantism etc to be pseud.

We can go on and on about what is psued, but I think it would be stupid to do so.

okay m8