>>1270633i always liked this claim by deleuze about how his books should be read. More than his books (which i also only got partway into ATP, and just honestly got really bored and annoyed with a failure to communicate anything new or detailed).
To rephrase it simply: either a book is a thing which you look for claims and knowledge within, or a book is itself a thing which acts (and not acknowledged here, but also that is a possible subject of analysis, as something really existing in the world and not just an attempt to explain things existing in the world).
As a way of reading a book: good and bad. Tbh i'd rather have a rich flow of information, which requires shared language (not just shared vibes). It seems like a long way to say "i wrote how i felt and pieces of information and thoughts i collected over the years - do with it what you will", which is basically an acceptably modest presentation, and more honest then people who do the same but want to seem scientific and be taken very seriously. Personally, i don't have the will to sort through this froggy's flow of shit, tho. I'd rather have my books be like, actual collations of decades of research and concrete analysis, put forward in clear language. That's a million times harder to write, and more useful.
FWIW everything i got out of deleuze (that i could make out) is basically just a more confused (or confusing, ig) version of dialectical materialist insights, which u can read with more clarity from others. And I think there's one other special value in the 'second type' of reading, which is that its ability to act as a mirror to your own half-comprehended ideas allows you to accelerate your own process of thinking and conceptualizing things that were more abstract to you. So in a way it's hugely valuable on a psychological or individual level i think.