Is that why Deleuze is so hard to read?stanton wrote:I remember reading in an interview with Foucault that the reason his style was often so complex and not straight forward was in part due to the academic climate of the 60s. If you didn't write in a convoluted manner than people wouldn't take you seriously.
I don't think I will ever make up my mind as to whether some of this stuff is
A. mental wankery;
B. people using words without knowing exactly what they mean, or understanding their point well enough to explain it in layman's terms;
C. Deep thoughts that are necessarily difficult to explain because they are talking about things far beyond eating, drinking, and constructing tangible things - as I do for a living (engineer).
Most likely it's a combination of the above, depending on who you're talking about and what day of the week it is.
I like the thought that there is more going on than a group of kids (actual kids, or kids at heart) listening to music. Don't get me wrong, that is awesome, and a straight-up visceral experience is great - but maybe there is more to it, sometimes. How do you explain that weird mental states that come from listening to something the first time, the 50th time, African jazz mixed with sounds produced by cutting edge technology, mental images produced by music, rhythm's effect on your heartbeat, your state of mind, what tunes go well together and why, music and politics, music and culture, blogs, forums and media... All of it.
Maybe this stuff (Kode9's writing, Kodo Eshwun, etc) is a way to explain it - but damned if it's not incomprehensible to the casual reader. And I would hate to think it's intentionally so. Clarity can be a good thing.