I keep meaning to read some Delany but never know where to start. Is that a good starting point?

your exactly right. I'm now aware of lot's of lacanian and hegelian jargon without knowing what it means. i need to go all the way back to plato then?

Or better still,

You mean House of Leaves?

I am really enjoying Tropic of Cancer. So much different reading it now compared to at 23. God, what a funny fuck Miller was!

Savoring the book, in fact. Like a long and languid fuck.

had it even been written when you were 23?

Proust.

So bite it.

Yes. Study up on your literary history.

Oh, I get it. You were making a joke.

Ha. Ha.

Russell's 'A history of Western Philosophy' is a good place to start. I think, in fairness, you can get away with not reading Plato. I think I may be repeating myself here, but a couple of 'introducing Lacan/ Hegel/ continental philosophy/ psychoanalysis' books should see you right. I really wouldn't bother with Hegel. As someone's who's read him a few times I honestly feel I'm better off reading secondary texts on him than the text itself. Same with Descartes and countless others, as it happens.

I had an argument about Agemben this evening. Fucking teleology can fuck the cunt off in my book..

I've not read that but I've never known anyone to actually like it, so I'm happy leaving it on the shelf.

I know too many people that like A History of Western Philosophy more than they should. In fact, I don't know too much about them, but Russell fans seem to always remain in that introduction to philosophy stage without getting much further beside Dennett or some other 'plain language' philosophers. The bit on Nietzsche is infuriating.

Plato helped me out with understanding Hegel by providing a frame of reference for understanding transcendental idealist dialectics. You don't really need to read Plato to know that about Plato, though.

And House of Leaves was obnoxious. I was hoping there was going to be some string-thin narrative that would tight-rope walk across all that bizarre formatting but, no, it just kind of dropped the story. Maybe I missed and am just not clever enough to get it but that gives it a selling point I'd rather not allow. It's a skimmer.

I haven't read a word of Russell, unless he wrote an essay on animal ethics, which was probably Singer. But it's a stock recommendation, and I know more people that got a lot out of it than got by without it.

It's a very biased history, far more than by simply being a history.

However, recognizing its bias and where Russell is coming from, I think, gives the reader a more involved insight into the history of philosophy as not anesthetized and detached. Russell isn't kind to Hegel, either. They were all pissing on each others' legs.

So what about the Tropics novels, eh? I know Jerry Seinfeld has read at least the first one.

Oh, also, there's a graphic novel that has come out about Bertrand Russell and set theory called 'Logicomix.' I've left sufficient hints to get it for Christmas. Spoon full of sugar will help the Russell go down.



pwn3d

Has anyone done a graphic novel of Tropic of Cancer?

If not, are there any graphic artists here who would consider collaborating with me on an edition? (I would be the editor/word guy.)

haha,fuck yeah

is that the 2009 translation? saw it in the store and am really tempted to check it out

no i couldnt find the cover of the edition i am reading but the translation was first published in 1966.