SUMMARY-
In the introduction to A Thousand Plateaus, Gille Deleuze and Félis Fuatarri use pseudonyms in describing the way human knowledge is spread through literature. They describe a book as a machine and literature as an assemblage, but not ideology (407). They say there is no difference in how a book is made and what it talks about. Writing is measured by units, which define writing as “the measure of something else” (408). They compare books to trees and their root systems, and also to the reproduction of roots. The way in which the books/roots multiple is compared with binary logic and biunivocal relationships. Starting with the first book as a classical book or the root-book or taproot and all other books stemming from here. With the classical book as the foundation, all of literature comes from here and is somehow a reflection of the book prior. They state, “the world has become chaos, but the book remains the image of the world” (409). This relates to how the book is made (time) and how it is reflected in the work. They end the article with this kind of system being compared to a rhizome. They say that a rhizome can be good, but also bad; and also, that it is not composed of units but rather of dimensions (“directions in motions”) that relate to change such as a metamorphosis. They continure to describe a rhizome as not only an antigenealogy, but also an antimemory.
INQUIRY-
The way in which Duleuse and Fruatarri use the rhizome metaphor at the end of the introduction helps show the development process in which humans communicate knowledge through literature. They start out by comparing literature (in the form of books) to the root system on a tree (408). The main root (taproot) is the first literature—classical writing. From there, books were written in response to books previously published. A system was created, but is continually growing. This corresponds to the non-stop publication of books and how after they are published they become outdated since there is no communication between the text and the reader. Finally, they use the rhizome to address the Internet. It cannot be measured by units since units are constant, but rather has to undergo a metamorphosis because the Internet allows for the media to be changed—this is why it is an antimemory. The functions the Internet has such as hypertext or social interaction can also be compared to a rhizome. These forms of new media allow not only for change, but also have very few limitations. When analyzed with books (roots), there is no comparison in the amount of options that the Internet (rhizomes) gives.
1. Do you agree with the way they present books, in which “a book exists only through the outside and on the outside” and “a book has neither object nor subject, but that it is made of variously formed matters, and very different dates and speeds” (407).
2. Why do you think that they used the tree/root system and rhizome to compare literature? Can you think of a better/different example that would communicate the same ideas?
3. Through their arguments on the development of literature, what can you conclude about their thoughts on future forms of new media in relation to literature?
5 comments
I think books are all about subject. Books are an extension of the people that write them. Because of this, I feel this analysis is flawed and books cannot be analyzed in the way Duleuse and Fruatarri have chosen to do them. I don't care for their thoughts really, and to be honest don't want to see them on future forms of new media in relation to literature. I think that Literature is a culture, an art, and once again, an extension of those that have created it. I do not feel, by any means, that there is no difference between how a book is made and what it talks about, rather I think books are made in a simple fashion and talk about very, very complex things. Granted, not all books are meant to be read into with that amount of depth. Regardless, literature cannot be quantified like this, but rather it must be qualified, and it must be looked at in terms of impact, socially, politically or whatever, and not in the way of the rhizomes used by Duleuse and Fruatarri.
I agree with Nate that simply saying books extend from a "root," does not acknowledge the author or the interpretation of the text by the reader. Simply because books are all composed of words and ideas does not mean they are by any means related. Instead, I would apply the concept of the tree/root to the internet and web pages, which all have a hierarchal structure, where all pages are linked back to the "index" or home page. Each page stemming from the page is thus a branch that extends from the base. However books are not something that can be edited whenever a reader desires. Like Katrina acknowledged, web sites are constantly shifting, and being changed. Thus it struck me as odd that any sort of comparison could be drawn between literature and the internet, as the ways in which books or web sites are created are two completely different processes.
While I believe that it is true that books are usually connected to another book, I don't believe the content should be discredited. When I think of books, I categorize them by the information they contain. Books are written, read, and appreciated for their content.
Books are representative of human knowledge. Assuming this statement is true, then each book (of value) would build upon the previous book, going into more depth or expanding on ideas. This concept is at the very core of human knowledge. Using this metaphor, their argument would imply that the knowledge is less important than the path to get there, which I believe is false.
I also agree with Nate and I do not find much validity in Duleuse and Fruatarri's argument and I believe that books have both an object and a subject because without these two things it would be absolutely pointless. I do not agree with their comparison between the Internet and a book because a book is permanent. Once it has been printed, no changes can be made. On the other hand, a webpage can be modified in under five minutes and can stem out to far more subjects easier than a book ever can just because of the amount of pages a book would require. While I acknowledge that some books build on others, there are those that are completely random and have no ties to any other piece of literature. I believe the Internet and books are too different to be compared.
I disagree with the author that between books (and readers of those books), there is no communication. If anyone has ever been to, or even heard of a lord of the rings convention, or even Harry Potter, they know that these individuals are so engrossed in the stories, that they communicate and socialize with members who also think they can discover middle earth, or one day attend hogwarts. I also disagree that books today also build on what has already been written. If that were true, than why would people ever want to buy a new book if it is simply a new way of saying old ideas. Maybe the rhetoric and style of writing is similar to classical literature (pick up Shakespeare, and I have a hard time believing that), but I don't think that means that the books that are published now are not relevant.
Post a Comment