A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

by Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari Brian Massumi

book data

489 ratings, 4.46 average rating, 67 reviews (more data...)

rating	frequency	%
5		59%
4		29%
3		8%
2		1%
1		1%

edit

published

December 1987 by University of Minnesota Press

binding

Paperback, 610 pages

isbn

0816614024 (isbn13: 9780816614028)

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | compare prices…

new topic
discuss this book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

friend reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

This book is currently not featured on any Listopia lists. Add this book to your favorite list »

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 847)

sort: default (?) | date
filters: all | text-only

06/24/08

Charlie rated it:

Read in July, 2008

recommends it for: Anyone who likes a challenge

Finally, finally, I have finished this book, I was very definitely punching above my weight trying to read this, but overall I have enjoyed it thoroughly, well perhaps not enjoyed the actual reading of it, but this book has provided such a vast resource of ideas for me, I don't regret a single one of the many months that it has taken me to read through this, this is a huge personal achievement for me, now that I have read this I feel like I could read anything.

For the most of this bo...more Finally, finally, I have finished this book, I was very definitely punching above my weight trying to read this, but overall I have enjoyed it thoroughly, well perhaps not enjoyed the actual reading of it, but this book has provided such a vast resource of ideas for me, I don't regret a single one of the many months that it has taken me to read through this, this is a huge personal achievement for me, now that I have read this I feel like I could read anything.

For the most of this book the subject matter is suitably sprawling, but there is a fair chunk devoted to the pairs earlier musings on capitalism dissected in anti-Oedipus, having not read that book I feel it would have been useful for what comprises one of the main propositions of the book.

I had felt for a long time reading this book that it is better taken chapter by chapter and seen more as a collection of essays, but the duo manage to very skilfully marry all of the various ideas in the book together in the last chapter, a great deal of the ideas slot in together at this point, and you begin to see the bigger picture of what Deleuze & Guttari are getting at, and it really is quite an awe inspiring vision. That being said I still couldn't really profess to know what an abstract machine was, let alone differentiate between the different types of abstract machine. But I think that it is o.k. to not get this because they seem to be saying that this is the thing that links everything together and is the gel that holds together everything we understand, so ultimately the boys are setting their sights pretty high in terms of what they are trying to achieve.

Overall the main merit of this book is its skill in not treating things that are collectively subjective as being much closer to being objective. If enough people are aware of a phenomena then it is there whether it is objective or otherwise, and should be treated in this manner, adopting this stance Deleuze and Guttari delve into subjects many others feed to tread, and making some surprisingly logical and poignant observations.
(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

02/26/08

Scott rated it:

Read in February, 2008

This is basically a nonreview: like a restless nomad I would read several pages of one section and then find myself completely unable to go on, and then I’d move to the next one. Same for the next chapter and the next.

Right from the beginning I knew I had already read too much of this type of writing to have much patience for it. Here’re the authors justifying the fact that they affixed their names to the books they write:

“Why have we kept our own names? Out of hab...more This is basically a nonreview: like a restless nomad I would read several pages of one section and then find myself completely unable to go on, and then I’d move to the next one. Same for the next chapter and the next.

Right from the beginning I knew I had already read too much of this type of writing to have much patience for it. Here’re the authors justifying the fact that they affixed their names to the books they write:

“Why have we kept our own names? Out of habit, purely out of habit. To make ourselves unrecognizable in turn. To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but what makes us act, feel, and think. To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. We are no longer ourselves. We have been aided, inspired, multiplied.”

Sigh. How easy it is to date and place such writing: it could only be sixties-spawned poststructuralist theory. The way the book seeks to undermine “structured” or “phallocentric” (of course) thinking is humorlessly rigorous.

There’s one chapter comparing States to “chieftans,” and there is not one mention of any country and hardly any reference to a single specific example (references to “the Orient” don’t count). Such breezy abstractions are the antithesis of Foucault’s fine-grained analyses of actual social structures.

The main philosopher they rail against (and neatly simplify) is Plato, who was writing philosophy 2,400 years ago. Plato is like Satan to these theorists: Everything is his fault.

Like many theorists, the authors are at their worst when they turn their maniacal gaze onto fiction. But they can’t resist, they must say something. Here is a representative sentence concerning literature (they’re talking about Moby Dick and Kafka’s “Josephine the Singer”):

“It is always with the Anomalous that one enters into alliance to become-animal.” [SIC!]

This will sound brisk and simplistic (like most of this review, perhaps), but I really do think that theorists in general just don’t *get* fiction. They have no taste. (See, for a chilling example, anything Frederic Jameson has said about literature.)

I exclude Foucault, an insanely original thinker, from the above critical statements about theorists.
(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

2 comments

06/29/07

Sachin rated it:

(review of isbn 0826476945)

bookshelves: philsophy

Read in February, 2008

The second part of Deleuze and Guattari's two volume mind boggling and yet a playful critique of capitalism is full of insights and useful ideas. They do manage to take the language of critical theory forward from Lacan, Derrida and Foucault. One of the most intersting and useful metaphor is the metaphor of rhizome used instead of hierarchic logic of the metaphor of `tree'. One of the most important philosophical treatise of this `post modern' era.

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

04/03/07

courtney rated it:

(review of isbn 0826476945)

recommends it for: people smarter than i am

i loved reading this -- it was exciting and confrontational and challenged the primacy of psychoanalysis and all sorts of other 20th century "givens." to say that i READ the book is a lie. i read about 50-100 pages of it (the section dealing with the Body without Organs, a plane of being that we all strive towards) and plan of reading further into it.

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

11/21/08

Avinash rated it:

(review of isbn 0826460992)

Read in October, 2006

I actually have read this book. I have a vague idea of what its about, but I cannot claim to understand all of it. That in no way detracted from sheer reading pleasure.

Some of their ideas such as rhizomatic thinking and the body without organs are so beautiful you can stand and stare at them for hours. As for some of the other ideas, i have no clue what they're talking about.

They suggest that you read their book like listening to a concert. They also suggest that the book...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

05/21/07

Peter Anderson rated it:

wrote my MA thesis on these fuckers

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

03/26/08

Johnjbrantley rated it:

Read in January, 2009

Anyone who has touched this book will probably attest to its strangeness and difficulty. I went through this phase when I was really excited to figure out exactly what the authors had to say. I am not sure I ever got there, but I understood a good bit and then let go of it for a while.

Sometimes, with intellectual issues, it seems that the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, or should have been asked differently. What's cool about this book is that the authors ta...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

07/06/08

Chris rated it:

Read in September, 2008

Tired of seeing everything from the point of view of the individual? Bored of anthropomorphism? This might be the book for you. This book changed the way I think about thinking. Swirls in your pot of boiling water will seem as complex and contingent as hurricanes. The migration of humans will look like the crawling of ants. Most importantly, though, Deleuze and Guattari show everything as a process of strategic movement through territory, whether it be the formation of layers of sediment or noma...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

11/21/07

Matthew rated it:

bookshelves: epistemology

Read in December, 2004

recommends it for: Patient pedants

Yes, the book is pedantic. And wandering. And self-indulgent. And it might have more neologisms than all of Heidegger's work combined.

And, no, it's certainly not what 90% of contemporary Anglo-American philosophers call 'philosophy'.

But it is amazing. The essays in this book are fertile (fecund, I guess, if we are to get all Levinasian). While it is far from my normal philosophical agenda, I found many of the essays thought provoking, and even inspiring. But "schizo"...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

03/23/08

Ndrw rated it:

Read in August, 2006

recommended to Ndrw by: myself
recommends it for: people serious about changing thought

this was a major reading undertaking that i undertook with my buddy phil in august of 2006. we both agreed that it is a monster of a work -- the bibliography alone is absolutely astounding -- that we would both return to time and again throughout our lives. since 2006, i have returned to different parts of the book for different reasons. each time, i understand it, read it, hear it, feel it differently. i like to come away from my readings transformed. i give this book five stars because it is c...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

02/09/09

S added it

Sophisticated to the point of incomprehensibility to the average 21 year old American college student.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

11/29/08

John rated it:

bookshelves: currently-reading

Embarrassed to say I've never read this in its entirety before ...

Like this review? yes

add a comment

02/26/09

Mike marked it as to-read

bookshelves: owned, to-read, unread

I cannot wait for the day that I can start reading this.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

11/22/08

Conrad rated it:

Essential reading for the postmodern poet/cultural historian.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

06/29/09

Fabricio Muriana rated it:

Read in February, 2007

O livro mais ruminável ever.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

07/25/08

Tim rated it:

This book is absolutely insane. It is the equivalent of reading techno music, as one review I read put it. It is absolutely true.

If you think you understand everything being said in this book, you are an absolute liar. Both brilliant and insanely frustrating, you will not be able to adequately put any of this work into immediate practical practice. Think of it more as something that will seep into your pores, coming out at the right moments subconsciously. Not for the faint of b...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

12/22/07

Andrew added it

bookshelves: deleuze-deleuzeans, theeeeeeory

Read in January, 2008

Fucking wow. I read Deleuze for the first time when my sophomore year of college, and found him impenetrable and obnoxious, but now, after falling in love with some people inspired by Deleuze (Edward Soja, Antonio Negri, etc.), I'm back on the bandwagon. Not only does it provide a phenomenal perspective on the world that will help any student of literature, psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, art, etc., but also is extremely good at curing internal fascist malaise. Lovely!

Like this review? yes

add a comment

02/25/08

Zane rated it:

Read in July, 2008

This book took several reads and two book groups to destroy me. That sounds like a negative statement, but it is more of a disclaimer. Lots of contemporary social scientists have gleaned from it; there are many bad books that try to explain it, but few seemingly understand much of it (mostly because they are in a rush to get out tired publications and misreadings). It was an important book for thinking again.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

01/28/08

Elia Nelson rated it:

Read in February, 2008

It's impossible, but amazing. Reads like the thickest, stewiest poetry, but they're writing about the most fundamental aspects of language and thought. The subtitle just doesn't cover anything like the scope of these essays. It's both pragmatic and unbelievably lofty, and I love how, reading it, I am "wrapped in the sweetness of being a naked statement in the other's mouth" (131).

Like this review? yes

add a comment

05/11/07

David Bell rated it:

(review of isbn 0826476945)

bookshelves: currently-reading

Read some secondary literature first! Crammed with apparently nonsensical neologisms with not much of a way in until you've scurried to an introduction. Then it'll become apparent that a lot of this is the Emperor's New Clothes (although there's some genuinely new stuff here), but they're extremely wondrous clothes elegantly presented.

Like this review? yes

add a comment