no rating or notes because I don't know what this book is about.

This took me four years of on and off reading to finish.... I still don’t know what a fucking BwO is. ( )

This took me four years of on and off reading to finish.... I still don’t know what a fucking BwO is. ( )

This paled by comparison with A Thousand Plateaus. Maybe Brian Massumi is the better translator. Maybe Anti-Oedipus was the first waffle you're supposed to throw out when breaking in a new iron. Maybe Freud vs. Marx is too dated for our now apocalyptic times. But no matter, this book gets a full four stars as a probably necessary practice run for Plateaus, its successor masterpiece and champion. ( )

Este é um ótimo livro, mas exige bastante do leitor. Do Deleuze, foi o que tive mais dificuldade até hoje. Há muitas boas críticas contundentes, aqui. Além disso, essa obra foi muito importante à sua época, só algumas décadas atrás. Ao mesmo tempo, houve muitos assuntos discutidos aqui que não me interessavam de forma alguma, razão pela qual, terminada a leitura, achei este trabalho menos interessante do que quando havia começado a lê-lo. Ainda assim, àqueles mais voltados à psicologia, estou certo que encontrarão um bom arcabouço de recursos e discussões aqui. Para mim, não foi exatamente o que eu estava procurando. ( )

(Backfilling my GR library with old grad-school books.) I remember thinking this was mere tedious provocative at the time and I've never thought much about its theories since. ( )

An artistic analysis of capitalism, western philosophy, and psychoanalysis in the 20th Century. The authors' writing is at times playful, but often extremely dense, and this is one of the hardest books I have ever read for comprehension (marred also by the typos in this edition). The book is a study of inherent socio-psychological problems in capitalist systems, and forms a critique of western philosophy and Freudian psychoanalysis. To write in any detail about Anti-Oedipus is nearly impossible, as it is dense and brimming with ideas. Hard to recommend, because if the inaccessibility of language, but equally hard not to recommend, as one of the most important and influential philosophy books of the 20th Century. ( )

I've plowed through this abstruse text because I've been hanging out with critical theory kids (who make videos à la ContraPoints) about such things, and I quickly realized "Oh man, I'm getting 10% of this...!" Well, it's my 10%...!". Much of it seems like mental masturbation, as in a monkey idiosyncratically masturbating with its left foot, but then you read a paragraph about Proust, say, which drops into a niche in your soul, and that's depositive. An "introduction to the nonfascist life," according to none other than Michel Foucault. P.S. Finished this in a psychiatric hospital after a psychotic break, appropriately enough.

Psychoanalysis was from the start, still is, and perhaps always will be a well-constituted church and a form of treatment based on a set of beliefs that only the very faithful could adhere to, i.e., those who believe in a security that amounts to being lost in the herd and defined in terms of common and external goals.

My review from 1994 would be gushing, one near febrile abuzz with the insights revealed in this suicide vest of a book. My 2011 self appreciates the arsenal of metaphors and allusions established. It also recognizes the limits of application of this in ordinary life. That is the present project, no? I mean we are living in some guise, whether or not as bodies without organs; but we find ourselves trapped in associations both molar and molecular: all the while feeling for stones in our pockets as we're prohibited from lounging on the turf outside. ( )

This is Deleuze at his most abstruse. I would consider this work to be for post-modernism to what Hegel's phenomenology is to metaphysics. Nevertheless, it is an incredible analysis!

One must first consider the linguistical backbone of all post-modern thought in order to at the very least entertain the initial precepts. What was most marveling to me was the books oscillation between both synthetic and analytic thought, which are virtually mutually exclusive in philosophical thought. Much like Heidegger it is very difficult to get started, but once you do it takes hold and the end result is very rewarding.

The most interesting facet put forward is the inversion of modern thought which takes internal factors as givens and externalizes them in accordance with rationality and by extension science. By deconstructing the Oedipal rationale to a base at which external forces are what inscribe and determine drives, they liberate science and invert perspective.

In so doing they consequently affirm Nietzsche's anthropological book "Genealogy of Morals" in their analytic deductions. By breaking down the ideations of individuals they shed light on how revolutionaries by necessity turn into despots through the very desires which revolted against, simply becoming the new majority (or oppressive minority). The only true freedom is that which can refrain from aiming towards a goal (thus creating new breaks) by separating from all social statistical fields and allowing all desires to flow (the Ubermanch).

There is much more to be said of this book (for example their development of inclusive disjunction and the whole as merely another part added to the aggregate of partials), but that would take a much more detailed study - to the extent of a thesis - which I will not suffer you to :) ( )

This is one of those books that makes you see everything in a different light. There was a lot I did not fully understand. I also felt that the book could have been a lot shorter. I had no background in psychology which definitely added to the difficulty.

As someone interested in economics, this took a 30,000 ft view of the capitalist world. It helped me to understand why capitalism is despised by many without being too ideological. ( )

great book. wonderful to discover how Deleuze&Guattari structured their collaborative work.

I find myself drawn to Guattari as the more significant of the two thinkers that are one. Is it the wasp or the orchid becoming orchid or wasp?

esp:
Introduction: Love Story between an Orchid and a Wasp ( )

Please see review on my blog: Underground Man

http://undergroundmangeomatt.blogspot.com/2009/05/book-review-anti-oedipus-capit... ( )

in my top 5 theory books of all time, and one of my favorite books across genre/divides, period. the style makes me smile every time i read it, and the point is one of the most important to me as well. ( )

150 DEL 1

philosophy

re-reading much of guattari and deleuze's work as I write my novel. ( )