Deleuze's work requires intimate familiarity with a great

>>8585160
I'm 20 pages into Andrew Culp's Dark Deleuze, and all I've read by Deleuze is his essay on Proust. Don't even think I finished it.

>>8585160
The rhizomatic method would be not bothering with specifics and constructing your own interpretation. Jump in at a random page, read the bit that interests you and conclude meaning for yourself

>>8585187
do you have a pdf?

>>8585160
He is difficult without any prior knowledge of philosophy. You can still read the book and take what you want, but that wouldn't be the same reading than a more philosophy concerned one.

>>8585160
>author writes in a Marxist and Psychoanalytic tradition
>/lit/ isn't it oppression that I have to have a baseline understanding of Marx and Freud to understand Deleuze

Why does everything have to be so easy??

You don't actually have to read very much at all before diving into AO. The hardest part about D&G is that they make up so many damn words. This is probably what's been stopping you.

But you should really be reading Badiou instead. So I guess this isn't a total loss.

>>8585783
>Jump in at a random page, read the bit that interests you and conclude meaning for yourself
that´s why postmodernism sucks

it really describes the mindset of those fucking millenials "Jump in, do whatever, have fun"

>>8585160

You should start with Deleuze's reflections on other philosophers particularly Nietzsche and have (semi)competent knowledge with regards to Structuralism particularly Lacan -> Althusser.

In all honesty Deleuze isn't that hard compared to some of the other nightmares within the tradition he walks in, he is just very jargon heavy so building up an understanding of terminology is the main barrier to entry.

Also you should checkout Manuel DeLanda's lectures on YouTube; he has a pretty good knack at making Deluze somewhat decipherable to people who may not have a firm grasp with this sort of philosophy.

>>8585989
I read philosophy for militants a few years back because the cover looked edgy (I seem to recall something in the book mentioning that being the point of the cover) but I couldn't tell you what it was about. I had read a considerable amount of Zizek before him which is why I knew the name at all.

Who would you suggest reading as a prerequisite to Badiou?

>>8586026
Thanks for the suggestion. I've actually been trying to figure out who to read before Nietzsche in order to better understand him...before I read him as a prereq to Deleuze.