At 22:07 19/10/1997 -0400, Spoon Collective wrote:
>
>Clare
>
>though the irony of admitting this on a Foucault list doesn't miss me,
>I'm an undergrad right now - as we speak.
>(there goes being taken seriously -- I'm going to have to re-sub*cribe
>under a new name now . . .)
>
Jon,
Well, I too am an undergrad although I haven't found Foucault's texts too
difficult, at least in terms of getting the main points. Some passages do
take a while to comprehend although if you find anything difficult, don't
hesitate to re-read it as many times as necessary.
As for other books on Foucault that I would recommend, I would say check out:
Blanchot, Maurice _Michel Foucault As I Imagine Him_ (my favorite so far)
Davidson, Arnold _Foucault And His Interlocutors_
Deleuze, Gilles _Foucault_
Hekman, Susan _Feminist Interpretations of Michel Foucault_
Hoy, David _Foucault: A Critical Reader_
Lechte, John _Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers_
Macey, David _The Lives of Michel Foucault_ (Biography)
Miller, James? _The Passion of Michel Foucault_
Rabinow, Paul _The Foucault Reader_
There are several others that I don't have so I can't really say much about
them but I would say all of those are worth looking at. There is also the
standard Dreyfus and Rabinow book (_Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism
and Hermeneutics_); I've only quickly looked thru it and read paragraphs
here and there and it didn't seem that good but perhaps my opinion would
change to that of others (in praise) if I had more of a chance to read it.
Definitely read the biographies. I've read the one by Miller, and am about
1/5 thru the Macey biography--Eribon also has one. I very much agree with
a note in the Deleuze book about many of Foucault's most personal
statements also being the most illuminating, and the biographies will give
you a good start.
As for other stuff, the Hoy book seems very good but I've only read a few
things from it. The _...Interlocutor_ book is a must, and I would say the
same for the Deleuze book but I haven't read much of it yet; but I'm very
much like Deleuze and from his other works, it should be quite good.
Maybe I'm not your average undergrad :) but most of those aren't too
difficult if you commit yourself to them.
And as everyone else said, Foucault is very worth reading. I've been out
of school (undergrad) for about a year now (but I haven't graduated yet)
and Foucault got me back interested in philosophy and made me decide to be
a professor. So I would say out of anything I've ever read (ever), he's
been the most influential to my life.
As a side note, are there any good bibliographic lists of Foucault related
works? I would be interested in one which includes abstracts or at least
short descriptions. Or could any one suggest resources (internet or
otherwise) where I could start tracking them down? I've decided I'm going
to write a book on Foucault, it may be years before it's done but I have
started. Anyway, there are many aspects of his works that are not covered
(or are covered but lightly) in the books I have and I'm wondering if those
topics are covered at all; they must be somewhere.
Gary
>I've read the 'Foucault for Beginners' book (published by Icon). It's
>not bad, but I felt that it skimped a bit - I don't know how you could
>really fit so many new ideas into a book like that - though I did like
>the pictures! It would have been useful for beginners with Foucault,
>but you'd need to talk about the ways in which it fell short of doing
>him justice.
>
>As harsh as it sounds, I'd have to agree that Foucault himself might be
>the best starting point - although it might as well have been left
>untranslated the first time I came across it.
>
>I'm an undergrad, though, so don't take my word for it.
>
>Incidentally, I have to say a big thanks for your book on Focault, which
>I found extremely helpful myself - particularly on some of the parts of
>foucault that aren't quite as 'sexy' as the others (to borrow from
>caricaturist Miller). I found it very good in an argument with an
>anthropology lecturer on Foucault's notion of epistemic rupture and
>history.
>