Re: archaeology was Bad Writing?

Clare wrote

>But I think Raymond Roussel would have to be Foucault's least read book
>(with good reason I might add)!!

Agreed: I quite liked it but it didn't really get used greatly in my work on
Foucault. As I recall I suggested that Foucault's work on literature often
paralleled his work on history, that the opening line of Birth of the Clinic
could easily stand as a description of Roussel. I was actually talked about
neglected (ie not used) rather than not read, because it is so difficult to
know whether books are read! Les mots et les choses may have been a
best-seller in France, but as someone else suggested, how many copies were
actually read, and how many 'just looked good on the shelves'?

But the neglected pile also includes books that have never appeared in
English, although they are collaborative pieces: Les machines a guerir (aux
origines de l'hopital moderne) and Les desordre des familles. The first of
these, along with the Rio lectures, make a really essential supplement to

>I agree Birth of the Clinic is
>neglected - I have seen people in the health related areas referring to
>Disicpline and Punish when a reference to Birth of the Clinic would have
>been much more helpful.

Yes, the Bunton & Robinson collection contains many examples of this sort of
thing. Let's hope the Foucault centre conference proceedings are published,
as they intimated they would be, and that an English translation can be
arranged so that it doesn't remain closed from the English speaking folks
who seem to be Foucault's largest current audience.

Best wishes


Partial thread listing: