Stuart remarks
>Thanks for the reply. I quite enjoyed Les Anormaux - the main reason being
>how much there was that gave a hint of how the History of Sexuality series
>would have run in its originally planned form. Vol I is very disappointing -
>if taken on its own - but it seems very much an overview of ideas and
>positions to be further explored.
In my opinion this is definitely the main interest of Les anormaux
-seeing the outline of the six originally proposed volumes of The
History of Sexuality. I have now read the book and I have to say I
really didn't like it. Most of the interesting ideas can be found
better expressed elsewhere in Foucault. Probably the unremittingly
gory subject matter didn't help!! - cannibalism, necrophilia,
torture, horrific apparatuses to prevent children from masturbating,
leprosy, the plague, incest, murder, torture of hermaphrodites.
Foucault's longstanding interest in the gothic is given full reign.
He would have written some great gothic novels if he had written
novels. If nothing else, the book emphasises how hideous human beings
are to each other -(which incidentally is not a criticism - the more
this is exposed the better.)
I can see why Foucault was opposed to the publication of his lectures
(at least without him revising them as with other lectures published
during his lifetime)- Although there is a lot of interesting (if
gory) empirical detail in Les anormaux I don't think it's his best
work. But as I have said before, in my opinion Foucault kind of lost
it for a while in the 1970s. This is not to say that I think *all*
his work is bad during that decade. The lectures he gave in Brazil in
1974 were outstanding and I liked 'Two Lectures' and there is also
quite a bit of other stuff...
>on confession for La chair et le corps (planned vol II) was what led
>Foucault to abandon the original plan and work more historically than
>thematically. Daniel Defert told the editors of Les Anormaux that F had
>destroyed the manuscript for the original vol II.
I'm sorry to say this - but I think Foucault was right to destroy
it!! (provocation plus :-) ) and I'm glad that he decided to change
tack. The material in volume 4 of Dits et ecrits (writings from 1980
onwards) is really remarkable and in my view goes a long way towards
improving on and clarifying what he did in the 1970s.
Clare
--
*******************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.corel.com/products/index.htm
*******************************************************
>Thanks for the reply. I quite enjoyed Les Anormaux - the main reason being
>how much there was that gave a hint of how the History of Sexuality series
>would have run in its originally planned form. Vol I is very disappointing -
>if taken on its own - but it seems very much an overview of ideas and
>positions to be further explored.
In my opinion this is definitely the main interest of Les anormaux
-seeing the outline of the six originally proposed volumes of The
History of Sexuality. I have now read the book and I have to say I
really didn't like it. Most of the interesting ideas can be found
better expressed elsewhere in Foucault. Probably the unremittingly
gory subject matter didn't help!! - cannibalism, necrophilia,
torture, horrific apparatuses to prevent children from masturbating,
leprosy, the plague, incest, murder, torture of hermaphrodites.
Foucault's longstanding interest in the gothic is given full reign.
He would have written some great gothic novels if he had written
novels. If nothing else, the book emphasises how hideous human beings
are to each other -(which incidentally is not a criticism - the more
this is exposed the better.)
I can see why Foucault was opposed to the publication of his lectures
(at least without him revising them as with other lectures published
during his lifetime)- Although there is a lot of interesting (if
gory) empirical detail in Les anormaux I don't think it's his best
work. But as I have said before, in my opinion Foucault kind of lost
it for a while in the 1970s. This is not to say that I think *all*
his work is bad during that decade. The lectures he gave in Brazil in
1974 were outstanding and I liked 'Two Lectures' and there is also
quite a bit of other stuff...
>on confession for La chair et le corps (planned vol II) was what led
>Foucault to abandon the original plan and work more historically than
>thematically. Daniel Defert told the editors of Les Anormaux that F had
>destroyed the manuscript for the original vol II.
I'm sorry to say this - but I think Foucault was right to destroy
it!! (provocation plus :-) ) and I'm glad that he decided to change
tack. The material in volume 4 of Dits et ecrits (writings from 1980
onwards) is really remarkable and in my view goes a long way towards
improving on and clarifying what he did in the 1970s.
Clare
--
*******************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.corel.com/products/index.htm
*******************************************************