Customer Reviews

Dissemination

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Where Derrida is concerned, the translator must be of equal worth to the superlative standards of the text. One of the reasons the man is considerd so hard to read is that he exploits ambiguity and wordplay in (his native) language to its fullest extent. For Barbara Johnson, the complexity of the french is not an obstacle, but allows her to search out parallel plays in english that mimic those in the original at the same time that they add their own nuances to this amazingly rich work. Understanding Derrida is important, but equally important is understanding what he is *not* - particularly when it comes to his philosophical method. This work helps to show clearly what a high regard he holds for the texts he "re-reads", and his particular use of the methods of deconstruction. For those new to Derrida, I recommend reading this work in conjunction with _Derrida for Beginners_ by Jim Powell, published by Writers and Readers press in New York. Powell's book helps you keep your bearings amongst the many twists and turns of _Dissemintation_.

My experience with this book is mostly limited to "Plato's Pharmacy," so my comments apply primarily to that essay, even though the book very much has structure as a whole. This is a nice introduction to Derrida, though still a very difficult read. If nothing else, the text that Derrida is "rereading" (Plato's Phaedrus, mostly) is short, though deep, and might well have been read previously by someone interested in philosophy. This spares the reader the trouble of engaging a new and difficult text merely as a preliminary to reading Derrida. And since Plato's Pharmacy is a reasonably short, though challenging, essay, it gives the reader the opportunity to finish a mostly self-contained piece by Derrida quickly enough so as not to have totally forgotten what was being discussed in the first place. Plato's Pharmacy revolves around Derrida's central questions about language and meaning. At the same time, it is recognized in the world of Platonic philosophy as an important interpretation (I have a significant interest in Plato, and found it fascinating as a commentary). So, while I am far from being well-read in Derrida, I recommend this book a challenging, interesting, and relatively accessible starting point.

If you can't understand Derrida very well, this is the book to read. Derrida is a consummate master of weaving word play and deft theory in his analysis of Mallarme, Plato and femininity. The book should especially be read by feminists, because his understanding of the feminine is the best I have seen from any male theorist in a long time. This book also figured prominently in my master's thesis that I wrote several years ago. So get this book!

Reading most of Jacques Dierrda's body of work is a task akin to Chinese water torture. Dierrda's project is to debunk the foundation of Western philosophy by subverting it's classic texts. Dierrida uses deconstructive readings of these texts to point out logical flaws, indeterminate meanings and self referrential errors which call into question all that we understand about the structuralist notion of the relationship of the self to the other. In short, Dierrda may be the most radical thinker in modern history, because the success of his project would leave western civilization in the lurch. If Plato was wrong, then all we have learned from the beginning of philosophy is rendered useless. Barbara Johnson's translation of this difficult text is the best grip on Dierrda's project that I have ever read. Stay away from other intrepetations of Derrida, Johnson's translation is elegant and erudite.

Of his own admission (p.341), "It is a Tower of Babel in which multiple languages and forms of writing bump into each other or mingle with each other, constantly being transformed and engendered through their most unreconcilable otherness to each other, an otherness which is strongly affirmed, too, for plurality here is bottomless and is not lived as negativity, with any nostalgia for lost unity." To read a text without knowing where it comes from or where it is going is Derrida's hopeless gift to philosophy and literature. If it weren't for professors of literature, he would have been buried deep in the trash heap of philosophy. As for the merits of translator Barbara Johnson, unreconcilable is not a word, even if Derrida intended it as such, just like his stupid differance, a word that isn't a word, though he said it was just to make a fortune.

As important as Of Gramatology, is this book in the thought of Derrida. If you want to get into Derrida's World you should read this book.

The umbilicus of this book is very large. It is one of the reasons I bought it, in spite of the fact that it is very large. Anacolutha virtually ooze out of its orifice, in a gush of putrescent verbiage. Despite it's immense dimensions, it is surprisingly devoid of daikon spritzer; I usually find some around. To enter into its Weltanschaung is a quixotic instance of deja vu, preceded by a perfunctory act of sesquipedalian seppuku. In conclusion, I would say that you are probably missing the point.

This book was cool man! It's like forget everything because nothing exists, right? I think the only other time I had this much fun was when I whooped Gabe's arse in Power Stone 2.