Editing Gilles Deleuze (section)

=== Deleuze's interpretations ===
Deleuze's studies of individual philosophers and artists are purposely heterodox. Deleuze once famously described his method of interpreting philosophers as "buggery (''enculage'')", as sneaking behind an author and producing an offspring which is recognizably his, yet also monstrous and different.<ref>''Negotiations'', p. 6. See also: Daniel W. Smith, "The Inverse Side of the Structure: Zizek on Deleuze on Lacan", ''Criticism'' (2004): "Deleuze's all-too-well-known image of philosophical "buggery," which makes thinkers produce their own "monstrous" children"; Robert Sinnerbrink (in "Nomadology or Ideology? Zizek’s Critique of Deleuze", ''Parrhesia'' 1 (2006): 62–87) describes the "popular topic" of Deleuze's "notorious remarks"; Donald Callen (in "The Difficult Middle", ''Rhizomes'' 10 (Spring 2005)) describes "intellectual buggery" as "what Deleuze himself famously said about his encounters with the works of other philosophers." Deleuze's buggery analogy is also cited by, among many others, Brian Massumi, ''A User's Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia'' (MIT Press, 1992), p. 2; Slavoj Žižek, ''Organs without Bodies'' (Routledge, 2004), p. 48; Ian Buchanan, ''A Deleuzian Century?'' (Duke UP, 1999), p. 8; Jean-Jacques Lecercle, ''Deleuze and Language'' (Macmillan, 2002), p. 37; [[Gregg Lambert]], ''The Non-Philosophy of Gilles Deleuze'' (Continuum, 2002), p. x; [[Claire Colebrook]], ''Understanding Deleuze'' (Allen & Unwin, 2003), p. 73; and Charles Stivale, ''Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts'' (McGill-Queen's, 2005), p. 3.</ref>

The various monographs thus are not attempts to present what Nietzsche or Spinoza strictly intended, but re-stagings of their ideas in different and unexpected ways. Deleuze's peculiar readings aim to enact the creativity he believes is the acme of philosophical practice.<ref>''Desert Islands'', p. 144.</ref> A parallel in painting Deleuze points to is Francis Bacon's ''[[Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X|Study after Velázquez]]''—it is quite beside the point to say that Bacon "gets Velasquez wrong".<ref>''Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation'', pp. 46f: "[Bacon] let loose ... presences" already in Velázquez's painting. Cf. the passage cited above, from ''Negotiations'', p. 136: "The history of philosophy, rather than repeating what a philosopher says, has to say what he must have taken for granted, what he didn't say but is nonetheless present in what he did say."</ref> Similar considerations apply, in Deleuze's view, to his own uses of mathematical and scientific terms, ''pace'' critics such as [[Alan Sokal]]: "I'm not saying that [[Alain Resnais|Resnais]] and [[Ilya Prigogine|Prigogine]], or [[Jean-Luc Godard|Godard]] and [[René Thom|Thom]], are doing the same thing. I'm pointing out, rather, that there are remarkable similarities between scientific creators of functions and cinematic creators of images. And the same goes for philosophical concepts, since there are distinct concepts of these spaces."<ref>''Negotiations'', pp. 124–125.</ref>