Always

works of his prime.'
 ----------------------------------------I think this is one  of the strongest  passages in their books.  (yes, for all sorts of reasons)

'We cannot claim such a status. Simply, the time has come for us
to ask what philosophy is. We had never stopped asking this question
previously, and we already had the answer, which has not changed:

philosophy is the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts.
 

But the answer not only had to take note of the question, it had to
determine its moment, its occasion and circumstances, its landscapes
and personae, its conditions and unknowns.

It had to be possible to
ask the question "between friends," as a secret or a confidence, or as
 

a challenge when confronting the enemy, and at the same time to

reach that twilight hour when one distrusts even the friend. It is then / (hand stops turning page_ book put down _ reader looks at friend

(CD_________the book's about to change  _ it switches from first person plural to the second person You) (the effect is somewhat different in English than in French but the impersonality of 'on' is retained and transformed in English into something singular and no less valuable)

(CD_______speaking of translation I think that the English trans. of the Double Biography _ (Francois Dosse's) is goin to be a botch and mess. I suspect it's going to be done too quickly and without any real consideration of the differences in English as it's read and written in North American and in England __ I think the english translation is going to try and do something it cant do whichis to be a compromise between written North American English and British English. It will mix and 'meld' the two and its going to come out sounding more like a period piece than a real translation of an important work of biography. _ On top of that there are mistakes in the French biography which need to be fixed, and I'd like to know if the English's gonna do that. I doubt  so. I get this feeling it's going to be messy. I hope that i am wrong. There are strange things with that french biography anyhow. _ For example: why is Claire Parnet not thanked in the page of acknowledgements. That is glaring and no explanation is put out to 'explain ' it. There are also changes in the preface chapter in french between the first printing and second printing. The 2nd. printing was December 2007. the first was either August or September of the same.   For those interested there are differences in the Prologue. - I am not even saying they are bad, but they are made in the F rench edition without explanation. that is not what i'd call clear scholarship nor does it explain its editorial principles. What will the English edition do with this? As for the Spanish I don't know how it goes, Ive not read it nor any reviews of it. nor do I read spanish. the lives of philosophers are covered in secrets. why shld. anyone expect less of Guattari and Deleuze? One ought to expect more. One ought to seek more of them. One is suspicious of biographers . Biographies are strange creatures. Foucault once said All my work is fiction but that does not make it less true. SO, maybe we can move that around : All biographies are true, but that does not make them less fictional.  ______________ ) (CD did you want to be thanked in the book?______________CP.

No. There were reasons for that  which  the book could not discuss. However, if you go back to a review by Roger Pol I think in the Monde or one of those papers back in the winter of 2001 there are hints as to why this might be the case. CD_You are evasive __ as a light smoke __ more so than me!

Cp __ brushes her hair back takes a last drag on her cigarette___ I learned that from you my friend and him and the others. its my ... aline of movement off you know... yes, off kilter.)

[Did you notice that  here the person in which 'they' speak changes as the text shift from We to You] (This is partially what creates the fascination and strength of this passage. There is a French critic _ whose name happily escapes me _ that claims AnTiOEdipis the worst bk. "Deleuze" wrote. He erases Guattari's co authorship _All twogether__) [I think he wrote this book not knowing or forgetting that Deleuze and Guattari wrote this last book of t heirs afterward. This afterward reshapes the first of the four books written them. The voice in it is doubled _ not more clearly but with a style tuned to its adaption at late age- I can no longer read the earlier book now without having read the first. I read the last book in French at first just after Guattari's death.A s if the words of death were speaking to me.) (the words of Guattari's recent death _ not death -t o me death does not speak except as a figure of speech)--------- The book sang just as Jean Genet's last book sang. Last books often sing. ) (t is said that Deleuze wrote most of the last book and that is good that only strengthens the beauty of the ir co

authorings _ their double becomings shining in the radiant sunshine of cre ating)
 

that you say, 

"That's what it was, but I don't know if I really said it,
or if I was convincing enough." 

And you realize that having said it or
been convincing hardly matters because, 

in any case, that is what it
is now.

We will see that concepts need conceptual personae [personnages
conceptuels"] that play a part in their definition. 

 

 

Friend is one such
persona that is even said to reveal the Greek origin of philo-sophy:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is beauty and love. One can go over it. mediate on it. read and rethink it. again and again. 

Its love and beauty