hahahah Woof! woof! wolf Wolf! bark! meeeeeeeeeeeeeeowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. there's a lovely moment in abcd.. with deleuze and  acat. besides, d+g were talking about 'little oedipal doggythings ' and they are disgusting. shit. i read mister dosse's bk in french, when it came out, and then later in english . but must admit the english trans. leaves a lot to be desired. he sound awful in english.-my ears were not happy; I think the trans. was done quickly.? in any case, it's dosse's biography, not theirs. i mean it's his take on their work__ one fair thing he did was to give Felix Guattari his due, which had not happened in  a while_( the aricle in critical theory had a tone of snob I didn't like, but I don't care..)......as for the rest, well, what did deleuze say to jervis at a talk once way back around  76  something along the lines of " we're not like much interested in the coherence of our work.. if something does not work for the earlier work i.e. book, we move on.' Deleuze as I remember him, often said, 'Notre travail our work....' meaning the work we are all doing, collectively, our work, desiring machines, assemblages, agencement. these negative thinkers such Zizek and his numerous imitator followers,are all in line for the glory of grants perhaps? the , well, I wish they'd been at vincennes. they'd have been chastened. and there's an english professor who's name escapes me this second who did a great essay about oedipal doggies and cats.  As for Laborde, well it was less chaotic than Kingsley hall where the Laing experiment happened__I'll try to remember it and bring it back another time. Keep up the good work Terence. You're a live wire and each of us kicks off our singularities in

whatever manner best suits us, some in philosophical work and discourse as you do, others in fiction, poetry, art, and simply ambling around sometimes. God Bless! O--opps I said God! O my SpinOZozer! (forgive this hasty epistle!)  A thing that  I found puzzling andyet have questions about , is why C. Parnet was not mentioned in the thank yous and acknowledgments... a bit of political differences perhaps? perhaps it was her choice?  she's gone very quiet for some years... but has edited the c.d recordings of Deleuze's lectures   (with Richard Pinhas)...they are amazing... .. Eric Alliez said in a talk he thought the book was good, and added there were mistakes in it..I 'd wished he outlined them and told everyone what he thought they are .... and I agree__ I got that feeling a lot was missing in his book.. also some of his chapter headings were  abit

stupid, or at corny...but Dosse did a work, not a final thing forever sort of 'authority' idea of bio. Besides one can theorize it's not likely that a biography is a more than a , more than its best moment.. it's a also a theoretical reconstruction of something that happened that's really escaped everyone... lots of us who 'were there'   are still 'there' in terms of thought.. and so on, and so, the work goes on it's not over by any stretch of the imagination. Dosse could not capture that. It was too great, and it was not his intent. I suspect, no I believe, that  the politics around the legacy of Guattari and Deleuze is hot, very hot, and it's not over by any means. More so than other thinker of the time, it resonates and flies away. It disturbs people in ways that Derridean deconstruction never did. Badiou tried to crush Deleuze's thought, and others like that horndog who now tells people he disagrees with "fuck you" (Zizek recently has taken on this habit), with his cute and failed attempt to turn around Deleuze 's body without organs (he wrote a book Deleuze organs without bodies?) Multitudes  magazine published about 6 essays refuting both Badiou and his follower Mister Z.... in any case, let the arrow fly dudes. Let it all come break down as Brigid Brophy says.