Deleuze and his sources: response to Anneleen Masschlein
Almeleen Masschclein puzzles very fruilrully ovcr the nature of the relation between DcJcuzc and D. H. Lawrence. As she points out, Dcleuzc is simultaneously a close, careful, and knowledgeable reader of Lawrence, as well as a highly selective, subtly distorting, and even negligent reader of Lawrence. He not only ignores the greal novels, he also ignores Lawrcnce1s 'misogynistic attacks on modem women' and his 'peculiar ideas on the education of children' (Masschelein). He favours in stead the critical and psychological works such as Pvchoanaly' and tile Unconscious, Fantasia if the Unconsciolls, and the essays in the posthumous collection Phoenix. He makes occasional mention of minor novels like Aaron's Rod and novellas such as The Plumed Serpent, but as Masschelein rightly observes these references are always of ambiguous intent and purpose. Deleuze simply extracts resonant catch-phrases, slogans, and tag-lines like 'dirly little secret' from Lawrence, rather than fully formcd ideas. Masschelein's critique of Delcuze's treatment of Lawrence directs us to a question well beyond this specific case: that of his relation to his sources in general, be they literary, historical, philosophical or scientific. This issue extends to all of DeJeuzc's (and Guattari's) concepts.