Some ‘naïve’ (and un-thought through) thoughts…

Following from Mark’s post suggesting a full read and JD’s request for a naïve chapter by chapter engagement, I’m gong to sit somewhere between the two by giving some naive comments on the whole book! I have read the whole book, though far too quickly, so I am now re-reading more slowly. Therefore, I’m going to give some general thoughts (and hopefully later more specific thoughts on each chapter as I re-read…). These shouldn't be taken as strong views or conclusion, but more some vague feelings i've tried to articulate and haven't had the benefit of talking to the group about given my new 'life' in the provinces (or should that be Wilds as there is an "irreducibly strange dimension" to the "matter" (VM p 2-3) I've encountered up here!...). As such, if you can see where I'm off the mark or you disagree please post!!!

Based on my initial read, firstly, I should echo the positive comments everyone has made so far – one of the reasons I read the book too quickly the first time was because of its style and my interest. I think there is a lot of engaging material here and i've already started trying to bring it into something i'm writing. However, I also think there is something to be wary of in that and this is why I now want to retrace my steps a little more slowly.

Another reason for the speed of my first reading and my related desire to 'use' the book was the apparently familiarity of the arguments being made and how the quite smoothly slotted into a range of works I've read (I’m thinking of the work of a range of people in geography around Non-rep on affect, materiality, ANT etc.) which constitute something like a non-representational/affective 'image of thought'. As it stands, I'm struggling to articulate specific questions or highlight particular points of concern. This may be from reading and being influenced by earlier pieces (such as Bennett’s ‘Force of things’ paper) and from my first read I have no doubt blurred some of the subtleties with this other related work, but also I do wonder about the nature of the reading Bennett undertakes in VM. Obviously Bennett critically engages with a range of thinkers in the text but there is someone she is a little less critical of (if at all?) – Deleuze. I do wonder about the originality of her reading here and what she specifically adds. Of course there is the political project of the book, but I do almost wonder about the originality of the philosophical project or if this is more a relatively direct application of a broadly 'Deleuzian' position (of course it goes against certain prominent orthodoxies which Bennett suggests, but I’m struggling to see the originality of the way she is going against them [thought again, that's probably more a problem on my part and a product of my liking the arguments of the book/seeing the way it generally connects with the work I mention above]).

On the point of the philosophical project, as others here have pointed out, there is the implicit connection to Harman and his ‘object-oriented philosophy’. To return to the first question/theme JD pointed out from the Preface, I almost get the feeling that, especially given the brevity of the book, I wanted more philosophical exegesis rather than the regular negative definitions of vital materialism that recur, especially later in the book (For example, how Bergson was almost a vital materialist, but wasn’t quite etc.). From my vague memory of 'Guerrilla Metaphysics' and slightly less vague memory of Prince of Networks' this was something that was in (over!) abundance in Harman...? I wanted more of a positive outlining of a vital materialism, especially in the book’s culmination. I wanted to know more about how it was that matter has a vitality, not where it didn’t come from. At the moment it is a little slippery for me - but then again, this is one of the qualities of the book's style that I in other ways enjoyed - but then again, I might find it on the second read…


PS