difficult but satisfying (use a beginners guide if possible), 15 Jul 2005
OK, its heavy reading- but boy is it rewarding. For me, Derrida's deconstruction of Saussure, Levis-Strauss, and Rousseau leaves us with an uncanny realisation of the unsuitability of language for philosophy. For me the basic idea was that philosophy like Saussure's conception of identity through difference, relies upon binary opposition favouring a positive pole over a negative one- for Derrida a metaphysical precept emanating from Logocentrism (the idea that speach is an origin and writing a mere supplement).

Saussure's linguistic project of identity through difference which so influenced the French social sciences seems failed as Derrida delights us with moments of Saussurean binary opposition caving in itself through . At times I felt presented with almost Godellean moments. How Derrida does it, I do not know- I have tried myself to conflate 'opposites' the way he does without much success.

Be warned that this is heavy going and in my opinion requires (at least)a rudimentary prior knowledge of various thinkers (Heidegger, Freud, Nietzche, Saussure [and the Post-/Structuralist projects generally- especially Lacan and Levi-Strauss]). What helped me through this book was the 'Routledge Critical Thinkers: Jacques Derrida' by Nicholas Royle (London:2003)and the illustrated Introducing Derrida by Jeff Collins and Bill Mayblin (Icon Books, 2000). Referring to the excellent Spivak 'introduction' as a safety-net may also be of some help. Good Luck! (you'll need it).

Verbose or ironic?, 19 Dec 2000
I do share some sympathy with a reviewer on amazon.com who, having come to the end of the book, found himself asking "And....?" It is unfortunate that Derrida's verbosity means that many of the most profound points in this book are made when Derrida is quoting others.

I suspect that one may partly put this down to a poor translation (French after all only has half the vocabulary that English has -I am told that Descartes, depsite actually being originally translated from the Latin, is a lot easier to read in French than English). HOWEVER, is Derrida just one of those irritating academics who believe that their arguments will seem all the more forceful if they use convoluted and difficult language OR is he rather playing a little ironic game with the reader, simply to demonstrate how far written language has become detached from its natural roots and therefore what pains one must go to in order to come close to expressing what one really means?

Whatever the case may be, despite one having to spend hours dissecting each page of text, Derrida does expertly combine a variety of opinions and provides some very interesting, albeit rather difficult, reading.

Fantastic Book, 30 Jul 1999
Really deep. The preface by Spivak is a great introduction to deconstruction.

Does Grammatology contain the Phaedrus essay?, 11 Mar 1999
What an abomination his treatment of Plato is. He is right to pick out the pharmakon for special treatment, but he misses one simple point: the criticism of writing is put in the mouth of an Egyptian god! Plato may speak through Socrates' mouth, but I guarantee you he never speaks as Theuth (oh, all the stupid wordplay on Theuth). Theuth is a god, and he criticizes writing--in the name of religion! Why can none of the commentators see that? "Plato criticizes writing"--what obtuse blather. Writing is the pharmakon of philosophy, for crying out loud. It is the unmediated voice which narcotizes--see the ciccadas at noon, who were once men who did nothing but sing such that they died and became ciccadas, and who threaten to put S and P to sleep. It is only logos which makes the connection between mind (nous) and human form (Benardete). If S and P can stay awake, they will get a gift from the gods--the pharmakon of writing from the god Theuth! Writing is actually philosophy--because what is Theuth worried about? Why is writing making everyone forget? Because writing=philosophy, not differance. So there, Jacques--j'accuse you of incompetance.

Derrida is a great writer and he is profound., 15 Jan 1999
Derrida's wit is super and he really knows how to be profound. Although I think he should take a biology and a logic course. Outstanding effort!

difficult but satisfying (use a beginners guide if possible), 15 Jul 2005
OK, its heavy reading- but boy is it rewarding. For me, Derrida's deconstruction of Saussure, Levis-Strauss, and Rousseau leaves us with an uncanny realisation of the unsuitability of language for philosophy. For me the basic idea was that philosophy like Saussure's conception of identity through difference, relies upon binary opposition favouring a positive pole over a negative one- for Derrida a metaphysical precept emanating from Logocentrism (the idea that speach is an origin and writing a mere supplement).

Saussure's linguistic project of identity through difference which so influenced the French social sciences seems failed as Derrida delights us with moments of Saussurean binary opposition caving in itself through . At times I felt presented with almost Godellean moments. How Derrida does it, I do not know- I have tried myself to conflate 'opposites' the way he does without much success.

Be warned that this is heavy going and in my opinion requires (at least)a rudimentary prior knowledge of various thinkers (Heidegger, Freud, Nietzche, Saussure [and the Post-/Structuralist projects generally- especially Lacan and Levi-Strauss]). What helped me through this book was the 'Routledge Critical Thinkers: Jacques Derrida' by Nicholas Royle (London:2003)and the illustrated Introducing Derrida by Jeff Collins and Bill Mayblin (Icon Books, 2000). Referring to the excellent Spivak 'introduction' as a safety-net may also be of some help. Good Luck! (you'll need it).

Verbose or ironic?, 19 Dec 2000
I do share some sympathy with a reviewer on amazon.com who, having come to the end of the book, found himself asking "And....?" It is unfortunate that Derrida's verbosity means that many of the most profound points in this book are made when Derrida is quoting others.

I suspect that one may partly put this down to a poor translation (French after all only has half the vocabulary that English has -I am told that Descartes, depsite actually being originally translated from the Latin, is a lot easier to read in French than English). HOWEVER, is Derrida just one of those irritating academics who believe that their arguments will seem all the more forceful if they use convoluted and difficult language OR is he rather playing a little ironic game with the reader, simply to demonstrate how far written language has become detached from its natural roots and therefore what pains one must go to in order to come close to expressing what one really means?

Whatever the case may be, despite one having to spend hours dissecting each page of text, Derrida does expertly combine a variety of opinions and provides some very interesting, albeit rather difficult, reading.

Fantastic Book, 30 Jul 1999
Really deep. The preface by Spivak is a great introduction to deconstruction.

Does Grammatology contain the Phaedrus essay?, 11 Mar 1999
What an abomination his treatment of Plato is. He is right to pick out the pharmakon for special treatment, but he misses one simple point: the criticism of writing is put in the mouth of an Egyptian god! Plato may speak through Socrates' mouth, but I guarantee you he never speaks as Theuth (oh, all the stupid wordplay on Theuth). Theuth is a god, and he criticizes writing--in the name of religion! Why can none of the commentators see that? "Plato criticizes writing"--what obtuse blather. Writing is the pharmakon of philosophy, for crying out loud. It is the unmediated voice which narcotizes--see the ciccadas at noon, who were once men who did nothing but sing such that they died and became ciccadas, and who threaten to put S and P to sleep. It is only logos which makes the connection between mind (nous) and human form (Benardete). If S and P can stay awake, they will get a gift from the gods--the pharmakon of writing from the god Theuth! Writing is actually philosophy--because what is Theuth worried about? Why is writing making everyone forget? Because writing=philosophy, not differance. So there, Jacques--j'accuse you of incompetance.

Derrida is a great writer and he is profound., 15 Jan 1999
Derrida's wit is super and he really knows how to be profound. Although I think he should take a biology and a logic course. Outstanding effort!

Don't be fooled, 07 Apr 2007
Derrida was a master of bulls**t who piled empty verbiage onto a few scrawny ideas. I recommend Ellis's "Against Deconstruction" as a damning critique of Derrida's central "philosophical" legacy. Reviewers always say that you have to fight through a lot of opacity to get to the good stuff, but whenever this is said (Heidegger...Sartre...Lacan) one ought to be wary. Is it not natural that if a thinker had some really brilliant, earth-shattering ideas, he'd want to explain them as clearly as he possibly could to a waiting world? I think that when a reviewer says that a writer like Derrida is "worth the struggle", they are really loath to admit to themselves that they have put in all that work for nothing. Save yourself the bother.

Take it or leave it, 24 Oct 2003
Reviewing Derrida is trying to put value on something that goes beyond the categories of "like" or dislike". Derrida is as opaque, cryptic, oblique and impossible to follow as you can imagine, but if one has the courage and pertinacity to follow through (as much as it can be followed), it discovers a spirit of extraordinary brilliance and originality. In any case, Derrida is already part of 20th century history, so no educated Westerner can afford to overlook him. As for the book itself ( I guess that is the point of this review), it comes in a cheap package, so I presume it targets a wide readership. If this is so, one could use a minimal commentary or an introduction, and, definitely, a concise glossary.

Dense, difficult, and fantastically rewarding, 27 Nov 2001
Do not approach this book as you would, say, a reader or an anthology of Derrida's work. This is a dense collection of essays, and at a glance you are liable to be overwhelmed, as I was, by his references, his language and his style. Alan Bass has done a tremendous job of translating Derrida's notoriously playful text, rendering it as clear as possible without undermining the complexity and intertextuality that is so necessary to its flow. This does not mean, however, that it is by any means easy to read. Be prepared to grapple with it and to be frustrated, to re-read a paragraph or sentence several times and still be confused. This is deliberate, although Derrida is not as sadistically obtuse as many critics have damned him as being. Instead, this difficult prose style is intended to make the reader examine the interplay between himself and what he reads, to question the authority of the text, to realise how much we take for granted when we engage in the act of reading.
If you have already come across Derrida's essay 'Structure, Sign and Play' and are intrigued, then this book offers the next logical step, but be prepared. Unless you are superhumanly familiar with the works of Husserl, Edmond Jabes and Foucault, then many of the references here will leave you running to catch up. Get past this, however, and you will find your conceptions about the world challenged in a way that they never have before.

difficult but satisfying (use a beginners guide if possible), 15 Jul 2005
OK, its heavy reading- but boy is it rewarding. For me, Derrida's deconstruction of Saussure, Levis-Strauss, and Rousseau leaves us with an uncanny realisation of the unsuitability of language for philosophy. For me the basic idea was that philosophy like Saussure's conception of identity through difference, relies upon binary opposition favouring a positive pole over a negative one- for Derrida a metaphysical precept emanating from Logocentrism (the idea that speach is an origin and writing a mere supplement).

Saussure's linguistic project of identity through difference which so influenced the French social sciences seems failed as Derrida delights us with moments of Saussurean binary opposition caving in itself through . At times I felt presented with almost Godellean moments. How Derrida does it, I do not know- I have tried myself to conflate 'opposites' the way he does without much success.

Be warned that this is heavy going and in my opinion requires (at least)a rudimentary prior knowledge of various thinkers (Heidegger, Freud, Nietzche, Saussure [and the Post-/Structuralist projects generally- especially Lacan and Levi-Strauss]). What helped me through this book was the 'Routledge Critical Thinkers: Jacques Derrida' by Nicholas Royle (London:2003)and the illustrated Introducing Derrida by Jeff Collins and Bill Mayblin (Icon Books, 2000). Referring to the excellent Spivak 'introduction' as a safety-net may also be of some help. Good Luck! (you'll need it).

Verbose or ironic?, 19 Dec 2000
I do share some sympathy with a reviewer on amazon.com who, having come to the end of the book, found himself asking "And....?" It is unfortunate that Derrida's verbosity means that many of the most profound points in this book are made when Derrida is quoting others.

I suspect that one may partly put this down to a poor translation (French after all only has half the vocabulary that English has -I am told that Descartes, depsite actually being originally translated from the Latin, is a lot easier to read in French than English). HOWEVER, is Derrida just one of those irritating academics who believe that their arguments will seem all the more forceful if they use convoluted and difficult language OR is he rather playing a little ironic game with the reader, simply to demonstrate how far written language has become detached from its natural roots and therefore what pains one must go to in order to come close to expressing what one really means?

Whatever the case may be, despite one having to spend hours dissecting each page of text, Derrida does expertly combine a variety of opinions and provides some very interesting, albeit rather difficult, reading.

Fantastic Book, 30 Jul 1999
Really deep. The preface by Spivak is a great introduction to deconstruction.

Does Grammatology contain the Phaedrus essay?, 11 Mar 1999
What an abomination his treatment of Plato is. He is right to pick out the pharmakon for special treatment, but he misses one simple point: the criticism of writing is put in the mouth of an Egyptian god! Plato may speak through Socrates' mouth, but I guarantee you he never speaks as Theuth (oh, all the stupid wordplay on Theuth). Theuth is a god, and he criticizes writing--in the name of religion! Why can none of the commentators see that? "Plato criticizes writing"--what obtuse blather. Writing is the pharmakon of philosophy, for crying out loud. It is the unmediated voice which narcotizes--see the ciccadas at noon, who were once men who did nothing but sing such that they died and became ciccadas, and who threaten to put S and P to sleep. It is only logos which makes the connection between mind (nous) and human form (Benardete). If S and P can stay awake, they will get a gift from the gods--the pharmakon of writing from the god Theuth! Writing is actually philosophy--because what is Theuth worried about? Why is writing making everyone forget? Because writing=philosophy, not differance. So there, Jacques--j'accuse you of incompetance.

Derrida is a great writer and he is profound., 15 Jan 1999
Derrida's wit is super and he really knows how to be profound. Although I think he should take a biology and a logic course. Outstanding effort!

Don't be fooled, 07 Apr 2007
Derrida was a master of bulls**t who piled empty verbiage onto a few scrawny ideas. I recommend Ellis's "Against Deconstruction" as a damning critique of Derrida's central "philosophical" legacy. Reviewers always say that you have to fight through a lot of opacity to get to the good stuff, but whenever this is said (Heidegger...Sartre...Lacan) one ought to be wary. Is it not natural that if a thinker had some really brilliant, earth-shattering ideas, he'd want to explain them as clearly as he possibly could to a waiting world? I think that when a reviewer says that a writer like Derrida is "worth the struggle", they are really loath to admit to themselves that they have put in all that work for nothing. Save yourself the bother.

Take it or leave it, 24 Oct 2003
Reviewing Derrida is trying to put value on something that goes beyond the categories of "like" or dislike". Derrida is as opaque, cryptic, oblique and impossible to follow as you can imagine, but if one has the courage and pertinacity to follow through (as much as it can be followed), it discovers a spirit of extraordinary brilliance and originality. In any case, Derrida is already part of 20th century history, so no educated Westerner can afford to overlook him. As for the book itself ( I guess that is the point of this review), it comes in a cheap package, so I presume it targets a wide readership. If this is so, one could use a minimal commentary or an introduction, and, definitely, a concise glossary.

Dense, difficult, and fantastically rewarding, 27 Nov 2001
Do not approach this book as you would, say, a reader or an anthology of Derrida's work. This is a dense collection of essays, and at a glance you are liable to be overwhelmed, as I was, by his references, his language and his style. Alan Bass has done a tremendous job of translating Derrida's notoriously playful text, rendering it as clear as possible without undermining the complexity and intertextuality that is so necessary to its flow. This does not mean, however, that it is by any means easy to read. Be prepared to grapple with it and to be frustrated, to re-read a paragraph or sentence several times and still be confused. This is deliberate, although Derrida is not as sadistically obtuse as many critics have damned him as being. Instead, this difficult prose style is intended to make the reader examine the interplay between himself and what he reads, to question the authority of the text, to realise how much we take for granted when we engage in the act of reading.
If you have already come across Derrida's essay 'Structure, Sign and Play' and are intrigued, then this book offers the next logical step, but be prepared. Unless you are superhumanly familiar with the works of Husserl, Edmond Jabes and Foucault, then many of the references here will leave you running to catch up. Get past this, however, and you will find your conceptions about the world challenged in a way that they never have before.

No way in, 26 Aug 2004
Royle's book really is not suitable for a generally educated reader or student who seeks help with entry into Derrida's world. He, imaginatively and perhaps quite reasonably, situates himself entirely within Derrida's mysterious language and patterns of operation and offers a picture of complexity and puzzlement painted in colours of equal complexity and puzzlement. He is absolutely unwilling to risk any inappropriate simplifications for the benefit of guiding the reader gently towards Derrida.

I would have liked to see some challenge to or at reflection on the (at least apparent) obscurity and complexity of Derrida's writing, rather than simply a joyful and exuberant wandering in his world of paradox and slipperiness. This is fine for those who are already comfortable there, but not helpful to the new student.

Ultimately, for the newcomer, the whole book fails to answer the central question, explicitly dodged in the first chapter, of "Why Derrida?". I ended the book as I began, interested in Derrida because so many people I respect report to me his worth, eager to feel what that value is, yet clueless.

Constructing Derrida..., 01 Feb 2004
Nicholas Royle's text on Jacques Derrida is part of a recent series put out by the Routledge Press, designed under the general editorial direction of Robert Eaglestone (Royal Holloway, University of London), to explore the most recent and exciting ideas in intellectual development during the past century or so. To this end, figures such as Martin Heidegger, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, Paul Ricoeur, and other influential thinkers in critical thought are highlighted in the series, planned to include at least 21 volumes in all.

Royle's text, following the pattern of the others, includes background information on Derrida and its significance, the key ideas and sources, and Derrida's continuing impact on other thinkers. As the series preface indicates, no critical thinker arises in a vacuum, so the context, influences and broader cultural environment are all important as a part of the study, something with which Derrida might agree.

Why is Derrida included in this series? It is hard to come up with a more wide-ranging and influential thinker in the twentieth century than Jacques Derrida. While starting out in the literary field as a primary focus, his thought and intellectual influence has extended far beyond to almost every academic field. Particularly in the areas of philosophy, politics, law, theology, sociology, psychology and science, Derrida's influence will continue to be significant for a number of reasons.

Royle's text is very interesting, as I knew it would be from the start, but one of the truly surprising aspects of this text was that it was fun to read. From the very first page, when I saw that the first comment on the text was from Derrida himself, I knew that inside there would be creativity and humour, pieces of interest and insight. Derrida's comment, with which I completely agree, is that this text is 'Excellent, strong, clear and original.' One might consider it ironic that in a text dealing essentially with an overview of another's thought, there would be little room for originality. However, this is to miss a great deal of what Derrida tries to say, and something that one gets out of this text. All things are new and renewed; even the re-hash of old thoughts becomes unique and original.

I did not know it at the time I began reading, but the book is designed so that each chapter can be a stand-alone essay, peripherally related to each other, but not dependent upon any particular order of reading. I say this because I started near the end of the book. There is a chapter entitled 'Poetry Break' – being an erstwhile poet of sorts, this was automatically of interest. But when I noticed that Royle had selected Coleridge's 'Kubla Kahn' as the example. This is one of my favourite poems, and the application of Derrida's principles opened up interesting insights. One key insight (if I am permitted to use that phrase, as Royle argues that the idea of key insights is a foreign concept for Derrida) has to do with the unreadability of the poem – how can we tell what it means? It goes beyond reason, certainly, and is hardly just a drug-induced reverie. It contains a gift and an element of poetry difficult to discern, an infinite and unknowable element that nonetheless speaks to us in unique ways.

Part of the problem of putting Derrida into a series like this is that the series requires the identification of key ideas. Royle states that there is few things less like Derrida's thought than to attempt to organise his ideas into a string of 'key ideas'. Here the humour is introduced again – one feature of the Routledge texts is to have key idea and explication boxes, separated out from the rest of the text. That doesn't happen much in this volume, as Royle tries to remain clear of putting 'Jacque in the Box'. The only such pull-text box asks the question, 'What is a box?' and proceeds to deconstruct and destroy the idea of using this as a working principle in the book.

Ah, there, I've said it. If there is a key idea to be identified in Derrida's work, it is Deconstruction. This is perhaps what Derrida is destined to be known for, the relentless pursuit of deconstructing everything in his path. Derrida himself doesn't care much for the word, but the underlying purpose is crucial. Deconstruction works from the principle that everything is divisible, and that there is value in shaking things up, a sort of seismic communication theory. This leads to the ideas of text, supplement, differance, and even monsters.

Monsters, you say? Surely a lot of modern and postmodern thought is monstrous, in a number of ways. Derrida would say yes! The monstrous is always around us – Shelley's Frankenstein is not simply a monster tale, but is also a moral and political lesson. We can apply the idea of the monstrous to the future – it is something unknown, and therefore frightening; monsters cease to be monsters once they are domesticated, once they are known. Derrida believes that much of religious faith is based upon the monstrous – Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, Jesus on the cross, these are monstrous things, that once they become known and transformed in new ways, cease their monstrosity. Of course, some of the ways in which these have been domesticated becomes once again monstrous.

As do the other volumes in this series, Royle concludes with an annotated bibliography of works by Derrida, works on Derrida, interview transcripts (Royle mentions a number of times that Derrida is known for talking as much as writing), and a listing of the top ten initial suggestions for those who want an accessible introduction to Derrida's work.

Intriguing and unexpectedly humourous, this is one of the better books I've read in a very long time.

it lets you think, 29 Nov 2003
If you want to feel what Derrida and deconstruction are like, this book is for you.

Always clear and rigorous, Royle cuts to the chase and writes with an immediate, infectious pleasure in thinking and reading. Beginners, the half-interested and long-term fans of Derrida will all find much that is new to them here: Royle is extremely well-informed about Derrida - he's read the lot, and reports accurately on areas of Derrida's work that more workaday accounts seem barely aware of. He explains specialist terms like 'supplement' and 'differance' with a sense not just of what they mean but of why they matter and where they might go.

Lastly, what's really special about this book for me is the way Royle writes. The words are ones we use and live in, but in his hands funnier, stranger, more moving, more alive than ever.

Royle might not remember what it means to be ignorant, 12 May 2003
I'm not an English native- speaker, so maybe a lot of what Royle is trying to explain is destined to be lost in my amateurish translation and not too well informed interpretation. In Dutch there doesn't seem to be much on Derrida that promises as much as this Routledge-survey by Royle: an introduction that doesn't require substantial prior knowledge of any of Derrida's ideas and themes.
Royle's way of explaining Derrida, by instantly putting aside the editor's remarks on the series (Routledge critical thinkers) is original, but at the same time seems to be strained, programmative and, in retrospect, predictable. In my opinion it would have been a better idea to approach the Derrida madness (figuratively) in a conventional way, not from- so to speak- the inside of Derrida's insights, but from the conventional, traditional outside.
Secondly, Royle- at least in my opinion- doesn't live up to the aforementioned promise: a lot of the allusions on literary works etc. presuppose some familiarity with the works, themes and ideas of the writers, which are linked, in some way, to those of Derrida. I'm not saying Derrida still is just a name- a reference to the bearer of the name- but I think I'll have to turn to Derrida's texts now, because I feel I still don't have a clue what this man stands for. To that extent, Royle introduced me to Derrida, but only to that extent.

Royle might not remember what it means to be ignorant, 12 May 2003
I'm not an English native- speaker, so maybe a lot of what Royle is trying to explain is destined to be lost in my amateurish translation and not too well informed interpretation. In Dutch there doesn't seem to be much on Derrida that promises as much as this Routledge-survey by Royle: an introduction that doesn't require substantial prior knowledge of any of Derrida's ideas.
Royle's way of explaining Derrida, by instantly putting aside the editor's remarks on the series (Routledge critical thinkers) is original, but at the same time seems to be strained, programmative and, in retrospect, predictable. In my opinion it would have been a better idea to approach the Derrida madness (figuratively) in a conventional way, not from- so to speak- the inside of Derrida's insights, but from the conventional, traditional outside.
Secondly, Royle- at least in my opinion- doesn't live up to the aforementioned promises: a lot of the allusions on literary works etc. presuppose some familiarity with the works, themes and ideas of the writers. I'm not saying Derrida still is just a name- a reference to the bearer of the name- but I think I'll have to turn to Derrida's texts now, because I feel I still don't have a clue what this man stands for. To that extent, Royle introduced me to Derrida, but only to that extent.

difficult but satisfying (use a beginners guide if possible), 15 Jul 2005
OK, its heavy reading- but boy is it rewarding. For me, Derrida's deconstruction of Saussure, Levis-Strauss, and Rousseau leaves us with an uncanny realisation of the unsuitability of language for philosophy. For me the basic idea was that philosophy like Saussure's conception of identity through difference, relies upon binary opposition favouring a positive pole over a negative one- for Derrida a metaphysical precept emanating from Logocentrism (the idea that speach is an origin and writing a mere supplement).

Saussure's linguistic project of identity through difference which so influenced the French social sciences seems failed as Derrida delights us with moments of Saussurean binary opposition caving in itself through . At times I felt presented with almost Godellean moments. How Derrida does it, I do not know- I have tried myself to conflate 'opposites' the way he does without much success.

Be warned that this is heavy going and in my opinion requires (at least)a rudimentary prior knowledge of various thinkers (Heidegger, Freud, Nietzche, Saussure [and the Post-/Structuralist projects generally- especially Lacan and Levi-Strauss]). What helped me through this book was the 'Routledge Critical Thinkers: Jacques Derrida' by Nicholas Royle (London:2003)and the illustrated Introducing Derrida by Jeff Collins and Bill Mayblin (Icon Books, 2000). Referring to the excellent Spivak 'introduction' as a safety-net may also be of some help. Good Luck! (you'll need it).

Verbose or ironic?, 19 Dec 2000
I do share some sympathy with a reviewer on amazon.com who, having come to the end of the book, found himself asking "And....?" It is unfortunate that Derrida's verbosity means that many of the most profound points in this book are made when Derrida is quoting others.

I suspect that one may partly put this down to a poor translation (French after all only has half the vocabulary that English has -I am told that Descartes, depsite actually being originally translated from the Latin, is a lot easier to read in French than English). HOWEVER, is Derrida just one of those irritating academics who believe that their arguments will seem all the more forceful if they use convoluted and difficult language OR is he rather playing a little ironic game with the reader, simply to demonstrate how far written language has become detached from its natural roots and therefore what pains one must go to in order to come close to expressing what one really means?

Whatever the case may be, despite one having to spend hours dissecting each page of text, Derrida does expertly combine a variety of opinions and provides some very interesting, albeit rather difficult, reading.

Fantastic Book, 30 Jul 1999
Really deep. The preface by Spivak is a great introduction to deconstruction.

Does Grammatology contain the Phaedrus essay?, 11 Mar 1999
What an abomination his treatment of Plato is. He is right to pick out the pharmakon for special treatment, but he misses one simple point: the criticism of writing is put in the mouth of an Egyptian god! Plato may speak through Socrates' mouth, but I guarantee you he never speaks as Theuth (oh, all the stupid wordplay on Theuth). Theuth is a god, and he criticizes writing--in the name of religion! Why can none of the commentators see that? "Plato criticizes writing"--what obtuse blather. Writing is the pharmakon of philosophy, for crying out loud. It is the unmediated voice which narcotizes--see the ciccadas at noon, who were once men who did nothing but sing such that they died and became ciccadas, and who threaten to put S and P to sleep. It is only logos which makes the connection between mind (nous) and human form (Benardete). If S and P can stay awake, they will get a gift from the gods--the pharmakon of writing from the god Theuth! Writing is actually philosophy--because what is Theuth worried about? Why is writing making everyone forget? Because writing=philosophy, not differance. So there, Jacques--j'accuse you of incompetance.

Derrida is a great writer and he is profound., 15 Jan 1999
Derrida's wit is super and he really knows how to be profound. Although I think he should take a biology and a logic course. Outstanding effort!

Don't be fooled, 07 Apr 2007
Derrida was a master of bulls**t who piled empty verbiage onto a few scrawny ideas. I recommend Ellis's "Against Deconstruction" as a damning critique of Derrida's central "philosophical" legacy. Reviewers always say that you have to fight through a lot of opacity to get to the good stuff, but whenever this is said (Heidegger...Sartre...Lacan) one ought to be wary. Is it not natural that if a thinker had some really brilliant, earth-shattering ideas, he'd want to explain them as clearly as he possibly could to a waiting world? I think that when a reviewer says that a writer like Derrida is "worth the struggle", they are really loath to admit to themselves that they have put in all that work for nothing. Save yourself the bother.

Take it or leave it, 24 Oct 2003
Reviewing Derrida is trying to put value on something that goes beyond the categories of "like" or dislike". Derrida is as opaque, cryptic, oblique and impossible to follow as you can imagine, but if one has the courage and pertinacity to follow through (as much as it can be followed), it discovers a spirit of extraordinary brilliance and originality. In any case, Derrida is already part of 20th century history, so no educated Westerner can afford to overlook him. As for the book itself ( I guess that is the point of this review), it comes in a cheap package, so I presume it targets a wide readership. If this is so, one could use a minimal commentary or an introduction, and, definitely, a concise glossary.

Dense, difficult, and fantastically rewarding, 27 Nov 2001
Do not approach this book as you would, say, a reader or an anthology of Derrida's work. This is a dense collection of essays, and at a glance you are liable to be overwhelmed, as I was, by his references, his language and his style. Alan Bass has done a tremendous job of translating Derrida's notoriously playful text, rendering it as clear as possible without undermining the complexity and intertextuality that is so necessary to its flow. This does not mean, however, that it is by any means easy to read. Be prepared to grapple with it and to be frustrated, to re-read a paragraph or sentence several times and still be confused. This is deliberate, although Derrida is not as sadistically obtuse as many critics have damned him as being. Instead, this difficult prose style is intended to make the reader examine the interplay between himself and what he reads, to question the authority of the text, to realise how much we take for granted when we engage in the act of reading.
If you have already come across Derrida's essay 'Structure, Sign and Play' and are intrigued, then this book offers the next logical step, but be prepared. Unless you are superhumanly familiar with the works of Husserl, Edmond Jabes and Foucault, then many of the references here will leave you running to catch up. Get past this, however, and you will find your conceptions about the world challenged in a way that they never have before.

No way in, 26 Aug 2004
Royle's book really is not suitable for a generally educated reader or student who seeks help with entry into Derrida's world. He, imaginatively and perhaps quite reasonably, situates himself entirely within Derrida's mysterious language and patterns of operation and offers a picture of complexity and puzzlement painted in colours of equal complexity and puzzlement. He is absolutely unwilling to risk any inappropriate simplifications for the benefit of guiding the reader gently towards Derrida.

I would have liked to see some challenge to or at reflection on the (at least apparent) obscurity and complexity of Derrida's writing, rather than simply a joyful and exuberant wandering in his world of paradox and slipperiness. This is fine for those who are already comfortable there, but not helpful to the new student.

Ultimately, for the newcomer, the whole book fails to answer the central question, explicitly dodged in the first chapter, of "Why Derrida?". I ended the book as I began, interested in Derrida because so many people I respect report to me his worth, eager to feel what that value is, yet clueless.

Constructing Derrida..., 01 Feb 2004
Nicholas Royle's text on Jacques Derrida is part of a recent series put out by the Routledge Press, designed under the general editorial direction of Robert Eaglestone (Royal Holloway, University of London), to explore the most recent and exciting ideas in intellectual development during the past century or so. To this end, figures such as Martin Heidegger, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, Paul Ricoeur, and other influential thinkers in critical thought are highlighted in the series, planned to include at least 21 volumes in all.

Royle's text, following the pattern of the others, includes background information on Derrida and its significance, the key ideas and sources, and Derrida's continuing impact on other thinkers. As the series preface indicates, no critical thinker arises in a vacuum, so the context, influences and broader cultural environment are all important as a part of the study, something with which Derrida might agree.

Why is Derrida included in this series? It is hard to come up with a more wide-ranging and influential thinker in the twentieth century than Jacques Derrida. While starting out in the literary field as a primary focus, his thought and intellectual influence has extended far beyond to almost every academic field. Particularly in the areas of philosophy, politics, law, theology, sociology, psychology and science, Derrida's influence will continue to be significant for a number of reasons.

Royle's text is very interesting, as I knew it would be from the start, but one of the truly surprising aspects of this text was that it was fun to read. From the very first page, when I saw that the first comment on the text was from Derrida himself, I knew that inside there would be creativity and humour, pieces of interest and insight. Derrida's comment, with which I completely agree, is that this text is 'Excellent, strong, clear and original.' One might consider it ironic that in a text dealing essentially with an overview of another's thought, there would be little room for originality. However, this is to miss a great deal of what Derrida tries to say, and something that one gets out of this text. All things are new and renewed; even the re-hash of old thoughts becomes unique and original.

I did not know it at the time I began reading, but the book is designed so that each chapter can be a stand-alone essay, peripherally related to each other, but not dependent upon any particular order of reading. I say this because I started near the end of the book. There is a chapter entitled 'Poetry Break' – being an erstwhile poet of sorts, this was automatically of interest. But when I noticed that Royle had selected Coleridge's 'Kubla Kahn' as the example. This is one of my favourite poems, and the application of Derrida's principles opened up interesting insights. One key insight (if I am permitted to use that phrase, as Royle argues that the idea of key insights is a foreign concept for Derrida) has to do with the unreadability of the poem – how can we tell what it means? It goes beyond reason, certainly, and is hardly just a drug-induced reverie. It contains a gift and an element of poetry difficult to discern, an infinite and unknowable element that nonetheless speaks to us in unique ways.

Part of the problem of putting Derrida into a series like this is that the series requires the identification of key ideas. Royle states that there is few things less like Derrida's thought than to attempt to organise his ideas into a string of 'key ideas'. Here the humour is introduced again – one feature of the Routledge texts is to have key idea and explication boxes, separated out from the rest of the text. That doesn't happen much in this volume, as Royle tries to remain clear of putting 'Jacque in the Box'. The only such pull-text box asks the question, 'What is a box?' and proceeds to deconstruct and destroy the idea of using this as a working principle in the book.

Ah, there, I've said it. If there is a key idea to be identified in Derrida's work, it is Deconstruction. This is perhaps what Derrida is destined to be known for, the relentless pursuit of deconstructing everything in his path. Derrida himself doesn't care much for the word, but the underlying purpose is crucial. Deconstruction works from the principle that everything is divisible, and that there is value in shaking things up, a sort of seismic communication theory. This leads to the ideas of text, supplement, differance, and even monsters.

Monsters, you say? Surely a lot of modern and postmodern thought is monstrous, in a number of ways. Derrida would say yes! The monstrous is always around us – Shelley's Frankenstein is not simply a monster tale, but is also a moral and political lesson. We can apply the idea of the monstrous to the future – it is something unknown, and therefore frightening; monsters cease to be monsters once they are domesticated, once they are known. Derrida believes that much of religious faith is based upon the monstrous – Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, Jesus on the cross, these are monstrous things, that once they become known and transformed in new ways, cease their monstrosity. Of course, some of the ways in which these have been domesticated becomes once again monstrous.

As do the other volumes in this series, Royle concludes with an annotated bibliography of works by Derrida, works on Derrida, interview transcripts (Royle mentions a number of times that Derrida is known for talking as much as writing), and a listing of the top ten initial suggestions for those who want an accessible introduction to Derrida's work.

Intriguing and unexpectedly humourous, this is one of the better books I've read in a very long time.

it lets you think, 29 Nov 2003
If you want to feel what Derrida and deconstruction are like, this book is for you.

Always clear and rigorous, Royle cuts to the chase and writes with an immediate, infectious pleasure in thinking and reading. Beginners, the half-interested and long-term fans of Derrida will all find much that is new to them here: Royle is extremely well-informed about Derrida - he's read the lot, and reports accurately on areas of Derrida's work that more workaday accounts seem barely aware of. He explains specialist terms like 'supplement' and 'differance' with a sense not just of what they mean but of why they matter and where they might go.

Lastly, what's really special about this book for me is the way Royle writes. The words are ones we use and live in, but in his hands funnier, stranger, more moving, more alive than ever.

Royle might not remember what it means to be ignorant, 12 May 2003
I'm not an English native- speaker, so maybe a lot of what Royle is trying to explain is destined to be lost in my amateurish translation and not too well informed interpretation. In Dutch there doesn't seem to be much on Derrida that promises as much as this Routledge-survey by Royle: an introduction that doesn't require substantial prior knowledge of any of Derrida's ideas and themes.
Royle's way of explaining Derrida, by instantly putting aside the editor's remarks on the series (Routledge critical thinkers) is original, but at the same time seems to be strained, programmative and, in retrospect, predictable. In my opinion it would have been a better idea to approach the Derrida madness (figuratively) in a conventional way, not from- so to speak- the inside of Derrida's insights, but from the conventional, traditional outside.
Secondly, Royle- at least in my opinion- doesn't live up to the aforementioned promise: a lot of the allusions on literary works etc. presuppose some familiarity with the works, themes and ideas of the writers, which are linked, in some way, to those of Derrida. I'm not saying Derrida still is just a name- a reference to the bearer of the name- but I think I'll have to turn to Derrida's texts now, because I feel I still don't have a clue what this man stands for. To that extent, Royle introduced me to Derrida, but only to that extent.

Royle might not remember what it means to be ignorant, 12 May 2003
I'm not an English native- speaker, so maybe a lot of what Royle is trying to explain is destined to be lost in my amateurish translation and not too well informed interpretation. In Dutch there doesn't seem to be much on Derrida that promises as much as this Routledge-survey by Royle: an introduction that doesn't require substantial prior knowledge of any of Derrida's ideas.
Royle's way of explaining Derrida, by instantly putting aside the editor's remarks on the series (Routledge critical thinkers) is original, but at the same time seems to be strained, programmative and, in retrospect, predictable. In my opinion it would have been a better idea to approach the Derrida madness (figuratively) in a conventional way, not from- so to speak- the inside of Derrida's insights, but from the conventional, traditional outside.
Secondly, Royle- at least in my opinion- doesn't live up to the aforementioned promises: a lot of the allusions on literary works etc. presuppose some familiarity with the works, themes and ideas of the writers. I'm not saying Derrida still is just a name- a reference to the bearer of the name- but I think I'll have to turn to Derrida's texts now, because I feel I still don't have a clue what this man stands for. To that extent, Royle introduced me to Derrida, but only to that extent.

Derrida never claimed to be a Marxist,-what's the fuss?, 02 Sep 1999
Fred Engels said once that each generation of philosophers try arduously to soar higher in the sky than the previous, and here although one can see the value in the Left engaging with such a formidable thinker as Derrida, I would think the Left had better things to do,like the set of probelmatics concerning the globalization/exploitation of international labour,the eroding of the democratic state,the banality of neo-liberalism and its future. Perhaps the ultimate question here is what value emits itself after we read the various brilliant but ultimately marginal excursions/commentary into Derrida's work "Spectres of Marx". Derrida never claimed to be a Marxist and it is self-evident that he is merely attempting to arrest Marxism as countless others have, expunging it away,diluting its content from the level of intellectual discourse it rightly deserves. Derrida's body of work takened wholly refuses the content of such an arduous task ,being continually directly referred backwards to Heidegger and an affinity of the durational frame of the past reprisals into "what was" rather than what can be. Jameson's piece from a few years ago is the most comprehensive here, for he is always an excellent assembler of varigated,yet focused tracking like with a conceptual microscope the intellectual history of Derrida's thought. But Derrida's response to Jameson's response where Jameson's had erroneous placed the aesthetic in the field of play is a good example of indulgent useless bickering. Of course Derrida denies that the aesthetic is an integral component of his thought although he depends upon it continuously for his performative acts at creating new jargons,the conceptual 'writing' freedoms and cross genres (is this literature,a lecture- sketch, or philosophy, or art??) and incessant cross and inter-breeding of thoughts,fragments of excerpts, half-references to the Western panoply of thought from Freud,Heidegger etc. I think that is the ultimate problem with Derrida,he cannot convincingly deny any perspective,(although he has say obviously the opposite in interviews) in that his work seems to ascribe to conceptual indulgences and playfullness. Eagleton is also brilliant here and takes the more New Left perspective,which is old now, which still has vibrant points which again ultimately ponders the relationship of Marxism to various other ideological departures as deconstruction,Messianism and post-structuralism.I think ultimately we are barking up the wrong tree here for ultimately the lens which Derrida looks through(his body of thought) is so far removed from the problematics which Marxism(defined here in it's widest liberal sense) has developed throughout its long and tortured history,that again there are indeed larger dimensions to pursue.

difficult but satisfying (use a beginners guide if possible), 15 Jul 2005
OK, its heavy reading- but boy is it rewarding. For me, Derrida's deconstruction of Saussure, Levis-Strauss, and Rousseau leaves us with an uncanny realisation of the unsuitability of language for philosophy. For me the basic idea was that philosophy like Saussure's conception of identity through difference, relies upon binary opposition favouring a positive pole over a negative one- for Derrida a metaphysical precept emanating from Logocentrism (the idea that speach is an origin and writing a mere supplement).

Saussure's linguistic project of identity through difference which so influenced the French social sciences seems failed as Derrida delights us with moments of Saussurean binary opposition caving in itself through . At times I felt presented with almost Godellean moments. How Derrida does it, I do not know- I have tried myself to conflate 'opposites' the way he does without much success.

Be warned that this is heavy going and in my opinion requires (at least)a rudimentary prior knowledge of various thinkers (Heidegger, Freud, Nietzche, Saussure [and the Post-/Structuralist projects generally- especially Lacan and Levi-Strauss]). What helped me through this book was the 'Routledge Critical Thinkers: Jacques Derrida' by Nicholas Royle (London:2003)and the illustrated Introducing Derrida by Jeff Collins and Bill Mayblin (Icon Books, 2000). Referring to the excellent Spivak 'introduction' as a safety-net may also be of some help. Good Luck! (you'll need it).

Verbose or ironic?, 19 Dec 2000
I do share some sympathy with a reviewer on amazon.com who, having come to the end of the book, found himself asking "And....?" It is unfortunate that Derrida's verbosity means that many of the most profound points in this book are made when Derrida is quoting others.

I suspect that one may partly put this down to a poor translation (French after all only has half the vocabulary that English has -I am told that Descartes, depsite actually being originally translated from the Latin, is a lot easier to read in French than English). HOWEVER, is Derrida just one of those irritating academics who believe that their arguments will seem all the more forceful if they use convoluted and difficult language OR is he rather playing a little ironic game with the reader, simply to demonstrate how far written language has become detached from its natural roots and therefore what pains one must go to in order to come close to expressing what one really means?

Whatever the case may be, despite one having to spend hours dissecting each page of text, Derrida does expertly combine a variety of opinions and provides some very interesting, albeit rather difficult, reading.

Fantastic Book, 30 Jul 1999
Really deep. The preface by Spivak is a great introduction to deconstruction.

Does Grammatology contain the Phaedrus essay?, 11 Mar 1999
What an abomination his treatment of Plato is. He is right to pick out the pharmakon for special treatment, but he misses one simple point: the criticism of writing is put in the mouth of an Egyptian god! Plato may speak through Socrates' mouth, but I guarantee you he never speaks as Theuth (oh, all the stupid wordplay on Theuth). Theuth is a god, and he criticizes writing--in the name of religion! Why can none of the commentators see that? "Plato criticizes writing"--what obtuse blather. Writing is the pharmakon of philosophy, for crying out loud. It is the unmediated voice which narcotizes--see the ciccadas at noon, who were once men who did nothing but sing such that they died and became ciccadas, and who threaten to put S and P to sleep. It is only logos which makes the connection between mind (nous) and human form (Benardete). If S and P can stay awake, they will get a gift from the gods--the pharmakon of writing from the god Theuth! Writing is actually philosophy--because what is Theuth worried about? Why is writing making everyone forget? Because writing=philosophy, not differance. So there, Jacques--j'accuse you of incompetance.

Derrida is a great writer and he is profound., 15 Jan 1999
Derrida's wit is super and he really knows how to be profound. Although I think he should take a biology and a logic course. Outstanding effort!

Don't be fooled, 07 Apr 2007
Derrida was a master of bulls**t who piled empty verbiage onto a few scrawny ideas. I recommend Ellis's "Against Deconstruction" as a damning critique of Derrida's central "philosophical" legacy. Reviewers always say that you have to fight through a lot of opacity to get to the good stuff, but whenever this is said (Heidegger...Sartre...Lacan) one ought to be wary. Is it not natural that if a thinker had some really brilliant, earth-shattering ideas, he'd want to explain them as clearly as he possibly could to a waiting world? I think that when a reviewer says that a writer like Derrida is "worth the struggle", they are really loath to admit to themselves that they have put in all that work for nothing. Save yourself the bother.

Take it or leave it, 24 Oct 2003
Reviewing Derrida is trying to put value on something that goes beyond the categories of "like" or dislike". Derrida is as opaque, cryptic, oblique and impossible to follow as you can imagine, but if one has the courage and pertinacity to follow through (as much as it can be followed), it discovers a spirit of extraordinary brilliance and originality. In any case, Derrida is already part of 20th century history, so no educated Westerner can afford to overlook him. As for the book itself ( I guess that is the point of this review), it comes in a cheap package, so I presume it targets a wide readership. If this is so, one could use a minimal commentary or an introduction, and, definitely, a concise glossary.

Dense, difficult, and fantastically rewarding, 27 Nov 2001
Do not approach this book as you would, say, a reader or an anthology of Derrida's work. This is a dense collection of essays, and at a glance you are liable to be overwhelmed, as I was, by his references, his language and his style. Alan Bass has done a tremendous job of translating Derrida's notoriously playful text, rendering it as clear as possible without undermining the complexity and intertextuality that is so necessary to its flow. This does not mean, however, that it is by any means easy to read. Be prepared to grapple with it and to be frustrated, to re-read a paragraph or sentence several times and still be confused. This is deliberate, although Derrida is not as sadistically obtuse as many critics have damned him as being. Instead, this difficult prose style is intended to make the reader examine the interplay between himself and what he reads, to question the authority of the text, to realise how much we take for granted when we engage in the act of reading.
If you have already come across Derrida's essay 'Structure, Sign and Play' and are intrigued, then this book offers the next logical step, but be prepared. Unless you are superhumanly familiar with the works of Husserl, Edmond Jabes and Foucault, then many of the references here will leave you running to catch up. Get past this, however, and you will find your conceptions about the world challenged in a way that they never have before.

No way in, 26 Aug 2004
Royle's book really is not suitable for a generally educated reader or student who seeks help with entry into Derrida's world. He, imaginatively and perhaps quite reasonably, situates himself entirely within Derrida's mysterious language and patterns of operation and offers a picture of complexity and puzzlement painted in colours of equal complexity and puzzlement. He is absolutely unwilling to risk any inappropriate simplifications for the benefit of guiding the reader gently towards Derrida.

I would have liked to see some challenge to or at reflection on the (at least apparent) obscurity and complexity of Derrida's writing, rather than simply a joyful and exuberant wandering in his world of paradox and slipperiness. This is fine for those who are already comfortable there, but not helpful to the new student.

Ultimately, for the newcomer, the whole book fails to answer the central question, explicitly dodged in the first chapter, of "Why Derrida?". I ended the book as I began, interested in Derrida because so many people I respect report to me his worth, eager to feel what that value is, yet clueless.

Constructing Derrida..., 01 Feb 2004
Nicholas Royle's text on Jacques Derrida is part of a recent series put out by the Routledge Press, designed under the general editorial direction of Robert Eaglestone (Royal Holloway, University of London), to explore the most recent and exciting ideas in intellectual development during the past century or so. To this end, figures such as Martin Heidegger, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, Paul Ricoeur, and other influential thinkers in critical thought are highlighted in the series, planned to include at least 21 volumes in all.

Royle's text, following the pattern of the others, includes background information on Derrida and its significance, the key ideas and sources, and Derrida's continuing impact on other thinkers. As the series preface indicates, no critical thinker arises in a vacuum, so the context, influences and broader cultural environment are all important as a part of the study, something with which Derrida might agree.

Why is Derrida included in this series? It is hard to come up with a more wide-ranging and influential thinker in the twentieth century than Jacques Derrida. While starting out in the literary field as a primary focus, his thought and intellectual influence has extended far beyond to almost every academic field. Particularly in the areas of philosophy, politics, law, theology, sociology, psychology and science, Derrida's influence will continue to be significant for a number of reasons.

Royle's text is very interesting, as I knew it would be from the start, but one of the truly surprising aspects of this text was that it was fun to read. From the very first page, when I saw that the first comment on the text was from Derrida himself, I knew that inside there would be creativity and humour, pieces of interest and insight. Derrida's comment, with which I completely agree, is that this text is 'Excellent, strong, clear and original.' One might consider it ironic that in a text dealing essentially with an overview of another's thought, there would be little room for originality. However, this is to miss a great deal of what Derrida tries to say, and something that one gets out of this text. All things are new and renewed; even the re-hash of old thoughts becomes unique and original.

I did not know it at the time I began reading, but the book is designed so that each chapter can be a stand-alone essay, peripherally related to each other, but not dependent upon any particular order of reading. I say this because I started near the end of the book. There is a chapter entitled 'Poetry Break' – being an erstwhile poet of sorts, this was automatically of interest. But when I noticed that Royle had selected Coleridge's 'Kubla Kahn' as the example. This is one of my favourite poems, and the application of Derrida's principles opened up interesting insights. One key insight (if I am permitted to use that phrase, as Royle argues that the idea of key insights is a foreign concept for Derrida) has to do with the unreadability of the poem – how can we tell what it means? It goes beyond reason, certainly, and is hardly just a drug-induced reverie. It contains a gift and an element of poetry difficult to discern, an infinite and unknowable element that nonetheless speaks to us in unique ways.

Part of the problem of putting Derrida into a series like this is that the series requires the identification of key ideas. Royle states that there is few things less like Derrida's thought than to attempt to organise his ideas into a string of 'key ideas'. Here the humour is introduced again – one feature of the Routledge texts is to have key idea and explication boxes, separated out from the rest of the text. That doesn't happen much in this volume, as Royle tries to remain clear of putting 'Jacque in the Box'. The only such pull-text box asks the question, 'What is a box?' and proceeds to deconstruct and destroy the idea of using this as a working principle in the book.

Ah, there, I've said it. If there is a key idea to be identified in Derrida's work, it is Deconstruction. This is perhaps what Derrida is destined to be known for, the relentless pursuit of deconstructing everything in his path. Derrida himself doesn't care much for the word, but the underlying purpose is crucial. Deconstruction works from the principle that everything is divisible, and that there is value in shaking things up, a sort of seismic communication theory. This leads to the ideas of text, supplement, differance, and even monsters.

Monsters, you say? Surely a lot of modern and postmodern thought is monstrous, in a number of ways. Derrida would say yes! The monstrous is always around us – Shelley's Frankenstein is not simply a monster tale, but is also a moral and political lesson. We can apply the idea of the monstrous to the future – it is something unknown, and therefore frightening; monsters cease to be monsters once they are domesticated, once they are known. Derrida believes that much of religious faith is based upon the monstrous – Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, Jesus on the cross, these are monstrous things, that once they become known and transformed in new ways, cease their monstrosity. Of course, some of the ways in which these have been domesticated becomes once again monstrous.

As do the other volumes in this series, Royle concludes with an annotated bibliography of works by Derrida, works on Derrida, interview transcripts (Royle mentions a number of times that Derrida is known for talking as much as writing), and a listing of the top ten initial suggestions for those who want an accessible introduction to Derrida's work.

Intriguing and unexpectedly humourous, this is one of the better books I've read in a very long time.

it lets you think, 29 Nov 2003
If you want to feel what Derrida and deconstruction are like, this book is for you.

Always clear and rigorous, Royle cuts to the chase and writes with an immediate, infectious pleasure in thinking and reading. Beginners, the half-interested and long-term fans of Derrida will all find much that is new to them here: Royle is extremely well-informed about Derrida - he's read the lot, and reports accurately on areas of Derrida's work that more workaday accounts seem barely aware of. He explains specialist terms like 'supplement' and 'differance' with a sense not just of what they mean but of why they matter and where they might go.

Lastly, what's really special about this book for me is the way Royle writes. The words are ones we use and live in, but in his hands funnier, stranger, more moving, more alive than ever.

Royle might not remember what it means to be ignorant, 12 May 2003
I'm not an English native- speaker, so maybe a lot of what Royle is trying to explain is destined to be lost in my amateurish translation and not too well informed interpretation. In Dutch there doesn't seem to be much on Derrida that promises as much as this Routledge-survey by Royle: an introduction that doesn't require substantial prior knowledge of any of Derrida's ideas and themes.
Royle's way of explaining Derrida, by instantly putting aside the editor's remarks on the series (Routledge critical thinkers) is original, but at the same time seems to be strained, programmative and, in retrospect, predictable. In my opinion it would have been a better idea to approach the Derrida madness (figuratively) in a conventional way, not from- so to speak- the inside of Derrida's insights, but from the conventional, traditional outside.
Secondly, Royle- at least in my opinion- doesn't live up to the aforementioned promise: a lot of the allusions on literary works etc. presuppose some familiarity with the works, themes and ideas of the writers, which are linked, in some way, to those of Derrida. I'm not saying Derrida still is just a name- a reference to the bearer of the name- but I think I'll have to turn to Derrida's texts now, because I feel I still don't have a clue what this man stands for. To that extent, Royle introduced me to Derrida, but only to that extent.

Royle might not remember what it means to be ignorant, 12 May 2003
I'm not an English native- speaker, so maybe a lot of what Royle is trying to explain is destined to be lost in my amateurish translation and not too well informed interpretation. In Dutch there doesn't seem to be much on Derrida that promises as much as this Routledge-survey by Royle: an introduction that doesn't require substantial prior knowledge of any of Derrida's ideas.
Royle's way of explaining Derrida, by instantly putting aside the editor's remarks on the series (Routledge critical thinkers) is original, but at the same time seems to be strained, programmative and, in retrospect, predictable. In my opinion it would have been a better idea to approach the Derrida madness (figuratively) in a conventional way, not from- so to speak- the inside of Derrida's insights, but from the conventional, traditional outside.
Secondly, Royle- at least in my opinion- doesn't live up to the aforementioned promises: a lot of the allusions on literary works etc. presuppose some familiarity with the works, themes and ideas of the writers. I'm not saying Derrida still is just a name- a reference to the bearer of the name- but I think I'll have to turn to Derrida's texts now, because I feel I still don't have a clue what this man stands for. To that extent, Royle introduced me to Derrida, but only to that extent.

Derrida never claimed to be a Marxist,-what's the fuss?, 02 Sep 1999
Fred Engels said once that each generation of philosophers try arduously to soar higher in the sky than the previous, and here although one can see the value in the Left engaging with such a formidable thinker as Derrida, I would think the Left had better things to do,like the set of probelmatics concerning the globalization/exploitation of international labour,the eroding of the democratic state,the banality of neo-liberalism and its future. Perhaps the ultimate question here is what value emits itself after we read the various brilliant but ultimately marginal excursions/commentary into Derrida's work "Spectres of Marx". Derrida never claimed to be a Marxist and it is self-evident that he is merely attempting to arrest Marxism as countless others have, expunging it away,diluting its content from the level of intellectual discourse it rightly deserves. Derrida's body of work takened wholly refuses the content of such an arduous task ,being continually directly referred backwards to Heidegger and an affinity of the durational frame of the past reprisals into "what was" rather than what can be. Jameson's piece from a few years ago is the most comprehensive here, for he is always an excellent assembler of varigated,yet focused tracking like with a conceptual microscope the intellectual history of Derrida's thought. But Derrida's response to Jameson's response where Jameson's had erroneous placed the aesthetic in the field of play is a good example of indulgent useless bickering. Of course Derrida denies that the aesthetic is an integral component of his thought although he depends upon it continuously for his performative acts at creating new jargons,the conceptual 'writing' freedoms and cross genres (is this literature,a lecture- sketch, or philosophy, or art??) and incessant cross and inter-breeding of thoughts,fragments of excerpts, half-references to the Western panoply of thought from Freud,Heidegger etc. I think that is the ultimate problem with Derrida,he cannot convincingly deny any perspective,(although he has say obviously the opposite in interviews) in that his work seems to ascribe to conceptual indulgences and playfullness. Eagleton is also brilliant here and takes the more New Left perspective,which is old now, which still has vibrant points which again ultimately ponders the relationship of Marxism to various other ideological departures as deconstruction,Messianism and post-structuralism.I think ultimately we are barking up the wrong tree here for ultimately the lens which Derrida looks through(his body of thought) is so far removed from the problematics which Marxism(defined here in it's widest liberal sense) has developed throughout its long and tortured history,that again there are indeed larger dimensions to pursue.

What are friends for?, 09 Feb 1999
Derrida's latest book continues what has been pecieved as an 'ethical turn' in deconstruction, intiated with 1994's "Spectres of Marx," and the subesquent rich contribution of 'deconstructionists' to political and moral thinking. However, Derrida himself contends that his entire project would have been unthinkable without some form of Marxism, and I share emphatically the view of Critchley, Laclau et al that questions of ethics and politics lie at the heart of the deconstructive enterprise. It is such a reading that gives this latest text a crucial location in the most contempoarary of politics. And those who contend that Derrida's (and the continental tradtion's legacy in general) has nothing 'practical,' 'useful' to say about the conduct of states and peoples in something called the 'real world,' need only refer to the Middle East situation, and the endlessly shifting notions of 'friends' and 'enemies' in that region to begin to grasp the paradoxical importance of Aristotle's strange address, inverted by Nietzsche, "O my friends, there are no friends," around which Derrida constructs his arguments. Where do the boundairies of friendship lie - is not our closest friend also, as Nietzsche suggested long ago, also our greatest enemy? Throughout the years of the Cold War, such questions may have seemed irrelevant, facticious. For those of us in the West, it was US and them, the USSR, the Warsaw Pact. Complicated though the transactions may have been, it was between two concretely opposed and finished blocs. Today the questions are rarley so simple - is the US a friend, to those in Britain? But which US - for it is surely now not an homogenous entity if it ever was. And which Russia do we hold dear? The collsape of stable relasionships between states of the world precipates a collaspe of recognition and identification within these states, via which we exist as political beings. Derrida's book is not the truth of friends, but in myraid different ways explores the legacy in various philosophical traditions of the dicotomy friend / enemey, and opens new and vital interpretations of our contempoarary state.

difficult but satisfying (use a beginners guide if possible), 15 Jul 2005
OK, its heavy reading- but boy is it rewarding. For me, Derrida's deconstruction of Saussure, Levis-Strauss, and Rousseau leaves us with an uncanny realisation of the unsuitability of language for philosophy. For me the basic idea was that philosophy like Saussure's conception of identity through difference, relies upon binary opposition favouring a positive pole over a negative one- for Derrida a metaphysical precept emanating from Logocentrism (the idea that speach is an origin and writing a mere supplement).

Saussure's linguistic project of identity through difference which so influenced the French social sciences seems failed as Derrida delights us with moments of Saussurean binary opposition caving in itself through . At times I felt presented with almost Godellean moments. How Derrida does it, I do not know- I have tried myself to conflate 'opposites' the way he does without much success.

Be warned that this is heavy going and in my opinion requires (at least)a rudimentary prior knowledge of various thinkers (Heidegger, Freud, Nietzche, Saussure [and the Post-/Structuralist projects generally- especially Lacan and Levi-Strauss]). What helped me through this book was the 'Routledge Critical Thinkers: Jacques Derrida' by Nicholas Royle (London:2003)and the illustrated Introducing Derrida by Jeff Collins and Bill Mayblin (Icon Books, 2000). Referring to the excellent Spivak 'introduction' as a safety-net may also be of some help. Good Luck! (you'll need it).

Verbose or ironic?, 19 Dec 2000
I do share some sympathy with a reviewer on amazon.com who, having come to the end of the book, found himself asking "And....?" It is unfortunate that Derrida's verbosity means that many of the most profound points in this book are made when Derrida is quoting others.

I suspect that one may partly put this down to a poor translation (French after all only has half the vocabulary that English has -I am told that Descartes, depsite actually being originally translated from the Latin, is a lot easier to read in French than English). HOWEVER, is Derrida just one of those irritating academics who believe that their arguments will seem all the more forceful if they use convoluted and difficult language OR is he rather playing a little ironic game with the reader, simply to demonstrate how far written language has become detached from its natural roots and therefore what pains one must go to in order to come close to expressing what one really means?

Whatever the case may be, despite one having to spend hours dissecting each page of text, Derrida does expertly combine a variety of opinions and provides some very interesting, albeit rather difficult, reading.

Fantastic Book, 30 Jul 1999
Really deep. The preface by Spivak is a great introduction to deconstruction.

Does Grammatology contain the Phaedrus essay?, 11 Mar 1999
What an abomination his treatment of Plato is. He is right to pick out the pharmakon for special treatment, but he misses one simple point: the criticism of writing is put in the mouth of an Egyptian god! Plato may speak through Socrates' mouth, but I guarantee you he never speaks as Theuth (oh, all the stupid wordplay on Theuth). Theuth is a god, and he criticizes writing--in the name of religion! Why can none of the commentators see that? "Plato criticizes writing"--what obtuse blather. Writing is the pharmakon of philosophy, for crying out loud. It is the unmediated voice which narcotizes--see the ciccadas at noon, who were once men who did nothing but sing such that they died and became ciccadas, and who threaten to put S and P to sleep. It is only logos which makes the connection between mind (nous) and human form (Benardete). If S and P can stay awake, they will get a gift from the gods--the pharmakon of writing from the god Theuth! Writing is actually philosophy--because what is Theuth worried about? Why is writing making everyone forget? Because writing=philosophy, not differance. So there, Jacques--j'accuse you of incompetance.

Derrida is a great writer and he is profound., 15 Jan 1999
Derrida's wit is super and he really knows how to be profound. Although I think he should take a biology and a logic course. Outstanding effort!

Don't be fooled, 07 Apr 2007
Derrida was a master of bulls**t who piled empty verbiage onto a few scrawny ideas. I recommend Ellis's "Against Deconstruction" as a damning critique of Derrida's central "philosophical" legacy. Reviewers always say that you have to fight through a lot of opacity to get to the good stuff, but whenever this is said (Heidegger...Sartre...Lacan) one ought to be wary. Is it not natural that if a thinker had some really brilliant, earth-shattering ideas, he'd want to explain them as clearly as he possibly could to a waiting world? I think that when a reviewer says that a writer like Derrida is "worth the struggle", they are really loath to admit to themselves that they have put in all that work for nothing. Save yourself the bother.

Take it or leave it, 24 Oct 2003
Reviewing Derrida is trying to put value on something that goes beyond the categories of "like" or dislike". Derrida is as opaque, cryptic, oblique and impossible to follow as you can imagine, but if one has the courage and pertinacity to follow through (as much as it can be followed), it discovers a spirit of extraordinary brilliance and originality. In any case, Derrida is already part of 20th century history, so no educated Westerner can afford to overlook him. As for the book itself ( I guess that is the point of this review), it comes in a cheap package, so I presume it targets a wide readership. If this is so, one could use a minimal commentary or an introduction, and, definitely, a concise glossary.

Dense, difficult, and fantastically rewarding, 27 Nov 2001
Do not approach this book as you would, say, a reader or an anthology of Derrida's work. This is a dense collection of essays, and at a glance you are liable to be overwhelmed, as I was, by his references, his language and his style. Alan Bass has done a tremendous job of translating Derrida's notoriously playful text, rendering it as clear as possible without undermining the complexity and intertextuality that is so necessary to its flow. This does not mean, however, that it is by any means easy to read. Be prepared to grapple with it and to be frustrated, to re-read a paragraph or sentence several times and still be confused. This is deliberate, although Derrida is not as sadistically obtuse as many critics have damned him as being. Instead, this difficult prose style is intended to make the reader examine the interplay between himself and what he reads, to question the authority of the text, to realise how much we take for granted when we engage in the act of reading.
If you have already come across Derrida's essay 'Structure, Sign and Play' and are intrigued, then this book offers the next logical step, but be prepared. Unless you are superhumanly familiar with the works of Husserl, Edmond Jabes and Foucault, then many of the references here will leave you running to catch up. Get past this, however, and you will find your conceptions about the world challenged in a way that they never have before.

No way in, 26 Aug 2004
Royle's book really is not suitable for a generally educated reader or student who seeks help with entry into Derrida's world. He, imaginatively and perhaps quite reasonably, situates himself entirely within Derrida's mysterious language and patterns of operation and offers a picture of complexity and puzzlement painted in colours of equal complexity and puzzlement. He is absolutely unwilling to risk any inappropriate simplifications for the benefit of guiding the reader gently towards Derrida.

I would have liked to see some challenge to or at reflection on the (at least apparent) obscurity and complexity of Derrida's writing, rather than simply a joyful and exuberant wandering in his world of paradox and slipperiness. This is fine for those who are already comfortable there, but not helpful to the new student.

Ultimately, for the newcomer, the whole book fails to answer the central question, explicitly dodged in the first chapter, of "Why Derrida?". I ended the book as I began, interested in Derrida because so many people I respect report to me his worth, eager to feel what that value is, yet clueless.

Constructing Derrida..., 01 Feb 2004
Nicholas Royle's text on Jacques Derrida is part of a recent series put out by the Routledge Press, designed under the general editorial direction of Robert Eaglestone (Royal Holloway, University of London), to explore the most recent and exciting ideas in intellectual development during the past century or so. To this end, figures such as Martin Heidegger, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, Paul Ricoeur, and other influential thinkers in critical thought are highlighted in the series, planned to include at least 21 volumes in all.

Royle's text, following the pattern of the others, includes background information on Derrida and its significance, the key ideas and sources, and Derrida's continuing impact on other thinkers. As the series preface indicates, no critical thinker arises in a vacuum, so the context, influences and broader cultural environment are all important as a part of the study, something with which Derrida might agree.

Why is Derrida included in this series? It is hard to come up with a more wide-ranging and influential thinker in the twentieth century than Jacques Derrida. While starting out in the literary field as a primary focus, his thought and intellectual influence has extended far beyond to almost every academic field. Particularly in the areas of philosophy, politics, law, theology, sociology, psychology and science, Derrida's influence will continue to be significant for a number of reasons.

Royle's text is very interesting, as I knew it would be from the start, but one of the truly surprising aspects of this text was that it was fun to read. From the very first page, when I saw that the first comment on the text was from Derrida himself, I knew that inside there would be creativity and humour, pieces of interest and insight. Derrida's comment, with which I completely agree, is that this text is